Marie, I'll take a stab at a couple of your questions. "Container Soils - Water Movement & Retention XIII" 1) This is the parent thread for the "gritty mixes" (both 5-1-1 and 1-1-1). It has reached the maximum allowable limit of 150 posts 12 times, so there is a vast amount of information in the 13 different threads. Near the end of Al's first post, the 5-1-1 ingredients are described. As I understand it, the 5-1-1 mix is used for plants that will be repotted frequently (2 or 3 years max (from Al's first post in the above linked thread)). Although, in the back of my mind, I seem to think I've read in a post suggesting the 5-1-1 mix really should only be used for 1 or 2 years. 2)When screened properly, the 1-1-1 mix is very free draining, has only one part organic matter (screened bark, nothing smaller than 1/16" in the 1-1-1 mix) and from Al's first post in the above linked thread "For long term (especially woody) plantings and houseplants, I use a superb soil that is extremely durable and structurally sound. The basic mix is equal parts of pine bark, Turface, and crushed granite." 3)Yes on ingredients and ratios. From some of Al's other posts the lime brings the pH of the 5-1-1 mix up from around 5 to around 6. It also serves as a source for calcium and magnesium. If you are growing plants that like acidic soils, you can replace the lime with gypsum and add epsom salts to your irrigation water. "Fertilizer Program for Containerized Plants III" should give you all the information you need for dyna-grow foliage pro, pro-tek, etc and when and why to use gypsum vs lime. 4) Although I haven't used the gritty mixes for seedlings, I think I would start seedlings in the 5-1-1 and move to the 1-1-1 when ready unless the seedlings were annuals or a plant that needed frequent repottings. That being said, I'm pretty sure I've read that seedlings can be started in the gritty mix and left in the gritty for the life of the plant. I think the only caveat to starting seedlings in the gritty mix is not to use the "chop stick method" for measuring soil moisture, instead ensuring the upper couple of inches of the soils is always moist, so the young shallow roots don't dry out. I'm no expert by a long shot. I've just spent many hours reading and trying to absorb information. So, if I've posted erroneous information, I'm sure the very helpfull people here will correct my mistakes. Hope this helps. Blake

Sorry Matt, I misunderstood your "zero results" remark. There are a lot of cvs. that seem like they might make good parents, yet when you run a search for hybrids made with them, you come up empty. There can be several reasons for this: a) the thought never occurred to anybody before you, b) it occurred to them but they didn't have a good match blooming at the same time, c) it occurred to them, they had a good match, but the plant did not cooperate (turned out to be sterile, unreceptive, a selfer, etc.), d) it occurred to them, they had a match and the plant cooperated but it didn't actually produce anything worth keeping, or e) all of the stars lined up BUT they just never got around to registering it and/or submitting a photo to FCBS. Just because something is not on there doesn't mean it wouldn't make a good parent. Rather than to repeat my little rant about @#%&! Braz-el one more time, see the link below for a recap. Suffice it to say that if the plant tagged Braz-el is the same clone as the one labelled "Brazel species" in Zaghini's book (which it is SUPPOSED to be, but I've seen at least one other photo claiming to be that which lacked marmoration), then it is absolutely correia-araujoi. The clone pictured in Shane's photo has been IDed as such by the BIC (Bromeliad Identification Center). I don't know how much more definitive you can get than that. I agree with Andrew that c-a will not accept its own pollen, but if you have two or more different clones of it you can cross them. The jury is still out on whether c-a is a johannis hybid or not. Harry Luther first said yes, it is a natural hybrid with marmorata, but now says no, it's actually just another form of johannis. I'm still clinging to the natural hybrid theory, as it makes more sense to me, but whichever is right, it is almost certainly closely allied to johannis. As for johannis being a self-pollinator: well, yes and no, but mostly no. What I mean by that is that if you don't do anything to it, it won't self. At least mine doesn't. I have once or twice attempted to get self seed from it by hand pollinating it with its own pollen, and I did get one or two berries, but most didn't set up. The resulting plants didn't show evidence of having got anybody else's genes in them, so I am assuming it is not self-infertile, but you really have to work at it. It's not going to do it without help, so I wouldn't worry about it. More problematic are the teeny tiny flowers that often don't want to open. Oddly enough, cv. DeRolf has much bigger flowers that open wider, I have no idea why. Hannibal Lecter is another in-betweener. Sometimes it will set seed without being intentionally pollinated, but very often it won't. You do have to be aware that it is self-compatible, and that if it hasn't been emasculated before the pollen is ripe there will likely be a few seedlings in your grex that have gotten their own pollen, but that won't keep it from accepting outside pollen too. If you cross it with something fairly different from itself, you should be able to tell pretty easily which ones are the selfs.

