Mix and let sit for 2 weeks minimum for lime to adjust Ph 5.1.1 5 parts pine bark fines (partially composted fines are best) 1 part sphagnum peat (not reed or sedge peat please) 1-2 parts perlite garden lime (or gypsum for acid loving plants) controlled release fertilizer (optional) micro-nutrient powder, other source of micro-nutrients (optional) Big batch: 2-3 cu ft pine bark fines 5 gallons peat 5 gallons perlite 2 cups dolomitic garden lime (or gypsum for acid loving plants) 2 cups CRF (optional) 1/2 cup micro-nutrient powder (or other source of the minors - provided in some fertilizers) Small batch: 3 gallons pine bark 1/2 gallon peat 1/2 gallon perlite 4 tbsp lime - 1tbsp per gallon of finished soil (or gypsum in some cases) 1/4 cup CRF (if preferred) micro-nutrient powder (or other source of the minors) GRITTY MIX 1 part uncomposted screened pine or fir bark (1/8-1/4") 1 part screened Turface 1 part crushed Gran-I-Grit (grower size) or #2 cherrystone 1 Tbsp gypsum per gallon of soil CRF (if desired) Source of micro-nutrients or use a fertilizer that contains all essentials I use 1/8 -1/4 tsp Epsom salts per gallon of fertilizer solution when I fertilize (check your fertilizer - if it is soluble, it is probable it does not contain Ca or Mg.

I wish I could post some pictures of Fescue lawns in the area now. I think opinions are equally split here because you see about half warm season grass yards and half cool season yards with water running every morning when I go to work I might add. But all things aside if you look on the Ntep.org site and hit the virginia beach location for trials you'll notice there is no cool season trials. I think the reason is clear why they don't waste money testing them here. I'd like to see them try some of the next generation blue grasses to see if they can survive here. And the reason is the same why I don't use the Virginia tech web link is because they are in zone 5. Most of Central Virginia is zone 7. Why would anyone use research for choosing plants or grass that are two to three zones different than your climate? I'd be better off checking out Flordia State University's ratings since they are zone 8 also. They are probably more 8 B.

How coincidental this thread has been revived...I picked up my first bag of "rocks" just this afternoon to try...Professor Al, if you are out there I am not *trash-talking* hehe...My new mix of the month is gonna be Turface MVP, bark and some perlite...will decide on the proportions when I actually run my paws thru the stuff, which is ETA approximately 2 hours from now...I am after NOT having to re-do this cr** for a long-a** time..having a bad day... Anyway, I think you gotta use what you gotta use...I still think that bagged potting soil is not the best thing for you to use in the long run, but your goals and my lazy goals may not be the same....thus I would amend heavily with perlite, which I like a lot. Some people hate it, ok fine; I like pistachio ice cream and some people hate that too, ok fine...However, I don't know where you are, but I can sorta suggest a brand of potting mix that I've seen hold up rather well for maybe a year or two: Last year my sister switched her pot-grown tomatoes (she is one of those people who can grow anything, anywhere without any trouble or thought) to a brand called Bandini that I actually liked b/c it isn't dirt and compost--it is mostly redwood bark fines/soil conditioner; she bought it at Home Depot. Great drainage, she has some filled pots left from last year, dumped it out, and it still is very light. I am starting to see what uses as a medium will be affected a good deal by climate, reference another post where Toni and I have had a little chitchat. I am beginning to hypothesize that perhaps you get quicker breakdown of potting mixes in areas where there is more exposure to the elements and higher average temperatures...yeah I know, that it is prolly obvious to most of you out there in TV land butI never really thought about it for potted plants (I know--->DUH! I think Sir Isaac Newton's apple just bonked me on the head)...which may be why some who do the potted thing in cooler climes may have a little more leeway...or maybe not, I've got no randomized double-blind placebo-controlled studies in the pipeline...which is why I am going largely *inorganic*...I expect my upcoming battles will be delivery of enough moisture and nutrients, espceially the micros...And when I really have my act together I am going with an automated drip system for the containers...but my act may never actually *be* together...Next stop, pending this failure (though I have complete faith in my mentor's advice :), is intermittent flood hydroponics...isn't it Friday yet??! HTH. I'm goin' to happy hour...

