The lime depends on what soil you will use. If you use a bark/peat based soil, it may come in at a pH of (Another discussion about liming) After this, the residual fraction of lime makes Ca and Mg more available for uptake. I am almost absolutely certain that there are nursery/greenhouse operations using dolomitic lime (garden lime) to adjust their soil pH. You might wish to look a little further. BTW - a water pH of 7.0 is very good in comparison to what many of us in the US grow in. My water pH ranges from 8.0 - 8.5. I don't have any difficulties except on a very few plants that are inefficient Fe and Mn users. I have to supplement them with an Fe chelate (Sprint 138) especially formulated for high pH applications. The 12-4-8 fertilizer you referred to looks like a good choice, though I cannot discern in what quantity the secondary macro nutrients (Ca, Mg, S) are supplied in. We are mainly concerned about the Ca/Mg. In the US, they list the ingredients in order of their volume. There should be about 3 times more Ca than Mg in the formulation, yet the Mg is listed first. They're not in alphabetical order, which might have been a logical explanation, so perhaps the ratio of Ca:Mg is reversed, which would put you at at least greater risk for a Mg induced Ca deficiency. It's just a thought. It could be easily corrected by adding a little CaSO4 (gypsum) to the soil. I think the fertilizer you are using is probably inappropriate. It has about 6 times as much P as the plant needs, and the K level is high as well. I would suggest that if you use a fertilizer like you mentioned (with a 3:1:2 NPK ratio, and if you feel you need extra K, supply it with a product similar to ProTeKt 0-0-3, which also has silicon - something of much value to containerized trees. You can apply the 3:1:2 ratios at reduced rates to lower the N, supplement the K with the ProTeKt, and still have enough P, so it (ProTeKt) actually adds quite a bit of diversity to the 3:1:3 fertilizers. I'm not a fan of using organic fertilizers in containers. Chemical forms of fertilizer are no better than organic are no better than chemical ..... with qualifications. Any organic molecule (basically - something containing carbon and that was once alive) will have its nutrients locked in hydrocarbon chains that will require the aid of biotic soil populations to cleave (unlock). So, organic fertilizers depend on the population densities of soil microorganisms. By nature, organic nutrient supplementation programs in container culture are unreliable and erratic in their ability to deliver nutrients. The reason why is simple: as noted, delivery of nutrients depends on the organic molecules being broken down in the gut of micro-organisms, and micro-organism populations are boom/bust, varying widely in container culture. Some of the things affecting the populations are container soil pH, moisture levels, nutrient levels, soil composition, compaction/aeration levels ..... of particular importance is soil temperatures. When container temperatures rise too high, microbial populations diminish. Temps much under 55* will slow soil biotic activity substantially, reducing or halting delivery of nutrients and possibly inducing ammonium toxicity issues. Chemical fertilizers, on the other hand, are extremely reliable & immediately available for uptake in elemental form. I offer this information from a physiological perspective only. You'll need to work out the organic/inorganic issue for yourself. I want to avoid that argument & adopt a 'to each his own' attitude about it, but it is much easier for me/most of us to help/guide those who use chemical forms of fertilizer because their problems are usually much easier to pinpoint - the same would apply to your ability to ID problems with nutrition. With an organic program, you could see problems today that are resultant from a fertilizer application 6 weeks ago, and never give any consideration to the possible cause because of the time lapse. From the perspective of minimizing potential problems, making sure that plants get all the nutrients they need - and even in the right ratio, w/o fertility levels getting too high, and results, I think fertilizers like Miracle-Gro, Osmocote, and other immediately soluble fertilizers win - hands down. I hope that helped you at least a little. I want to thank you for and acknowledge your kind words; and to your 'thank you' say, "You're very welcome". Al

Foolishpleasure~~ You are funny! lol.. and no, I don't want any snow, that is why I live in Tucson. ;) Actually we get plenty in the mountians, an hours drive, even have ski resorts. :) And thanks for reminding me about the length of day. :) I'm new to trees of all kinds this season! This will be my first winter having them. Hi Al~ Now I'm going to be difficult and not by choice. lol.. But to bury the pots, really isn't an option here. Gravel landscape, plastic underneath, and brick hard dirt to boot, and the best place for these guys, has pipes underground. SMALL YARD !!:( Plan B? :) Do you think Hubby would notice if I got rid of the boat? lol.. Our area is prone to the onset of spring growth early, even for the in ground tree's. We get a warm spell in Feb. and everything goes nuts and starts to grow, then usually one last big frost in March. So I kinda expect everything to grow sooner than planned. Is that 45* for the daytime highs? And do I just work to keep them moist? our rains really flip flop in winter. Thanks for all your help! :) JJ

I grow mine in pots as a temporary means until I am both satisfied with where I want them to live in the garden and also the soil where they will be planted is decent enough to not stall any progress they might be making. It sort of gives me a flexible buffer so I donâÂÂt feel pressured or rushed to get them in the ground. I also pot them up to allow me the opportunity to âÂÂbabyâ them, if need be. There is a down side to that though. Sometimes I fuss too much and I know if I just left them alone they would be fine. But, I am still so new to hostas that I feel like I would be a bad parent, throwing them straight out into the wild unknown that I call my front yard. I want to tame the jungle before I let the kids out to play. That sounds corny, but you get the point. :p I think the biggest perk though is when they are in pots I can take the whole plant and plunk it in the garden where I think I might like to place it permanently. Once I have a plant anchored I will then plan around it, and slowly the garden grows. I have tried to sit down and map out an entire bed, but I always end up more frustrated than satisfied. I need to SEE them and the other plants around it to know if itâÂÂs a good fit. Plus, I can leave them in the spot in the garden while still in the pot to test out sunlight and wind. If they end up blanching or breaking I know it might not be the best place for permanency. Ludi

Ditto Jim. I have saw quite a few hemp plants in my lifetime. I grew up in the 60's. That is definitely hemp plants in at least one pic. Maybe they are the kind that has low THC and used for fiber? ;) Oh and by the way, I have saw a lot of them way after the 60's.