"Good" is a relative term that's difficult to nail down. The better you understand soils and how water behaves in soils, the better armed you would be to deal with soils that have inherent issues, mainly excess water retention. Not long ago, on another forum, I wrote the following because someone had asked if a particular soil was a 'good' choice. Rather than simply give him a 'yes or no' answer, I decided to go into enough detail that it would allow HIM to decide, instead of me, or others. It also offers something unique in that it illustrates there are two ways to look at soil choice. It meshes very nicely with the theme of this thread, so hopefully you will find it of interest. Is Soil X a 'Good' Soil? I think any discussion on this topic must largely center around the word "GOOD", and we can broaden the term 'good' so it also includes 'quality' or 'suitable', as in "Is soil X a quality or suitable soil?" How do we determine if soil A or soil B is a good soil? and before we do that, we'd better decide if we are going to look at it from the plant's perspective or from the grower's perspective, because often there is a considerable amount of conflict to be found in the overlap - so much so that one can often be mutually exclusive of the other. We can imagine that grower A might not be happy or satisfied unless knows he is squeezing every bit of potential from his plants, and grower Z might not be happy or content unless he can water his plants before leaving on a 2-week jaunt, and still have a weeks worth of not having to water when he returns. Everyone else is somewhere between A and Z; with B, D, F, H, J, L, N, P, R, T, V, X, and Y either unaware of what makes a good soil or they understand but don't care. I said all that to illustrate the large measure of futility in trying to establish any sort of standard as to what makes a good soil from the individual grower's perspective; but let's change our focus from the pointless to the possible. We're only interested in the comparative degrees of 'good' and 'better' here. It would be presumptive to label any soil "best". 'Best I've found' or 'best I've used' CAN sometimes be useful for comparative purposes, but that's a very subjective judgment. Let's tackle 'good', then move on to 'better', and finally see what we can do about qualifying these descriptors so they can apply to all growers. I would like to think that everyone would prefer to use a soil that can be described as 'good' from the plant's perspective. How do we determine what a plant wants? Surprisingly, we can use %s established by truly scientific studies that are widely accepted in the greenhouse and nursery trades to determine if a soil is good or not good - from the plant's perspective, that is. Rather than use confusing numbers that mean nothing to the hobby grower, I can suggest that our standard for a good soil should be, at a minimum, that you can water that soil properly. That means, that at any time during the growth cycle, you can water your plantings to beyond the point of saturation (so excess water is draining from the pot) without the fear of root rot or compromised root function or metabolism due to (take your pick) too much water or too little air in the root zone. I think it's very reasonable to withhold the comparative basic descriptor, 'GOOD', from soils that can't be watered properly without compromising root function, or worse, suffering one of the fungaluglies that cause root rot. I also think anyone wishing to make the case from the plant's perspective that a soil that can't be watered to beyond saturation w/o compromising root health can be called 'good', is fighting on the UP side of logic hill. So I contend that 'good' soils are soils we can water correctly; that is, we can flush the soil when we water without concern for compromising root health/function/metabolism. If you ask yourself, "Can I water correctly if I use this soil?" and the answer is 'NO' ... it's not a good soil ... for the reasons stated above. Can you water correctly using most of the bagged soils readily available? 'NO', and I don't think I need to point out how I arrived at that conclusion. What about 'BETTER'? Can we determine what might make a better soil? Yes, we can. If we start with a soil that meets the minimum standard of 'good', and improve either the physical and/or chemical properties of that soil, or make it last longer, then we have 'better'. Even if we cannot agree on how low we wish to set the bar for what constitutes 'good', we should be able to agree that any soil that reduces excess water retention, increases aeration, ensures increased potential for optimal root health, and lasts longer than soils that only meet some one's individual and arbitrary standard of 'good', is a 'better' soil. All the plants we grow, unless grown from seed, have the genetic potential to be beautiful specimens. It's easy to say, and easy to see the absolute truth in the idea that if you give a plant everything it wants it will flourish and grow; after all, plants are programmed to grow just that way. Our growing skills are defined by our ability to give plants what they want. The better we are at it, the better our plants will grow. But we all know it's not that easy. Lifetimes are spent in careful study, trying to determine just exactly what it is that plants want and need to make them grow best. Since this is a soil discussion, let's see what the plant wants from its soil. The plant wants a soil in which we have endeavored to provide in available form, all the essential nutrients, in the ratio in at which the plant uses them, and at a concentration high enough to prevent deficiencies yet low enough to make it easy to take up water (and the nutrients dissolved in the water). First and foremost, though, the plant wants a container soil that is evenly damp, never wet or soggy. Giving a plant what it wants, to flourish and grow, doesn't include a soil that is half saturated for a week before aeration returns to the entire soil mass, even if you only water in small sips. Plants might do 'ok' in some soils, but to actually flourish, like they are genetically programmed to do, they would need to be unencumbered by wet, soggy soils. We become better growers by improving our ability to reduce the effects of limiting factors, or by eliminating those limiting factors entirely; in other words, by clearing out those influences that stand in the way of the plant reaching its genetic potential. Even if we are able to make every other factor that influences plant growth/vitality absolutely perfect, it could not make up for a substandard soil. For a plant to grow to its genetic potential, every factor has to be perfect, including the soil. Of course, we'll never manage to get to that point, but the good news is that as we get closer and closer, our plants get better and better; and hopefully, we'll get more from our growing experience. In my travels, I've discovered it almost always ends up being that one little factor that we willingly or unwittingly overlooked that limits us in our abilities, and our plants in their potential. Food for thought: A 2-bit plant in a $10 soil has a future full of potential, where a $10 plant in a 2-bit soil has a future filled only with limitations. ~ Al Here is a link that might be useful: If you want to dig deeper into soil, click me ....

