@dleverette When making 5:1:1 mix, I break-up the compressed chunks of peat so they pass through a 1/2" screen. I toss any sticks and such on top of the raised beds where they break down with time. Here's a tip you'll find very helpful. For large batches of 5:1:1, pour the bark onto a tarp laid on a flat surface, then wet the bark a bit. Then, add the screened peat and spread it over the bark. Add your lime on top of the peat, then put down the perlite and wet that. The trick is to use just enough water to make the mix damp when it's thoroughly mixed. Both peat and pine bark are hydrophobic (water repellent) when allowed to dry below about 20% of their water holding ability. This makes a dry 5:1:1 mix extremely difficult to rewet if you don't moisten it when you make it. The moisture in the mix diffuses, moistening the bark/ peat and "breaking" its tendency to repel water. Within 15-30 minutes of making the mix you can pot plants and water them in thoroughly w/o the frustration associated with trying to rehydrate a dry soil. FWIW, I don't use coir. As many times as I've tried it and cone comparative experiments, I've always had problems or been dissatisfied with the results. You might be interested in a comparison between peat and coir I wrote several years back: Peat vs. Coir Sphagnum peat and coir have nearly identical water retention curves. They both retain about 90-95% of their volume in water at saturation and release it over approximately the same curve until they both lock water up so tightly it's unavailable for plant uptake at about 30-33% saturation. Coir actually has less loft than sphagnum peat, and therefore, less aeration. Because of this propensity, coir should be used in mixes at lower %s than peat. Because of the tendency to compact, in the greenhouse industry coir is primarily used in containers in sub-irrigation (bottom-watering) situations. Many sources produce coir that is high in soluble salts, so this can also be an issue. Using coir as the primary component of container media virtually eliminates lime or dolomitic lime as a possible Ca source because of coir's high pH (6+). Gypsum should be used as a Ca source, which eliminates coir's low S content. All coir products are very high in K, very low in Ca, and have a potentially high Mn content, which can interfere with the uptake of Fe. Several studies have also shown that the significant presence of phenolic allelochemicals in fresh coir can be very problematic for a high % of plants, causing poor growth and reduced yields. I haven't tested coir thoroughly, but I have done some testing of CHCs (coconut husk chips) with some loose controls in place. After very thoroughly leaching and rinsing the chips, I made a 5:1:1 soil of pine bark:peat:perlite (which I know to be very productive) and a 5:1:1 mix of CHCs:peat:perlite. I planted 6 cuttings of snapdragon and 6 cuttings of Coleus (each from the same plant to help reduce genetic influences) in containers (same size/shape) of the different soils. I added dolomitic lime to the bark soil and gypsum to the CHC soil. After the cuttings struck, I eliminated all but the three strongest in each of the 4 containers. I watered each container with a weak solution of MG 12-4-8 with STEM added at each watering, and watered on an 'as needed basis', not on a schedule. The only difference in the fertilizer regimen was the fact that I included a small amount of MgSO4 (Epsom salts) to provide MG (the dolomitic lime in the bark soil contained the MG, while the gypsum (CaSO4) in the CHC soil did not. This difference was necessary because or the high pH of CHCs and coir.) for the CHC soil. The results were startling. In both cases, the cuttings grown in the CHC's exhibited < 1/2 the biomass at summers end as the plants in the bark mix. I just find it very difficult for a solid case to be made (besides "It works for me") for the use of coir or CHC's. They're more expensive and more difficult to use effectively. The fact that some believe peat is in short supply (no where near true, btw) is easily offset by the effect of the carbon footprint of coir in its trek to the US from Sri Lanka or other exotic locales. That's the view from here. YMMV Coir Study: https://sites.google.com/site/plantandsoildigest/usu-crop-physiology-laboratory/coconut-coir-studies Al

Flora, I take your point, and it's a good one, though please explain how to post more than one photo at a time here -- I've only seen how to do one. This shrub is easily 8 feet tall, very multi-trunked and bushy, with a fairly erect habit. It was in fairly heavy shade so the foliage might not have photographed well. Will try to take another shot and post it here -- if anyone can explain how to upload it here when it's not hosted as a URL elsewhere on the web!