Hi, Tom After I scanned your article, the first thing I did was follow the link to the OSU research you cited. As I read through it, I didn't see anything different than what is contained in an article I wrote back in '94. The wording and discussion is actually so close to what I wrote, that I tried to find out whether that article was written after mine. I think that initially, adding a small fraction of perlite pumice, Turface, things that you usually consider as drainage material to a large fraction of peat, increases drainage, but only until the peat compacts/nests around the 'drainage' material. Perlite is normally included in commercially packaged soils at less than 10% of the whole. Doubling its presence isn't going to increase drainage or reduce the ht of the PWT, though it will reduce the total volume of water the medium is capable of holding. Illustration: start with 10 parts of fine sand that supports a 4" PWT. Add 1 part of BBs. Does the flow through rate change? How about the ht of the PWT or volume of air in the medium? Technically, on a per volume basis, there is a decrease in the % of air in the sand/BB mix compared to only the sand w/o BBs. All that changes is the 'volume' of water in the PWT. Peat may be slightly different because it's interlocking fibers may not compact to the degree that sand will, but remember that the fiberosity exhibits the same properties whether or not there is drainage material present. If peat compacts when there is no drainage material, it will still compact when there is. In order for drainage material to improve flow-through rates, it has to affect gravitational flow potential. In order to do that, it must great pockets where water molecules can adhere to themselves, increasing their collective mass. These large droplets then depend on cohesion to keep them together as gravity acts to move them down and out of the container. If drainage material can't create 'puddles and channels' within the media, it's not going to be effective. I want to comment on some of the things you mentioned as though we're conversing, so I'll make your offerings bold and my reply will be in default type: Drainage though is a bit of a false goal, or a goal based on an assumption. What we really want is to partially dry out the core of the mix at intervals between watering, which prevents that sour core-rot where roots won't live. My focus has always been on aeration, though I recognize the direct/converse relationship between drainage and aeration. The soils I build and suggest are based on the assurance that they will retain ample volumes of air for extended periods - that they are structurally sound. Of course, drainage automatically comes along for the ride. I don't think I would say "What we really want is to partially dry out the core of the mix at intervals between watering". My view is that there is no 'core' to speak of, because water that is not tightly bound to or in media particles moves down to occupy the PWT, which is actually the bane of most commercially prepared container media. Moisture locked in and on soil particles situated above water in the PWT moves quite freely through media by diffusion, so there is never a saturated 'core', only the PWT if the medium supports one. What we really want, is for the PWT to disappear as fast as possible, so a favorable volume of air can return to the soil ASAP. Roots in soggy media begin to die very quickly, often within a few hours or less at temperatures above 60-65*, so PWTs are a decidedly bad thing. Remember please, that here we are looking at media from the plant's perspective. I acknowledge that a PWT can be a necessity to accommodate our ability or our prioritization in terms of how often we can water, but that doesn't change the fact that media that do not support a PWT and need more frequent watering offer greater opportunity, within the limits of other cultural factors, for plants to grow to their genetic potential. That's an important consideration, because if we knowingly use a soil that supports a PWT because it's more convenient, we are sacrificing some degree of growth and vitality on the altar of that convenience. I try to build my soils to maximize water retention and still have no (or very little) perched water. The cyclic death and regeneration of fine rootage exposed to the anaerobic conditions of media that support PWTs is very expensive from the perspective of energy outlay. Energy that might have gone into blooms, fruit, foliage, or just increasing biomass, must be directed to root regeneration subsequent to each time we dare allow our planting to be irrigated to container capacity. Surely drainage helps and is good generally, but you are assuming it is the only way. I think you can see from my offerings that how I approach container media is more complex than only a single narrow perspective would allow. Al I've seen in your other posts where you refer to capillary action of soils as a negative. I couldn't disagree more. Capillary action is the savior of a soil mix; it's the vehicle that brings wet core water & water from the perched water table you described up to the drying surface, and balances moisture throughout the pot. It eliminates the perched water table. Peat has it and bark doesn't. I've never referred to capillary action as a negative. It just is what it is - the product of adhesion + cohesion - no more friend or foe than gravity or diffusion, which is something you didn't consider. Plants absorb water a molecule at a time, and water readily diffuses in media of large particles due to superior gas exchange. Here again, it's kind of a personal choice. You may prefer a soil with good wicking capabilities, but along with that comes the fact that the better they wick the more perched water they support. I, on the other hand, prefer a soil with good gas exchange (diffusion) and no PWT. The price I'm willing to pay is a strengthened watering can arm. ;o) Bark and peat feel dry to the touch when they reach about 40% moisture content, but plants can still extract water from media particles down to about 30-25%, so 'feels dry' isn't necessarily dry. There's a cush there. I understand what's required for wicking SWCs and how water retention in wick-irrigated media varies from media watered from the top, so we can save that talk for another time. Water starts to perch in containers when the soil particles are something just a little larger than .1". As particle size decreases, the ht of the PWT increases inversely. Whether or not bark holds perched water depends on it's size. Obviously, bark the size of Sugar Pops will hold no perched water, but bark ground to the consistency of peat will. Peat may initially hold more air and water than composted bark, but we all know that compaction is a considerable issue for peat; and conifer bark breaks down at roughly 1/4-1/5 the rate of peat, all cultural influences equal. I point to the fact that I always suggest partially composted or uncomposted bark in the soils I use, in sizes up to 3/8" to ensure no or minimal perched water. The grower can then add finer particulates as he/she sees fit to adjust the water retention of the media. When you start with fine particulates, it's very difficult to amend them to increase drainage/aeration, though as noted above, you CAN add materials like perlite that decrease the volume of water the soil can hold. It just makes more sense to me to approach this from the perspective of building a soil that holds no perched water, but is capable of holding an adequate volume of water in micro-pores, leaving macro-pores largely open, than it is to adopt a soil that, at container capacity, always has a significant fraction of available macroporosity clogged with water. Again, it has much to do with trade offs and what we are willing to do insofar as watering frequency (convenience), but the more highly aerated soil with better gas exchange, which occurs partially because we need to irrigate more frequently, offers better potential. I've grown extensively in both, and if the results weren't significantly better, I'd probably still be growing in a peat or compost-based soil. As always, YMMV. Good talking to you Tom. Al