Wow... good point Al. I totally forgot about that. *whoosh* OW - Don't you mean.. lower to 6? If you have a way to directly measure the pH, then it doesn't really matter what kind of water you use. Just add the vinegar or acetic acid until you get the desired pH for the irrigation water. If you don't want to mess with the irrigation water, and you're okay with an imprecise change, you could use acidified cotton burr compost. It contains sulfur that is at least partially metabolized, and is often used as an acidifying soil amendment for Roses and Azaleas. It's commonly used both in the ground, and in containers. I don't know much about it, but you can find plenty of information online. I'm confused, are soil from your land in the containers? Or do you also want to try growing blueberries in the ground, and want to acidify the soil quickly? If you're using raised beds and adding a lot of new soil / amendments, most good nurseries sell an Azalea or Rose bedding mix that is fairly acidic. The quick fix is ammonium sulfate, but it's extremely hard for the non-professional to use properly, and is very detrimental to your soil biology. No amendment or product can really change your soil's pH permanently - you have to keep treating it at least every season.

Regarding the plastic: I had done some research on various plastic mulches, and found that some great studies had been done on white, clear, and black plastic mulches (interesting that I found that when I was trying to research the red mulch which supposedly makes tomatoes increase in yields and sweetness... sounds like the jury's still hung on that one; I guess the sunlight has to reflect OFF the red to be effective, and in some growing situations, not much sunlight hits the mulch, thereby negating any positive effect. But I digress...) The research found that black plastic mulches will warm the soil a couple degrees at 2" down, and not quite as much 4-6" down (black captures heat), and white didn't heat the soil much (white reflects most light), but what surprised me was the clear plastic. What they found was that certain wavelengths of light were allowed to enter via infrared, but wouldn't reflect back out. The soil with the clear plastic mulch was crazy--it was something like 10-14 degrees WARMER than non-mulched soil at 2" and 4-6 degrees warmer at 6 inches. I wish I had bookmarked that site, but you could probably find it if you googled "plasticulture." Anyway, I think this is going to be my technique for killing weeds and weed seeds/seedlings in the spring. I have a terrible bindweed problem, and those suckers just will not die (invasive roots can go to 60 FEET), which of course means WAR! I can put down the clear plastic over the rock beds (wet them first so the steam can build) and cover them with clear plastic. Sorry to get off-topic on your original question, but it kinda turned into a plastic mulch thread... Anyway, put the plastic down now; the sun can do much of the work even if the nights are cold, and the plastic will help keep the heat in at night. If you're going to continue to use plastic mulch after the plants are in-ground, you can use the research to apply the proper mulch for the various plants: peas like cooler soil (white), but tomatoes like it kinda warm (black), while okra likes it HOT (clear). Also good to know if a gardener is in the south--you just might inadvertently cook the roots of some of your plants if clear plastic is used! Regarding your original question, I found a package of small-diameter bamboo sticks--painted green, no less--at Walmart for like 3 bucks for about 20 of them. They're great for stabilizing tomatoes until you're able to cage them; just be careful what you use to tie the vines because if it doesn't have some give and take, it might just become a noose. Favorite cheapies are strips of old nylons--they give but are also sturdy enough to do the trick (I have alson been known to use a recently pulled strand of bindweed as a tie!). I expect we may yet have some more frosty nights here in CO, so I bamboo-"staked" my tomatoes in their gallon pots just today because they're getting whipped around in the wind. They're out all day, just like yours, and then into the garage each night unless it's going to be over 45--the garage stays warm enough, especially since there's no wind in there! Too much cold can stunt the growth--especially if you already have flowers, the fruit might not set, so don't rush it. Regarding the pollinating of the flowers--the plants are outside all day, so it's a fair shot that some of the bumbles are buzzing! Maybe pinch off half or 2/3 of the blooms--that way you'll still get some early fruit, but the plants won't be wearing themselves out trying to grow more roots and lots of fruit at the same time. Do a GW search for "hardening off" to get a better idea of how to prepare them for being in the ground. There's some great stuff out there. I'm kinda jealous, though; I waited so long that my indoor starts are puny (the ones I staked are from a swap!). Way to make sure that you've got some good plants ready to go! (and can I get on Santa's list for a greenhouse, too?)

Heartzlink, not sure if you were aware, but right under the Winter Sowing title for our forum are several blue links, one of which is the Frequently Asked Questions or FAQ, which will take you thru this step by step. I think Trudi must have updated recently becoz it is now even easier to understand and see what to do. I buy whatever potting soil is available and cheap. If it feels too heavy and clumpy like Hyponex usually does, I don't use that. I usually end up with Miracle Gro, Schultz, Scotts. I used to get the Sam's brand from Walmart which was very good but I don't see that anymore. I don't fertilize, personally, at least in the winter sowing phase. I don't use the Moisture Control, nor the fertilizer-included pot. soil, becoz it's more expensive and not in keeping with what Mother Nature would do via the winter sowing method. I fertilize in the garden beds as I would normally do with either compost or slow-release in spring or if needed in summer. I add soil to my containers, then water them and let drain, then sow the seeds, pat them in, or push them in if they are larger seeds, then cover the container with the top of your jug or in a plastic bag (drainage holes and vent holes needed), tape up or tie up, I label with a paint pen from Walmart craft dept, and place outside. Sometimes I wet the soil in a bucket or bin or wheelbarrow first, but it's messier that way and you can't handle more seeds or markers w/o being wet. Hope this helps you figure this out, and here's to much success. Laurie

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