Ideal2545, did you ever expect all this when you asked about a growing mix for your tomatoes and peppers? I had hoped to get back to this sooner, but life has been very busy the last number of weeks and I had a limited amount of time I could devote to scholarship on this. Tapla, I have no idea where or by whom the quotes you apparently want to present as authoritative relative to Ca:Mg ratios and "antagonistic deficiency" were generated. I said in my post above, "I can find no science demonstrating a Ca:Mg ratio that must be maintained to prevent an "antagonistic deficiency." Once again, I'd love to see a reference." Since you refused to provide a reference, I did my own search. The concept of an optimal Ca:Mg ratio is contained in the theory called the basic cation saturation ratio (BCSR). BCSR also includes potassium in the theory that holds that certain ratios of calcium, magnesium & potassium cations must be maintained for optimal plant growth. Loew and May, mentioned in your quote, published this notion in 1901. I am providing everyone a link to a review that discusses the development and then the discarding of the BCSR concept. It has been proven SCIENTIFICALLY to be incorrect about 30 years ago. The authors conclude their review stating, "The data do not support the claims of the BCSR, and continued promotion of the BCSR will result in the inefficient use of resources in agriculture and horticulture." https://www.agronomy.org/publications/sssaj/articles/71/2/259 The authors do point out in the review that many soil testing labs push BCSR because it sells more fertilizer. Their implication is that the 2 industries are linked in many cases. I do not know if that is true or not, but one would not be surprised if it is true. Another publication entitled "Calcium-Magnesium Ratios: Setting the Record Straight" from the University of Minnesota ends with the statement, "It's an outdated, antique concept that has no value in high yield, modern agriculture." http://www.extension.umn.edu/cropenews/2003/03mncn07.htm I can not find the origin of the following quote, but it appears on a lot of sites around the web. According to Dr. Stanley Barber, Purdue University, "There is no research justification for the added expense of obtaining a definite Ca:Mg ratio in the soil. Research indicates that plant yield or quality is not appreciably affected over a wide range of Ca:Mg ratios in the soil." Dr. Barber, who died in 2002, was a member of the US National Academy of Sciences for 15 years and is possibly the premier figure in the development of soil science. http://www.spectrumanalytic.com/support/library/ff/Ca_Basics.htm It now makes sense why I could find no mention of any of this in Marschner's Mineral Nutrition of Higher Plants. It is because these concepts were scientifically discarded about 30 years ago. Relative to BER, I almost do not know where to start. In my post, I provided a link to a 2005 review that is authored by one of the leaders in scientific research on BER. Dr. Ho has a VERY long list of publications about BER. Tapla responded with a quote from Dr. Carolyn Male of unknown source and date. When I check Dr. Male's publication history on pubmed and google scholar, I can only find 3 publications, none of which have anything to do with BER. I do see that she authored a book in 1999 entitled "Smith & Hawken: 100 Heirloom Tomatoes for the American Garden." From what I can read of it on Google, it looks like a good book, but it is out of print. I am also aware that she was for a number of years a major figure in Seed Savers Exchange much to her credit. All of which is fine, but I am betting if one asks Dr. Male where her understanding of the molecular mechanisms driving BER is derived, she will say through reading the scientific literature. I also bet if you ask her who knows more about BER, herself or Dr. Ho, she will say Dr. Ho. I do not say this to belittle Dr. Male in any way. I presume she is a very smart, capable person. But the quote you provide from her appears antiquated. I do not find it particularly enlightening. If Dr. Male is the scientist you believe her to be, I feel pretty certain she will acknowledge that she can not preclude the possibility that there could be sets of growing conditions where egg shells contribute in preventing BER during tomato growth. Once again, everyone can choose which source(s) of information to depend upon to further their understanding and inform their growing decisions. Tapla is clearly very generous with his time and appears to genuinely want to be helpful. He is apparently a very skilled bonsai practitioner. When I first started reading Tapla's posts, I thought he must really know his stuff. However, as I read more of his posts, I kept reading statements that were scientifically nonsensical. As I read more & more of the plant biology and horticultural literature, I came to the realization that Tapla simply does not understand what he is talking about much of the time and offers explanations that are frequently WAY off the mark like the notion of antagonisms between Ca:Mg and his use of calcium magnesium ratios. He uses big, scientific sounding words, but what he writes is often simply gibberish. It is my impression that the solutions Tapla suggests, while typically workable at some level, often direct people away from other workable solutions that are potentially much more attractive to many, or even most, of the folks out there trying to solve a growing problem or simply grow bigger or faster or cheaper, etc. In no way am I saying that the solutions Tapla promotes are unworkable. They typically do appear to be workable. However, after a lot of research, I have chosen other approaches that work for me that Tapla contends should not. In trying to understand Tapla's approaches, I have NEVER seen Tapla point anyone to a scientific publication that supports his opinions. I have seen him post authoritative sounding quotes as he does above but I have never seen a reference that allows you to go read the larger work. I have seen plenty of people, me included, ask to be directed to those references or the experiments/experience that support his statements only to be ignored by Tapla, which in my professional world as a scientist is a sin second only to lying about data. Not good. Certainly in science, and I believe in most aspects of life, there is true value in sharing sources of information when trying to solve a problem or transmit knowledge. I try to do this in all my posts and I happily note others do too. Sharing information sources provides everyone with the opportunity to review positions based on shared information. ALL of us get things wrong from time to time. Providing people with the body of information you used to get from A to B empowers anyone who wishes to review the thinking and point out any apparent mistakes or short-comings. Tapla's routine refusal to direct anyone to source material has a very direct underlying message. A person who does this sort of thing is saying by his/her action that he/she believes you are too stupid to read source material or examine how a particular experiment was performed and come to your own judgment. He/she is saying by his/her action that he/she is privy to knowledge that only he/she can understand and interpret. As insults go, it is very demeaning. I hope everyone recognizes that this insult is directed at each and every person that reads this forum. At another level, it is a power game that puts the individual with a "superior knowledge" which is unattainable to the rest of the poor souls out there in a position to always have the last word. As I said above, it is a behavior that there is NO tolerance for in science. Fortyonenorth, you ask what my issue is with Tapla. It is his behaviors that I describe above. He constantly portrays himself as scientific and then behaves in a manner that NO ONE in science has any tolerance for and is DEEPLY offensive and insulting to anyone who cares about science. In the initial part of Tapla's response to a post of mine on the Figs 4 Fun forum, he for whatever reason found it necessary to recite some of his credentials rather than agree with or disagree with or even discuss the substantive points I had raised in that post. Credentials do not make statements correct or incorrect. If an explanation to a question is correct, I do not believe it matters whether it came from someone who never graduated from high school or someone who earned a PhD from Harvard. My understanding is that a primary purpose of this and similar forums to share experiences and information to help each other have better growing experiences. Part of that process should be discussion from shared information sources and rational disagreement if needed. When the issues have a scientific component or are informed by my practical experiences, I will try to add to the discourse. Sorry to go on so. Good luck with your gardens!

