Do you have an easy recipe of making your own mix for a gardening-beginner? Yes. I would recommend using what is known around here as 'Al's 5-1-1 mix' for annuals and perennials grown for just a year or two before being repotted. For plants that will stay in the same container/mix for more than 2 years I would recommend what is known around here as 'Al's Gritty mix'. The 5:1:1 mix is 5 parts pine bark (very small pieces), 1 part perlite and 1 part peat. The gritty mix is 1 part pine bark fines, 1 part Turface MVP and 1 part grower grit (#2 sized). For more information on this I will refer you to this thread. Don't get too hung up on specific ingredients and percentages. The principle is using ingredients that will be of a large enough size (above 1/16th inch) for as long as the plant will be in the mix. This provides superior aeration. The higher the percentage of organic matter such as peat or bark, the faster the mix breaks down and aeration suffers. The bark breaks down much slower than peat though. Anyway, read the thread and you will learn a lot. If you can't find suitable ingredients to make your own mix in time to get the season started then just get the regular MG potting mix and take until next year to learn more and locate sources for ingredients you want.

Al, I will try the all-Cactus-Mix in one 'Tainer to see how it wicks, at one end of the spectrum, then do a 1/3 Cactus Mix with 2/3 Miracle-Gro potting mix in another 'Tainer, and then straight Miracle-Gro mix "diluted" with Perlite to then compare results of the three. Where is a good source to get Perlite? At Lowes yesterday they only had very small bags of it. These moisture and pH meters are not good to rely on for absolute readings - -but I like to use them to gauge "relative change" as an indicator from one experiment to the next. It was interesting in the 'Tainer where I did not add Epsom Salts that the pH was reading 6.4 just now. Again, no faith in absolute numbers, but it indicated to me that the Epsom Salts in the one 'Tainer *may* be the cause as to why I am getting a lower reading on the scale in that one 'Tainer. Regarding tomatoes only, I had read somewhere that they did best in media that was between 6.2 and 6.5 pH. Do you not agree with this opinion? I am tempted (again), to reduce the size of the wicking basket to a 4 inch square one, with a 3.5" by 3.5" opening in the aeration bench, as a simplistic approach to continue use with the standard Miracle-Gro potting mix, to try to constrain the flow of moisture up into the SWC. But at some point in reducing the opening of the orifice the 'Tainer might not fully wick properly, and areas of potting mix may run dry. I guess I would rather find a potting mix (or a blend of two medias) that will exhibit the desired saturation characteristics ideal for tomatoes. Darn Hobby!!!!! BTW, The Peppers and Corn both love the current design's moisture eco-system! Raybo