FYI.... seems to very much depend on the % of HCN... I dont know much about it, but some interesting reading... --------------------- ----------------------- EFFECT ON PLANT LIFE Seeds HCN applied in dosages effective ageinst insects does not affect the viability of seeds that are normally dry, with moisture contents suitable for storage. In a comprehensive study, the results of which were published between 1959 and 1961, Strong and Lindgren studied the effect of HCN in insecticidal concentrations on the germination of a wide range of seeds, including grain seeds, flax and small legumes. The variable factors considered were moisture content (8 to 14 percent), repeat fumigations and postfumigation storage. It wes concluded that germination of wheat, barley, oats, rice and flax seeds wes not impaired by one or two famigations with HCN. With the small legumes with a range of 5.8 to 12.2 percent moisture content (Ranger alfalfa, alsike clover, Ladino clover, Kenland red clever and Viking birdsfoot trefoil), all were tolerant to HCN in one or two fumigations, except aisike clover for which there was positive indication of impairment of germination. Among 80 varieties of grain, vegetable and flower seeds tested by Lindgren et al (1955), six showed evidence of reduced germination. These were pole beans, burnet, California black mustard, smilo, marigold and snapdragon. It may be concluded that HCN is a safe fumigant to use for seed treatment, especially for cereal grains under normal conditions, but with flower and vegetable seeds preliminary trials with local varieties are advisable. Growing Plants and Trees A considerable amount of injury, either temporary or permanent, may be sustained by actively growing plants fumigated with HCN. Because this gas is very soluble in water, special precautions have to be taken to reduce the amount of moisture on leaves and stems and in pots or soil balls of actively growing plants. Therefore, the plants should not be watered for one or more days before treatment. After treatment with HCN, it is necessary to wash the plants with water to remove any residual acid. HCN interferes with photosynthesis and other physiological processes (Moore and Willaman, 1917); for that reason, plants may be more susceptible to injury in daylight. Usually, treatments have to be carried out at night or in the dark. Also, following exposure, plants should be kept away from sunlight for several hours. In the past HCN was widely used for fumigating ornamental and glasshouse plants, but it has been replaced by other fumigants that are less phytotoxic. The use of HCN generated from calcium cyanide to control glasshouse pests is discussed in Chapter 12. HCN was extensively used for may years to control scale insects on citrus trees in a tent fumigation procedure (Quayle, 1938). In this treatment, HCN gas (5 g/m ) from liquid HCN, or evolved from a salt such as calcium cyanide, was liberated into a relatively gas-tight tent installed over the tree and maintained for usually around 45 mintues. A number of factors, including temperature, humidity, physiological conditions of the tree (such as dormancy, disease, cultural conditions, stage of development and others), have considerable influence on the tolerance of the trees to the fumigant (Woglum, 1923). Since different species or varieties of citrus trees show wide variation in response and the insects in different areas may vary in tolerance, the actual conditions of treatment usually have to be developed to suit local circumstances. In scale insect eradication work, where complete kill of all insects is essential, the tent fumigation treatment with HCN has been found to be a valuable technique (Fosen et al, 1953). HCN was used by Del Rivero et al, (1974) to control larvae and eggs of the woolly white fly on orange trees. While the concentrations of HCN required to kill insects may cause severe injury to growing plants, lower concentrations of HCN may stimulate growth and be useful in "forcing" growth in some species (Gassner, 1925). Dormant Nursery Stock HCN is still used in many parts of the world for the fumigation of the dormant nursery stock of deciduous trees, especially in quarantine treatments against the spread of scale insects (Ceder and Mathys, 1949; van de Pol and Rauws, 1957; Agarwala, 1956; Jen and Lai, 1959). As in growing plants, a marked stimulation has been noticed in some nursery stock fumigated with HCN (Cassner, 1925). Immediately following fumigation it is sometimes necessary to wash plants with water to avoid the burning of buds and new foliage. ---------- Cyanide production by rhizobacteria and potential for suppression of weed seedling growth. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11400067 Here is a link that might be useful: Cyanide production by rhizobacteria and potential for suppression of weed seedling growth.

I've always had the best success with Grevillea grafts (onto G. robusta stock) done in late winter and early spring, while the wood is still dormant but ready to grow with the oncoming warmer weather. This is the same timing used by professional nursery growers. Keep the newly grafted plants in a sheltered position outside, with filtered sun at most, until you're sure that the graft has "taken" and new growth is obvious. They can be gradually introduced to full sun, but protected from extreme heat in their first year. Good luck!