Cuttings often go into very small containers, and if we are dealing with gritty mix, it's very hard to keep small containers properly watered. You have to water way too often for most people, or put the pots into a very humid environment till the cuttings are well-rooted. You COULD root into something other than gritty mix the plants will be growing in as adults - it could be water, perlite or a perlite-based mix, whatever), but then the plant has to deal with the shock of being transplanted into a very different medium if you want gritty for them. I do not have lots of experience, but even theoretically it does not sound appealing to me at all to do this when the plant needs all its energy to grow, not to adjust to the new medium. Remember your last house move - was that a fun experience? Exactly. So, I do the next best thing I know to minimize medium changes - the rubbermaid greenhouse thing I've learned on these forums. I put mine on a heating pad as I'd like to crank the temp up a bit. Humidity inside is really easy to maintain at any constantly high level, so then gritty mix is not a problem in small containers. I find watering does not need to be done till day 6 or so in gritty mix because of the high humidity. It works well for me and the cuttings. 11 of 12 different hoya cuttings have rooted by the end of week 3, and the last one is doing fine above ground, just taking its time underneath, I guess. 22 more cuttings are coming this week, so I'll have a bigger statistical sample soon. :-) Then when they are well rooted, gradually peel back the plastic cover like an inch a day or whatever and start treating them like adult plants, and that is all the change the plants have to deal with - much less drastic than repotting, and easier for you, too. Even when you do need to repot, plants barely blink when the type of medium is not changed. Speaking of gritty mix in small containers - I would not use those for plants with roots either, except maybe cacti/succulents - those may be fine. I just can't water that often and a couple of plants are really struggling with me in those situations while absolute majority of my other plants love gritty mix. Some notable exceptions are most calatheas, alocasia poly and tradescantias (zebrina and spathacea) - all of those love constantly moist medium, which looks like I cannot provide in gritty mix (I kind of draw the line at watering every three days). It's a fun experience learning all these things practically, and I hope it helps.

Soil-less is hydroponics. Organics is a scam. Chemical fert is salts. Organics need to be broken down to the same salts that chemical fertilizer is made of before plants will absorb them. i have no problem with organics but it's not better than chemicals. Urine is organic feces is organic dead rotting animals is organic household ammonia is organic anything grown with artificial light, even just sprouted seeds, is not organic. Organic trees can be non organic trees fed organics only for a year. So something like grapefruit that takes 15 months to grow can start growing on chemicals, switched over, and be sold as organic.

What do you have them growing in now? If a standard potting medium, then you're using a soilless medium, too. The quality between potting mixes is highly variable. My preferred mix is one that is mostly bark fines, plus peat and perlite. It drains rapidly, and is extremely porous thus promoting a robust root system. That means, of course, equally fast growing top growth! Nothing should sit in water all of the time, by the way.