JaG!! What's gotten into you? I don't think I've ever seen you like this. I think you need a hug. I'm arranging for a polar beargram to be delivered (he'll be right at home anyway) - that's all there is too it. If that doesn't work, I guess I'll have to show up with one of those goofy hats and a red cape to distract you. Hi, Kirk. About my leaving this part out: "The trouble is that these studies test the fibre without giving it a charge of any nutrition. All of the studies in question also acknowledge that adjustments in nutrients and irrigation levels would make a difference." Upthread, I said "Just sayin' it don't make it so." I think that kind of applies to these two statements. I cannot imagine anyone doing a grow test on a soil with a particular component (coir) w/o adding appropriate nutrients & then comparing it to a soil that contained proper nutrition. The second half of the statement (All of the studies in question also acknowledge that adjustments in nutrients and irrigation levels would make a difference). Leaves me to wonder WHAT studies were questioned, and WHO acknowledged the horrible disparity? Didn't happen - it's fluff. ... and the part that says "adjustments in nutrients and irrigation levels would make a difference." should have had a "DUH" alert posted in front of it. See why I didn't feel like I was deceiving anyone by leaving out "crucial testimony? The real reason you're under so much pressure is simply because of the 'absolute' statement you made. When you make them, it makes people just want so badly to challenge them. ;o) You kept your cool under pressure, even if you still haven't proven a case (IMO). That part aside, it's much easier to live with "I did go a little overboard saying it can't be beat but it is very easy to use and gets growth rates comparable to other forms of hydro." than the original statement. That's cool - you should be able to express an opinion anytime you feel like it. It doesn't mean you won't hear alternate opinions, but at least you won't get pounced on. ;o) BTW - I was never angry with you - just full of challenge & curiosity to see if you'd hang or give up & turn poopy. You did fine, as far as I'm concerned - I hope there's no hard feelings. Take care. ;o) Al

Ferettbee, My original EarthTainer I used a 9" by 9" by 6" wicking basket. By reducing the orifice, I was able to go to a lower 4" high, 5" diameter basket. This increased the potting mix volume potential in the EarthTainer II by 20%, which is a good thing for root development. The surface area of the EarthBox wicking is 2" by 2" in the two back corners, which adds up to 8 square inches - not 18 square inches. the wicking volume (combined) is 2x2x2 for each chamber, adding up to a total of 16 cubic inches. Regarding daily plant uptake, I do believe a tomato plant in the prime of Summer can intake 1+ gallons per day. I would love to incorporate a mini-flowmeter in the AWS someday to actually chart how the plant intake rates varies per day throughout the Season. Raybo

I would like to know: Other than convenience, is there any advantage to SWC than not. Yes, but they all relate back to convenience or the ease of getting pleasing results. No, plants won't be more tasty, nor will the growing season be extended. Instead what SWC tends to do is take all the guesswork out of 'how often do I water and how much'? This confuses a lot of people and they end up with less than optimal results. With SWC, you just keep water in the reservoir and that's it. SWC also tend to be a bit larger than what many would otherwise choose for a container. As an example you are thinking of using 5 gallon buckets for determinate tomatos. That will hold less than 1 cubic foot of potting mix. By contrast most commercial SWC hold 2 cubic feet of mix. That plus the water reservoir means one is less likely to go out to their plants and find them wilted from having run out of water. There will also be very little compaction of the potting mix over the season because SWC are not (usually) top watered. This will result in a mix maintaining more open air spaces than the same mix in a top watered container. Do I think SWC out perform traditional containers for veggies? No. They do, however, make it a bit easier to get good results.

I used a ratio of 7:2:2 of fines:peat:perlite. The original mix recommended in the earlier post was 7:2:1:1 of fines:peat:perlite:vermiculite but I didn't have any vermiculite. I figured out the right ratio of lime and Osmocote 14-14-14 based on some other postings but foolishly didn't note it down (maybe it was 1c of Osmocote for 20 gallons of fines). I've also supplemented twice with MG 24-8-16 by simply adding a teaspoon directly into the watering hole. I did this in mid-May when growth actually kicked in and again when I started getting flowers about 3wks ago and the weather got hot. In the second watering I also directly fertilized the cucs with an additional 1gal of MG I had in a watering bucket left over from other fertilizing chores. I have 9 more tomato plants growing in Mel's Mix in raised beds that are roughly comparable developmentally to what I have in the SWC, despite the fact that the SWC get somewhat less late afternoon sunshine as they are close to a inner corner on the patio. I know cucumbers have a reputation for fast growth but I have to say that after the second fertilization and some summertime heat they seemed to explode from 6" to 4' in about two weeks while generating huge numbers of blooms. I have very high hopes that the SWC can provide optimum conditions for a very thirsty plant. Looking back at the original posting I see that there were some concerns about whether the adjusted soil mix would wick enough for seedlings w/o deeper root systems. The cukes, pepper and toms were all planted as seedlings although the cukes were less than a week old (given their reputation for not enjoying transplanting) and seemed fine - the under-planted nasturtiums were planted as seeds and had no problems germinating (100% germination, I think). The lettuces were direct seeded and I did need to top water them - this was easy because their pot was shallow and uncovered. I know there are a lot of designs out there for SWC but I'm very happy so far with the nested buckets - using the top as a plastic mulch has been VERY effective and I've only had to fill the ~1gal reservoir a handful of times since mid-May. I imagine as the tomatoes grow they will respire more water and refilling will become an issue but so far they have been nearly zero maintenance. The nested buckets were also nice since they took about 10 minutes each to make and were easy to put the cages into - next time I'll clip the cage wires and wire tie the lowest rung of the cage to the bucket top itself, but so far so good on stability (obviously this only works for bush or determinant tomatoes). By comparison, the petunia in the hanging SWC needs daily filling of the reservoir. Weirdly, I have the exact same container with a miniature trailing rose sitting on a low wall and it's actually over-moist and I never top it up, just relying on rainfall. I don't know if this is a result of the extra exposure to wind and sun that the hanging container gets or whether the petunia itself is using the water.