@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

The best tasting peppers by far are those allowed to ripen on the plant. So you have a yield vs good eating problem. I let all my peppers ripen. I simply put more plants into the ground. I run over a hundred pepper plants. I have red ripe peppers now. Chimayo and Espanola are ripe as are some others. You will love Chimayo. do a GW search on Chimayo. http://forums.gardenweb.com/forums/load/pepper/msg1020100316497.html Byron offers to send you seeds. Chimayo Chiles Posted by byron 4a/5b NH on Tue, Oct 3, 06 at 20:10 FWIW Last year and this year I went to a chile event in Indy I harvested a few Chimayo Chile peppers (last year, this year a shopping bag full) In the low heat range these were the most awesome tasting chiles I have ever tasted, I now use Chimayo's in place of black pepper. For those into heirlooms, The Chimayo was first recorded in The only land race chile recorded in the USA, Found in by Spanish explorers in Chimayo, NM. Was said that it was one of the Nu Mex parents.. I love them, got several oz packaged in about 30 seeds1/pkg, one plant is enough for a year. even for Zone 4 growers, Zone 2 or 3 ?? Wanna try some? cost you a 39 cent stamp and a SASE Byron more info below. Here is a link that might be useful: Chimayo Peppers and where to get seeds

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.

Does Perlite Play a Role in Fluoride Toxicity of Floricutltural Crops by Tammy L. Everett and Paul v. Nelson Department of Horticultural Science, NCSU http://www.schundler.com/florides2.htm CONCLUSIONS We can draw the following conclusions from this study: Perlite sources vary in their soluble levels of fluoride. The initial concentration of fluoride in leachate from the five sources of perlite used in this study ranged from 0.05 to 0.83 ppm. The higher value was potentially toxic but it did not persist. Soluble fluoride rapidly decreased in subsequent leachings to very low concentrations. If perlite was a cause of fluoride toxicity, the problem would be experienced in the initial weeks of culture. This has not been reported to be the case. Toxicity is more prevalent in later stages of the crop. Follow-up studies (data not shown) with additional perlite sources found that perlite with an initial F concentration of 1.7 ppm could be used at 50% volume of substrate to produce ‘Corsica’ Asiatic lilies without fluoride toxicity; even when pH reached 4.2! Fluoride toxicity did not occur in three fluoride sensitive crops, Asiatic lily, Tahitian bridal veil, and spider plant, when grown in substrate containing up to 50% perlite at substrate pH levels below 5. Typically the substrate pH level would be 5.5 of higher and perlite would not exceed 25% by volume. Clearly, fluoride toxicity does not stem from these sources of perlite.