If drainage is a problem, you can use sand if you create mounds for the plants using a great deal of sand. A little sand can actually make things worse from research I've seen, but if you use something like a third sand by volume, mixed with a third peat and a third soil and create the mounds with this it should work fine. If you make such a mix without building mounds you may create bath tubs that fill with water and drown roots. You can also grow them in pots mixing 50/50- sand to peat and put them half way into existing soil- or make a mix with ground pine bark that is aged for the purpose (this is harder to find but more often used in blueberry production). If you set up a drip system or water them consistently, blueberries grow very well this way, if you put them in big enough pots. 5 gallon pots would support mature plants pretty well. Is your soil clay? Do you know the texture of your soil? This is something that is not at all obvious and people often are confused about the texture of their soil. This is also where your county cooperative extension can provide better advice than you can get on-line- although there are simple tests using dishwater detergent to get a general reading on your soils composition. Drainage is easier, because you can figure out how long it takes to drain after heavy rains or dig a hole and fill it with water several times. Not sure of the exact procedure but it is an easy search for details.

dchall, I want to like you too :-) However, sometimes I think we get so focused on our viewpoints and way of doing things, we lose track of the bigger picture. I am not sure we are that far apart in our thinking, although because of my training, perhaps I tend to look at things in a very generalized approach. Let me see if I can explain myself more to your satisfaction. I dislike being pedantic but I feel the need to go back to square one - Chemistry 101 :-) Chemical elements are the building blocks of the universe - everything has a chemical basis, including corn. I'm sure you've heard of the term 'organic chemistry'. This is defined as the "discipline within chemistry which involves the scientific study of the structure, properties, composition, reactions, and preparation (by synthesis or by other means) of chemical compounds consisting primarily of carbon and hydrogen, which may contain any number of other elements, including nitrogen, oxygen, the halogens as well as phosphorus, silicon and sulfur." (from Wikipedia) Carbon and hydrogen define the primary chemical compounds of ALL living things. They define us as humans (yes, we have a complex chemical composition as well). And last I checked, corn is or once was a living thing :-) In response to my statement that ALL fertilizers are based on chemicals, you said this: Organic fertilizers are not chemical in nature, they are food. They are edible. They are good for us. If organic fertilizers are chemicals, please give us the chemical formula for corn. And please explain why we can't eat fertilizer ourselves and grow strong bodies and bones. See above :-) You are over-simplifying. In their raw state, organic fertilizers may be food. But they are also chemicals, naturally occurring complex chemical compounds. There most certainly is a chemical compound that defines corn, that makes it unique from any other grain or meal or food source. It's long and involved and I certainly don't have the sophistication or knowledge of organic chemistry to repeat or analyze it but it exists. And don't be silly with the question about why humans don't eat fertilizer - c'mon, that's below you :-) Obviously, the human metabolic system and how we receive and process necessary nutrients is vastly different from that of plants - about the only thing we have in common is that both plants and humans (and all other living things) do have specific nutrient requirements that must be satisfied for good health. And if all organic fertilizers are "food", are "edible" and are "good for us", then how come we don't snack on say.....bone meal or cottonseed meal, for example? Over-simplification again. Organic fertilizers do not feed the plants. They feed soil microbes and they eat food, not NPK. Now where in my statement did I say that organic fertilizers feed plants? NO fertilizer regardless of source "feeds" plants - plants manufacture their own "food" through the process of photosynthesis. The only thing that fertilizers do is present essential plant nutrients which the plants use to facilitate photosynthesis and which get converted during that process to the necessary proteins, starches and sugars - the actual plant "food". Whether these nutrients - the NPK and others - are made available through the conversion of material by the soil organisms - organic matter in the soil, compost or other applied OM, organic fertilizers - or are directly available via soluble synthetic fertilizers is irrelevant to the plant. Any plant will still require NPK (and various other micronutrients and trace elements) in order to complete its biological functions. And not all soil microbes eat "food" or at least what you are terming "food" in the manner of organic animal feeds/meals. Some species of fungi digest minerals and convert them into phosphorus, potassium, calcium, magnesium, iron and other trace elements. Other microbes eat their cousins or more often, their cousins' excrement. Others are able to live off atmospheric nitrogen, which is about as basic a chemical element as you can get. In response to my statement regarding the only difference between organic and synthetic fertilzers is the source of their chemical basis, you said: This is not an issue if we're already talking about organic fertilizers. But to believe this is an issue is to not understand the soil. Microbe food is food. Chemicals are not food. I understand the soil perfectly. And I also understand the intricate relationship between soil organisms and plants. And