Well, it was four and a half years ago and we never did learn from the OP what their problem turned out to be, or whether they actually did any tests. Too bad, it was a hum-dinger. Having reread the thread, I'm surprised I didn't comment on this: "Blaze I would at least take an old, absolutely clean five gallon platic pail fill on third with the dirt and then fill it the rest of the way with boiling water. "If twenty four hours later there is some sort of skim on the surface, that means there is something in that dirt that should not be there." This is a rather bizarre suggestion that I have never heard of before or since. I can't imagine that ANY soil with a discernible organic matter content would NOT have some stuff that floats to the surface after pouring boiling water on it. Or cold water for that matter. It makes no sense at all. And if there were ppm levels of chlorpyralid or some other herbicide in the soil, it would not be detectable in this test by any stretch of the imagination. "Testing for pollutants" still makes me chuckle. Currently my state has a list of soil cleanup standards for various chemicals found at contaminated sites. The list is about to be updated from 200 chemicals to 800. The lab procedures required to analyze even a random 10% of these would be as thick as a phone book. You do have to know what you're looking for.

You are asking some very good questions.......keep it up :-)) Organics in container gardening are highly overrated. It is really important to understand the concepts behind container growing and how radically they differ from inground gardening. The key elements are fast drainage and aeration.......once you have achieved those two primary factors, everything else can be massaged to your specific needs. Durability and textural content of the potting mix should be your focus - nutrient levels are addressed by fertilizing and watering is key but these will always be outside factors under the control of the gardener, not the soil mix. The reasons significant percentages of organics in a potting mix are not advised are multiple. First, organics continue to decompose and breakdown, squeezing out pore space, reducing to a uniform and small particle size and then impacting the fast drainage required. Second, depending on source the moisture retentiveness may be excessive. Third, their nutrient content, if any, is low so it makes sense to evaluate exactly what they are providing in the way of benefits compared to what they may detract from the potting mix. There will likely always be some percentage of 'organics' in a potting mix - without any there would be NO moisture retention! But it is important to consider the source - peat is already nearly fully decomposed so no further breakdown is expected - particle size won't change (but is small already). Both coir and bark fines (usually composted bark fines) are very slow to decompose and add both a degree of moisture retention as well as durability. Why do growers use compost or manure at all if their nutrient content is so low? Because this kind of organic matter is vital to inground growing conditions - not container growing. Organic matter adds the textural component that most garden soils lack, it lightens and adds aeration and it encourages a healthy soli biology. And it does have nutrient value although limited compared to a "fertilizer". That's why compost and other organic matter are considered soil amendments, not fertilizers. Their importance and relevance is directed at inground gardening, not container gardening If you haven't already, I would strongly urge you to read this excellent and extremely long running post I've linked to from our recognized container gardening guru, Al (tapla). It pretty much explains it all :-)) Here is a link that might be useful: everythg you could possibly need to know about container soils.

I wonder if the Holly-tone has helped your plant make the acquaintance of some mycorrhizal fungi? If so, that's a good thing. Virginia

Thank you Gardengal48, I didn't argue with that. I just trying to say this is not the only way of how plants survive. There are different conditions and different species and different adaptation technics . http://www.saps.org.uk/secondary/news-and-research/1267-how-plants-can-suck-water-from-the-sky "But recent research has shown that our traditional understanding of the movement of water through plants is incomplete. Under certain specialised conditions, some plants have evolved the ability to absorb water through their leaves, move it down the xylem, and them release it into the soil. The plants are actually watering their own roots - and their own seedlings. This off-beat mechanism for water uptake works well enough that these plants can continue to photosynthesise and grow, even when the soil they are growing in are dry. The trees the researchers studied - Drimys brasiliensis - grow in the cloud forests of Brazil, where the trees are almost constantly covered in fog. The atmosphere around the leaves has a higher water potential than the leaves themselves, allowing foliar water uptake. The exact pathway for water entry is still under discussion: this particular species has a hydrophilic cuticle that could facilitate water entry, as well as hydrophilic tissues within the leaf that could provide water storage. At least 70 species, across seven different ecosystems, have been identified as using this 'back-to-front' water transport mechanism, pulling water out of the sky and down to the rhizosphere. These new findings have important implications for our existing models of the climate and our ecosystems, which often consider soil water as the only source of water for plants. It's another example of how plants are constantly over-turning our expectations. "