1) Every ingredient that you listed for the Fox Farm soil is extremely fine. Since water retention is dependant primarily on particle size, you should expect a medium made of all fine particulates to be extremely water retentive, something I try very hard to avoid in containers. 2) You can read about soils and how durable soils that remain well-aerated long after peat/compost-based soils have collapsed can offer a greater margin for grower error and make things much simpler for the grower if you follow this link. 3) Not necessarily, but if you think about it, what will you do if your pH falls outside the favorable range? Start adding acids and bases to change it? In commercial situations, pH is usually tested frequently and adjusted by injecting a wide variety of chemicals that have elements plants need into the irrigation water. Since pH is affected by temperature, fertility, plant material, moisture level, even time of day (Plants help to control the pH in the rhizosphere to make it easier for them to uptake nutrients. This effect is reduced when plants are undergoing periods of reduced transpiration, which in turn has an effect on pH.) I'm not saying that because I ignore trying to control pH that you should, but I've never found it necessary to fret about it in any container planting. I might consider the plant prefers acidic conditions and forgo the use of lime and maybe use a urea-based fertilizer to take advantage of the acid reaction, but other than that, I don't worry. Remember that Media pH is far less important in container media than in mineral soils, and if you're supplying nutrients in soluble form, unless the pH is WAY outside favorable limits, your plant will be able to assimilate the nutrients. You can find considerable discussion about this in Dr C Whitcomb's work, "Plant Production in Containers II". 4) On average, plants use about 6-10x more N than P. Since the P in NPK is not a true measure of P supplied (P is reportted as the % of P2O5 [phosphorous pentaoxide]) you need to use a multiplier of .43 to tell the actual amount of P. In 3:1:2 ratio fertilizers, there is 7x as much N as P, so you actually have a considerable cush in 3:1:2 ratio fertilizers. Plants use roughly the same amount of nutrients throughout the growth cycle in relation to N, so I'm not sure where the idea they need larger doses of P during flowering/fruiting comes from. Tissue analysis of fruits and blooms show roughly the same levels of P as other plant organs, which meshes nicely with the idea that consistent P levels at approximately 1/6 that of N are entirely adequate throughout the growth cycle. I actually don't boost K by adding the ProTeKt, I reduce the amount of N, which also must reduce the levels of P and K. Since I can see by my plants that what I said above about P is true (also confirmed in the text cited above, which is essentially the Bible on container production) and P levels remain adequate at reduced application rates of 3:1:2 ratio fertilizers, I only need to be sure plants are getting adequate K. I can do this by incorporating some potash in the soil when I make it in anticipation of the reduced N applications for tomatoes, or simply forgo the increase in TDC by supplying it later as needed by using the ProTeKt. Al

You'll find more info on this over on the Soil & Compost forum but basically "Composted Manure" is 80%+ manure (usually from feeder lots) that has been stockpiled and aged for 30-60 days. Manured Compost is approx. 80% composted organic materials such as straw, leaves, paper, grass clippings, paper, cardboard, wood chips, etc. to which some aged manure has been added. Given the greater availability of organic materials to make compost out of it is usually cheaper. And, I contend, usually better given the diversity of materials and nutrients it contains. Mushroom compost is also not as readily available given it is from mushroom growing operations only and yes it is the lowest nutrient value of the 3. What is best? That all depends on the quality of the stuff to begin with - there is good and bad out there. And it depends on what your primary goal is - soil tilth and drainage improvement or nutrients? All 3 or any of the 3 are beneficial to a garden. Composted manure is usually the highest in N-P-K but does little to improve soil. While manured compost usually contains good levels of N-P-K plus many of the micro-nutrients and minerals and provides excellent soil improvement. Mush compost is lowest in nutrients but an excellent soil conditioner. There are exceptions to this of course and in general farm or homemade will be better than any of the bagged stuff but if the bags are all that are available and I had to choose just 1 of them then I'd go with the Manured Compost. Hope this helps. Dave

skizot, first of all, there is the law of limiting factors (see Liebig's law) which should determine whether a fertilizer is needed at all. Then there is the ratio of N,P and K in relation to each other. This ratio is the result of field trials and can be different for the same crop grown on different soil types. By far the most 'problematic' is nitrogen; the usual inorganic sources are very soluble and liable to leaching by rainfall or irrigation (inorganic urea will go from a solid product to a gas directly). To counter this, manufacturers are always seeking to extend the availability of nitrogen; this adds to the cost. I am more interested in the 'N sources' as stated on the fertilizer bag. If the bag proclaimes "16-4-8" and it states "Nitrogen source: 16% derived from urea", then that tells me that I can expect a quick green-up and an equally quick "green-down". If I get a strong shower of rain within a day or two, a great deal of the product will be dissolved and carried to places where it does not need to be at all, really. IBDU is a slow-release form of urea; it will cost more; the application rate will be the same as for untreated urea (lb. Nitrogen/1000sq.ft.) but it will give a more long lasting effect and will be better for the environment. I feel that the homeowner is misled on this issue. One manufacturer marketed the same "numbers" to commercial operators and homeowners. The difference was in the Nitrogen source. The all-soluble was much cheaper but would have to be put down more frequently to maintain the turf quality. Guess who this was marketed to.

"and I don't bother with tissue analysis." Then why did you quote this data to support your post? "It bothers me how much people are persuaded by pure verbosity without being given verifiable scientific references. You can find leaf analysis results for bell pepper plants, with references, here:" Because this "scientific data" rebuts someone else's observation/experience/post that you disagree with but don't use the data in your own? Why? "Generally, people should do more controlled experiments. Even I have a reluctance to do controlled experiments, but, at least, I feel guilty about it. But, I you want to do controlled experiments, I can make specific suggestions." So you don't do it but others should and you have suggestions how to? If you don't do it will you quote some scientific way from a site that has multiple authors who are given appropriate accolades other than yourself? "I am content with my hot pepper results," CONTENT? With all your unbelievable knowledge and scientific information you expound at your fingertips your results should blow the rest of us into the weeds! (Haven't seen you be humble to this point, don't start now!) "photographs posted in this forum." Lets see those pix you've posted at The Hot Pepper forum! I don't remember them? Links? NECM