I understand plant biology and know exactly how plants access the soil for the chemical nutrients they need to accomplish photosynthesis, generate food and complete their life cycle. Chemicals may not be 'food' on a stand alone basis but they are the building blocks of food. To ignore this very basic fact of life is to indicate a serious lack of understanding of the physical world. You can concentrate on the soil and the soil microbes all you want but unless these are supplying, and in adequate concentrations, all the necessary plant chemical nutrients - there's that NPK again - you will have distressed, unhealthy plants. Commercially prepared blended organic fertilizers are not simply animal feed or meals. They are for the most part animal and plant by-products (which could include feeds or meals) but they also include naturally occurring minerals as well. You may get soybean or alfalfa meal in plain brown bag but the fancy bag of blended organic fertilizers could have cottonseed meal, fish bone meal, alfalfa meal, feather meal, soybean meal, mined potassium sulfate, kelp meal, seaweed extract and soft rock phosphate. Why using prepared, blended organic fertilizers should enormously complicate gardening is a bit of a mystery to me. If one understands plant nutrient requirements and the relevance of NPK ratios, why is it such a jump to translate a desired NPK of 6-24-24 to a formulation that is similar to 1-4-4? Or any similar low nitrogen, higher phosphorus and potassium blend? And because organic fertilizers deliver their nutrient content via the actions of the soil organisms, it is much harder to over-fertilize (compared to synthetics) as the presentation is over time and the plant will only absorb the nutrients it requires. So reproducing an exact NPK ratio is far less critial with organic fertilizers than it is with synthetics. What the soil lacks in nutrients will be directly evidenced by the plants, so the two are intrinsically entwined. One of the reasons soil tests are done are because plants display nutrient deficiencies and the tests will address what specifically is lacking. There are other factors involved, of course - I surmise the iron deficiency your lawn shows despite the iron concentrations in the soil tests is due to too high a soil pH making the iron unavailable. Which is why soil tests virtually always report pH as it has a huge bearing on how nutrients are accessed and utilized. So I stand by all my statements, but primarily the one that emphasizes that NPK analysis is just as important for organic fertilizers as it is for synthetic fertilizers. And one can omit the reference to fertilizers altogether. Understanding plant growth, biological processes and the role soil microbes play in these processes and how these all factor into the need for plant nutrients is sufficient to clearly demonstrate that NPK (and all the other necessary micronutrients and trace elements) is just as significant a factor in organic gardening as it is in traditional, synthetically based gardening. So yes, slacker, there IS a correlation between NPK and organic gardening - there is a correlation between NPK and gardening/farming/growing, period. The correlation is that plants require nutrients, primarily NPK, and in sufficient quantities that will vary during the course of their life cycle. Whether these nutrients are delivered via the soil and the soil microbes or pretty much instantly via soluble synthetic fertilizers is immaterial to the plants - nutrients are nutrients. That this is true is demonstrated by hydroponic growing - there are no soil organisms present because there is no soil, yet these plants will grow happily in any non-soil medium as long as they receive adequate nutrient input. Obviously in organic gardening there will be a much higher focus on the soil and the soil microbes as they are doing all the delivery work for nutrient presentation, but nutrient requirements will remain unchanged regardless of source. Before applying any fertilizer from any source, it is important to know the chemical composition of your soil and what is lacking, adequate or present in excessive concentrations. And the only way to know that is by a soil test. Once you armed with this piece of vital information you can research the nutrients needs of the crops you intend to grow and supply what is lacking, if anything, or adjust for other variables. But knowing and understanding NPK is essential for that process.

I have use' Miracid' many times in the past and it did nothing for my acidic plants except make them grow more leaves..Cut a heck of a lot of flowering rpoduction down..One year I got no flowers at all on my Rhododendrons and Azaleas..I stop using it. In fact, my Citrus Trees still turned yellow using that stuff...Until I found out about vinegar and foliage pro, I could not green up a citrus tree if you paid me, not even the local garden experts! I did find out that they consistently acidify their water though after asking them why they trees were always so much greener than mine...

It's on the street in front of a large apartment building, pretty clear no one is taking care of it any more, and no clear person to ask about it. I could bring some mulch over, I have some orchid mini pine bark nuggets laying around, but the soil level is already at the sidewalk level, I think I'd in effect just be time-release littering. Also, it is so dense even getting mulch spread out between the culms - none of which seems more than an inch away from another - would be difficult. I also worry I'd be interfering with new culm growth. I have some sifted composted cow manure that might stay better, and not interfere with culm growth, but so little of it would fit - like maybe a half inch in the center tapering down to zero inches on the edges - I question if it would be much help. But at least it'd just wash away in rain if it got on the sidewalk, not be littering.