It's interesting, but not evidence of anything. It's a magazine readers' poll. People sent in returns to declare their intentions. Reminds me of The Literary Digest and their fatal mistakes in 1936. "Although it had polled 10 million individuals (about 2.4 million of these individuals responded, an astronomical sum for any survey),[3] it had surveyed firstly its own readers, a group with disposable incomes well above the national average of the time...." (wikipedia) . Their list of names was biased in favor of those with enough money for cars, phones and magazine subscriptions (during the 1930's!!). To show what a more scientific basis can produce: using a sample size of only 50,000 George Gallup accurately predicted the results of the 1936 Literary Digest poll. Goes to show that a more valid result is possible if the questions and methods are good to start with. A survey is more accurate than an assemblage of thousands who are self-interested and proud. And who put a stamp on it. Even a survey does not predict success in the real world: declared intentions never correspond to real reactions to new products.

Jtorel wrote: "ncrealestateguy wrote - "my sellers are advised that if anyone knocks on their door or calls them, that they are to let the inquirerers know that they are being represented by an agent and to give them my business card. " Just to understand your point of view, you are expecting to collect both the listing commission and the buyers agent commission, even though you never personally had contact with these buyers prior to them visiting the house/owner? I assume then, you intend to enter dual- agency agreements with both parties? Meaning that neither side will really have an agent obligated to protect solely their interests? I don't doubt your skills, or your integrity, but doesn't that place you in a difficult, and ultimately perilous position viz-a-vis a seller or buyer who later feels you were not committed to his or her best interests?" Jtorel, The buyers are at the home because of my marketing of the property, so, yes, I would feel comfortable collecting both sides of the commission. However, after my first two dual agent deals that I completed years ago, I realized that it makes a lot of sellers (especially) and buyers uncomfortable for the reasons you state. So, now I allow my clients the choice if they want exclusive representation or not. If they do, then I refer all buyer leads on my properties out to a friend of mine who is not even in my office. He does the same for me. Win/win for all. Your question is very legit, and hence, why I offer this option. As far as ragtop's comments go: Where did I ever say to sign a BAA with an agent that you do not feel comfortable with? I have never said so. And how on Earth have you summized that I steer buyers to my listings? Have you been speaking with my past clients? Why would I want to waste my time showing homes that do not fit the buyer's criteria. Time is my number one expense. The first thing a good agent learns to do in this business is to weed out the time wasters. You have no idea how many flakes are out there that will waste your time if you let them. It took me over 3 years to truly understand this. We get paid after a deal closes, not when someone piles into my car. Yes, I might make a wrong call every now and then, and miss a deal, but I save thousands of dollars and, more importantly, I save my precious time for those folks who are ready, able and willing buyers. If you can not commit to me 100%, how do you expect me to commit to you the same? All buyers would do themselves a service if they either got a referral from a friend, or called up the BIC and asked him/her to recommend an agent that fits thier needs. Don't come on here complaining because you settled for something less. And don't come rolling into town, which you have had planned for months, call me up, and expect I drop everything on my schedule just to show you a few homes, especially if you do not even know if you are moving to this area. Looking at homes is not going to determine if you eventually move to a particular area. And it is not wise to call the listing agent in order for you to work with. They represent the seller's best interests, not yours. They are fiduciarally responsible to selling thier client's home, not to look out for your best interests. (I realize that some people are savvy enough that this is not a big deal for them, but for 95% of buyers, it not a good situation to be in) BTW Ragtop, I got two calls this week out of the blue from potential buyers that were referred to me by past clients. One of these past clients that referred me was a seller whom I failed to sell thier home! I believe this should be enough to put me back into your first classification of agents.