Not long ago, on another forum, I wrote the following because someone had asked if a particular soil was a 'good' choice. Rather than simply give him a 'yes or no' answer, I decided to go into enough detail that it would allow HIM to decide, instead of me, or others. It also offers something unique in that it illustrates there are two ways to look at soil choice. It meshes very nicely with the theme of this thread, so hopefully you will find it of interest. Is Soil X a 'Good' Soil?size>color> I think any discussion on this topic must largely center around the word "GOOD", and we can broaden the term 'good' so it also includes 'quality' or 'suitable', as in "Is soil X a quality or suitable soil?" How do we determine if soil A or soil B is a good soil? and before we do that, we'd better decide if we are going to look at it from the plant's perspective or from the grower's perspective, because often there is a considerable amount of conflict to be found in the overlap - so much so that one can often be mutually exclusive of the other. We can imagine that grower A might not be happy or satisfied unless knows he is squeezing every bit of potential from his plants, and grower Z might not be happy or content unless he can water his plants before leaving on a 2-week jaunt, and still have a weeks worth of not having to water when he returns. Everyone else is somewhere between A and Z; with B, D, F, H, J, L, N, P, R, T, V, X, and Y either unaware of what makes a good soil or they understand but don't care. I said all that to illustrate the large measure of futility in trying to establish any sort of standard as to what makes a good soil from the individual grower's perspective; but let's change our focus from the pointless to the possible. We're only interested in the comparative degrees of 'good' and 'better' here. It would be presumptive to label any soil "best". 'Best I've found' or 'best I've used' CAN sometimes be useful for comparative purposes, but that's a very subjective judgment. Let's tackle 'good', then move on to 'better', and finally see what we can do about qualifying these descriptors so they can apply to all growers. I would like to think that everyone would prefer to use a soil that can be described as 'good' from the plant's perspective. How do we determine what a plant wants? Surprisingly, we can use %s established by truly scientific studies that are widely accepted in the greenhouse and nursery trades to determine if a soil is good or not good - from the plant's perspective, that is. Rather than use confusing numbers that mean nothing to the hobby grower, I can suggest that our standard for a good soil should be, at a minimum, that you can water that soil properly. That means, that at any time during the growth cycle, you can water your plantings to beyond the point of saturation (so excess water is draining from the pot) without the fear of root rot or compromised root function or metabolism due to (take your pick) too much water or too little air in the root zone. I think it's very reasonable to withhold the comparative basic descriptor, 'GOOD', from soils that can't be watered properly without compromising root function, or worse, suffering one of the fungaluglies that cause root rot. I also think anyone wishing to make the case from the plant's perspective that a soil that can't be watered to beyond saturation w/o compromising root health can be called 'good', is fighting on the UP side of logic hill. So I contend that 'good' soils are soils we can water correctly; that is, we can flush the soil when we water without concern for compromising root health/function/metabolism. If you ask yourself, "Can I water correctly if I use this soil?" and the answer is 'NO' ... it's not a good soil ... for the reasons stated above. Can you water correctly using most of the bagged soils readily available? 'NO', and I don't think I need to point out how I arrived at that conclusion. What about 'BETTER'? Can we determine what might make a better soil? Yes, we can. If we start with a soil that meets the minimum standard of 'good', and improve either the physical and/or chemical properties of that soil, or make it last longer, then we have 'better'. Even if we cannot agree on how low we wish to set the bar for what constitutes 'good', we should be able to agree that any soil that reduces excess water retention, increases aeration, ensures increased potential for optimal root health, and lasts longer than soils that only meet some one's individual and arbitrary standard of 'good', is a 'better' soil. All the plants we grow, unless grown from seed, have the genetic potential to be beautiful specimens. It's easy to say, and easy to see the absolute truth in the idea that if you give a plant everything it wants it will flourish and grow; after all, plants are programmed to grow just that way. Our growing skills are defined by our ability to give plants what they want. The better we are at it, the better our plants will grow. But we all know it's not that easy. Lifetimes are spent in careful study, trying to determine just exactly what it is that plants want and need to make them grow best. Since this is a soil discussion, let's see what the plant wants from its soil. The plant wants a soil in which we have endeavored to provide in available form, all the essential nutrients, in the ratio in at which the plant uses them, and at a concentration high enough to prevent deficiencies yet low enough to make it easy to take up water (and the nutrients dissolved in the water). First and foremost, though, the plant wants a container soil that is evenly damp, never wet or soggy. Giving a plant what it wants, to flourish and grow, doesn't include a soil that is half saturated for a week before aeration returns to the entire soil mass, even if you only water in small sips. Plants might do 'ok' in some soils, but to actually flourish, like they are genetically programmed to do, they would need to be unencumbered by wet, soggy soils. We become better growers by improving our ability to reduce the effects of limiting factors, or by eliminating those limiting factors entirely; in other words, by clearing out those influences that stand in the way of the plant reaching its genetic potential. Even if we are able to make every other factor that influences plant growth/vitality absolutely perfect, it could not make up for a substandard soil. For a plant to grow to its genetic potential, every factor has to be perfect, including the soil. Of course, we'll never manage to get to that point, but the good news is that as we get closer and closer, our plants get better and better; and hopefully, we'll get more from our growing experience. In my travels, I've discovered it almost always ends up being that one little factor that we willingly or unwittingly overlooked that limits us in our abilities, and our plants in their potential. Food for thought: A 2-bit plant in a $10 soil has a future full of potential, where a $10 plant in a 2-bit soil has a future filled only with limitations. ~ Al

there has been alot written on container soil here ...your choice is probably not the best...I doubt it will adversly hurt it in the short run but may compact and not be the best in the long run...Fertilizing JM's should only happen in early spring and MG has fertilizer ...that being said CQ's are pretty hardy and probably won't be hurt...here's the link to the gospel on containes ...I might take this with a small grain of salt since you are only doing one plant but it may give you a idea on how to augment your CQ maybe this fall if you are up for repotting ..I think some of this is a bit clinical and over the top for most folks but a hybrid use of this info may be useful to almost all of us and the basic logic behind it is correct IMHO!!!...whether you want to follow it to the tee is your choice or as I said maybe hybridize the jist of it which is what I would do unless you really want to "do" containers ...not just one...David http://forums.gardenweb.com/forums/load/maple/msg112314383375.html?23