Wow mjsee, what lovely photos, thanks! It was over 100 degrees here today, with high humidity, and your garden looks so cool and tranquil. No wonder you enjoy it so much! Your approach is definitely what I'm after. I don't want a landscape that I'm a constant slave to, but I like to look forward to being outside! Love your ferns....Incidentally, I planted some Christmas ferns this week in a shady corner. Purpleinopp, thanks for the suggestions; those sound like books I'd love to read! The idea of a lawn being an American obsession sounds hilarious, but so true. I never could relate to these people who spend sooo much time fussing over grass. If I "fuss" over anything, it better be something that gives me more than that. By the time some folks are finished creating their "perfect" lawn, it will be so chemical-laden that many things we enjoy as a natural part of nature are not even present. Fireflies, crickets, tree frogs,etc. [Not to mention, who wants to be contaminated, anyway? Hmmm, maybe that's how we Americans came to be so "distant" from our landscapes; sort of like, "look, don't touch"....] On another note, I'm making some surprising discoveries along the way.....I never thought of roses as being low maintainance, but am finding that some of the old garden roses are in fact exactly that. I have one growing in a large pot that has amazed me. One of those "orphan" plants I picked up last year and decided to try in a pot, while I figure out where it's happy and what it likes. Dutchess de Brabant was the name that came with it. I expected it to require a lot of care, because it's not exactly a "modern, low maintainance rose" but was I ever in for a pleasant surprise. It has bloomed almost continuously this summer, [fragrant!] in spite of extreme heat, seems immune to blackspot, I spray only occasionally with a neem solution and water fairly regularly. [It is in a pot, after all.] Other than that, it got healthy compost, and is treated pretty much like any other shrub, I don't coddle it. I believe I'll try to find some more for the few sunny spots we have here. The stems are not as strong as the newer varieties, but the rose makes up for it in character! Beats the newer roses by far, because at least this one has a lovely, fruity fragrance! This has been an adventure..... thanks, y'all; keep it up!

Phals are commonly grown in Sphagnum moss or bark. Sphag works well, but for one potential problem. It tends to become compacted and remain soggy for long periods. If that happens, the roots can smother and die. Fir bark also has a potential disadvantage, which is that it may not hold sufficient moisture to suit Phals. There are variables involved in finding the best medium for a particular growing environment. Growers experiment with different media and/or by mixing different things together to find what works best in their respective conditions. I agree that putting a layer of bark over Sphag serves no practical purpose, and I also agree with using bark alone, if that is what has been working for you. For even better results, consider trying coconut husk chips (CHC). In my opinion, this is the best Phalaenopsis medium. CHC holds both water and air very effectively, maintaining an excellent air-moisture balance. This property makes it much more foolproof than either bark or sphag because overwatering or underwatering issues are greatly reduced. Phals love it because it provides an ideal environment for their roots.

Yes, I'm with anglo on this. One reason for culling is to get a decent return for the resources-- time, energy, devotion, etc-- you are devoting to plants. We always hope growers have already done that for us and offer us the best plants. No growth-- still the same tiny seedling leaves, no new roots in a year? Get rid of it. I'm always amazed at the surge of energy I get when I finally dispose of some problem plant. They occupy too much of your mind and attention, and are waving at you every time you walk by to remind you of your growing shortcomings. My rule of thumb: if it's not good enough to give away, it's gone.

spedigrees: Limestone varies in magnesium content. If you go to your local agricultural store--I am not sure what you have up there--and ask for “high mag limestone“--crushed or pulverized--they should be able to direct you. The analysis is always posted on the bag. Dolomitic limestone is generally “high-mag,” but perhaps other types of limestone have a high magnesium content. Our soils here in the northern Shenandoah Valley are very high in magnesium, and high mag limestone underlies a good portion of our soils, and high mag limestone is readily available. And, almost all the NS in this area look very nice, in spite of our hot, dry climate. As for soil acidity--that should not be a problem for Norway spruce, unless the soil is extremely acidic, maybe in the low 4’s. At my timberland, where the soils are a bit below 5, Norway spruce does very well. I am not sure what an optimum pH would be, and it would probably vary with soil type. Maybe somewhere in the 5.5 range is "safe." As for magnesium for Norway spruce--this has been fairly well documented. I titled my original post “a hypothesis,” but there is substantial evidence. A site factors study done at SUNY Syracuse some years ago now, noted that “at least 75 kg per hectare” is needed for good NS growth. Studies in Europe, where there has been extensive decline in NS forests, has shown that the acid rain causes a reduction in the availability of magnesium, and supplementing magnesium often solves the problem. And, I have made some personal observations--not scientific, and without all the facts--that magnesium supplementation can make a dramatic difference. But, the main effect of magnesium may not be in height growth, but in the fullness, density, and lushness of the foliage. I have seen many poor looking, thin foliaged NS trees growing reasonably fast in height. Also, the thin foliage on some Norway spruce trees has causes other than a lack of an optimum supply of magnesium. And, I know, some of that is genetic, and not correctable. As for your experiment: Yes, 5 years should be long enough to show some results, but no sooner. The limestone has to dissolve into the soil, get down to the roots, and, because NS hold their needles for several years, the "thickening" of the foliage may not be vis1ble for several years. BUT, and this is a big "but," the effect may not really show up on very young trees. It may help the growth rate, but as for foliage density, that is never really noticeable until trees are somewhat older and larger--maybe not until they are 20 feet tall or more will any difference be really clear. As for the growth rate: white pine usually starts growing faster than NS. How old are your trees? How tall? NS trees don't begin to grow fast until they are about 4.5 feet high, and that could be only after 6 to 8 years. At that point, they should "take off." On the best soils, and in the right climate, an average of 28 inches is possible, with some years the new shoots elongating up to 4 feet or more. But growth averaging 20 to 24 inches is good for many sites. Norway spruce and white pine, assuming equally good strains, should grow equally well over the first 50 years. The white pine up to about 18 years should outgrow the NS, but after that NS should catch up a bit. After 50 years NS should outgrow the white pine for some years. SUNY Syracuse did a growth curves study for NS, and found that for the first 60 years--after the trees reach 4.5 feet in height, there is no "curve" as such, but a straight line. White pine growth curves bend sharply over to the right after the first 18 years or so, and at 50 years the growth averages about 1 foot, while at the same age, NS trees can still be growing 28 inches per year. But this rate does begin to decline not too long after the 60-year mark. On the best sites both should eventually make 150 feet or more in forest stands. Open grown NS should make 120 feet or more on better sites. As for the blue spruce and magnesium, I really don't know. Tom may be right about this. --spruce