That's a good point, Ed -- the leaves are definitely a bit pale. All of my blueberries receive a light dose of MirAcid at every watering, though, so it really shouldn't be short on available nitrogen. Instead, I suspect that the pale foliage is a further symptom of whatever's prompting the color change. At the rate the leaves are turning and dropping, it won't have any leaves left in a week or two. By comparison, none of my other blueberries show symptoms that are even remotely similar -- they're all continuing to push out new growth like they should be. This guy, on the other hand, is just shutting down. An aside for Ed -- Since it's lighter on N than most other CRFs, I've been meaning to ask you how much Shake'n Feed you incorporate per gallon for your blueberries. Also, do you apply it more than once in the growing season? I'm currently trying it out on two small rabbiteyes, and so far they're doing very well. Since I potted them up late in the season, I went with a light dose, but I'm probably going to try it out on some plants next year, as well.

I mix alfalfa pellets in with my potting mix ( I customize mixes for plant types) and then soak the new transplanted plants with seaweed at a tbsp per gallon of water to get the roots and plant started in the right direction. I also foliar feed with seaweed to these same transplants a few weeks later and every few weeks after that as I remember to:) I have for the last few years done this with dozens of different plant types and all seem to respond beautifully, veggie, flower, fruit, or foliage. Go far it, I think you will be happy with your results. Happy Growing David

Your soil blocks are clearly too wet in the photo so it is likely a result of either over-watering OR a poorly draining, over-compacted media mix. Soil Blend: 60% coconut coir, 39% worm castings; 0.3% kelp meal, of 0.3% azomite, 1% zeolite, 0.05% glacier rock dust, 0.15% all purpose organic fertilizer (Soyabean meal, Kelp meal, Alfalfa meal, Sunflower Hull Ash) [Yes, I know they don't add up to exactly 100 :) As far as I understand, these organic fertilizers don't burn roots like chemical ones do, and there is a very small quantity of them. WoW! Not a germination mix at all and far too nutrient rich and complex for young seedlings. Might be great for growing on after true leaves appear (whole other discussion) but not for this stage of growth. Why all those additives? None of them are needed for any reason and can easily kill seedlings. While it is somewhat true that organic fertilizers usually don't burn established plant roots when properly applied, that sure doesn't apply to just sprouted seedlings. When you start over skip all those additions. Germinated seedlings have all they need in the seed coat until after they develop a full set of true leaves. You also have a number of what are called "helment-heads" in the pics - germinated plants where the seed coat remains in place binding up the cotyledons. That is usually caused by planting the seeds too shallow or left uncovered. Easy to eliminate with just a light covering of moist seed starting mix.. Hope this helps some. Dave