It's up to you, but you have in your hands the opportunity to build a soil with more than adequate water retention for almost all growers w/o having to introduce the perched water that your soil surely has. You have a list of ingredients from which you can build a soil that goes well beyond sufficient. Please keep in the back of your mind that our discussion is also a learning experience for many of the other forum members. I obviously don't have a vested interest in what you grow in, but our discussion is a good vehicle to help others see hoe soils work and how aeration and drainage are impacted by the choice of ingredients we include in our soils.

Your soil has 7 parts that could be considered water retentive and 1 that is not (granite). Structurally, if you eliminated the Promix altogether, you would have a soil excellent aeration and water retention, actually probably more water retention than you realistically need. I grow all my succulents in equal parts of pine/fir bark, Turface, crushed granite. That is 1 part of water-retentive material, one part of moderately water-retentive material, and 1 part of nonwater-retentive material all screened to remove fines. The reason this mix works so well is because of its aeration - period.

You mentioned you have A,B, & C included in your soil for aeration, but I'll illustrate why that isn't so. Think of a mix of crushed granite, calcined DE, and Turface as if it was a jar of marbles or BBs. See all the great air spaces between the larger particles? Structurally, it's a great looking soil. With the Turface/DE/grit, you have the best of both worlds - plenty of water retention inside the particles & only air between the particles. This is a rhizosphere roots LOVE. Now, lets mix an equal volume of Promix into the recipe. Where does the Promix go? It fills every large poor with small particles and introduces a PWT that is the same ht as if you were using only Promix. You've negated the advantage you COULD have in aeration/drainage/flow-thru rate, and ht of the PWT with the small particulates.

Fortunately, the physical aspects of soil science are governed by the laws of physics, so we can predict with a great deal of certainty how various combinations will perform. I can't imagine that your mix would dry too fast if you left out the Promix and went to a small fraction of bark in its stead, based on my experience with the ingredients you have available. You're already using a much high % of water-retentive ingredients than I use, and I have hundreds of plants growing in a soil that probably holds 1/4 of what yours will hold even w/o the Promix.

The only additional advantage the DE might offer is in its silica content. It does help to strengthen cell walls and make the plant more resistant to heat/chill/predation/and disease, so by all means, keep it if you like. I know with absolute certainty that you can do better, from the plant's perspective because you're imposing limitations inherent in your soil, but if you're pleased with how things are going from your perspective, all's well. We all must admit that in the idea the soil you're using now is the best you've used in 30 years of growing, there is nothing to make us think that at any time you might discover something you think is much the superior to today's medium.

PS - the NAPA product is calcined DE and not a clay-based product.

Best always.

Al      

There is always room for improvement. I should be able to locate pine bark fines and can give it a try. I do understand what you are saying about the fines clogging the larger pieces and I suppose that is happening as you describe, however, in practice, this mix works. if I improve it any more I just may have to buy a greenhouse or move to a larger home as my plants explode in growth!! LOL I can see your passion for this subject and obviously you have the credentials to know what you are talking about. I am but a lowly hobbyist duffing my way along. We all can learn as we go.  

I know how long it took me to gather all the pieces together and assemble a good working knowledge of soil science. I also know it wouldn't have been nearly the chore it was if I'd had someone to point the way to some of the things I regularly talk about/share in a variety of settings. I KNOW that the medium is usually the biggest source of heartache and the most significant stumbling block for the average container grower. Many don't even realize that 90% of the problems they frequent the forums in search of help for are directly traceable to soil choice - even problems like insect infestations and diseases occur primarily as a result of a plant with weak defenses, caused by guess what ....... poor root health/function because of an inappropriate or less than ideal soil.

I'm not about twisting your arm to use a specific recipe. I just want everyone who is interested in being able to bring along better plants by embracing the idea that learning to build better aeration and reduce the volume of perched water in their soils to have the opportunity to listen in on conversations where different perspectives and ways of reasoning can be examined. I always hope we all come out winners. I do, because I enjoy it and get a kick from thinking I might have had a part in (the collective) your success, and hopefully you and anyone following the conversation can take away something helpful.

I hope you don't think I pushed too far. I didn't look at our conversation as a chance to disagree; rather, I saw an opportunity for anyone who doesn't already know this stuff to listen in and hopefully gain from our intercourse - so thanks for being a good sport and keeping an open mind.

Take care.

Al

I can grow a piece of a succulent "Jade" plant inside a 1/4-3/8"
hole drilled in some small contraption (e.g. a porous rock) & no soil.
At least for quite a while....

Al

Al, that is exactly the idea you had given me.
I do happen to have some (hard- very abrasive) lava-rocks.

I had bought them for my canary birds to self trim their
nails; but due one of to their uncontrolled rear-end functions,
(aka., pooping), they very soon made them useless..

There are actually some small pockets of Turface fines & peat in some depressions you can't see, but water runs right through the rock, so drainage isn't a problem - it's very porous & the roots grow right into it, too. There are 8 different plants on that little stone, including English ivy, natal plum, hen & chicks & 5 others. ;-)

Al 

As usual; thanks much AL.

I am curious about this perched water, is it the same as stagnant water?  The mix I use is mostly chc, 3 inches long by 1 inch wide and 1/4 thick.  then about half that size for about the other 70% or so give or take with very little, little pieces as well.  In the Summer time I have to water about 3-4 times a day which can be a real pain in the ass but so far it has seemed to work. 

I am just wondering where the perched water comes into play and see where I could improve it.  I have pots with side hole drains, the pot in pot could work but the pots I have in them are too flexible for that (again free) so I would need to change those which isn't a big deal.  The only thing I have started to do is leave a layer of pure chc at the bottom about 2 inches thick because I noticed that the bottoms would stay a bit wet unless it is hot outside so I thought that the chc woudl help keep it drier.

Copied/pasted from my thread on container soils at GW. I'll link to the full OP at the end:

Container soils are all about structure, and particle size plays the primary role in determining whether a soil is suited or unsuited to the application. Soil fills only a few needs in container culture. Among them are: Anchorage - a place for roots to extend, securing the plant and preventing it from toppling. Nutrient Retention - it must retain a nutrient supply in available form sufficient to sustain plant systems. Gas Exchange - it must be amply porous to allow air to move through the root system and gasses that are the by-product of decomposition to escape. Water - it must retain water enough in liquid and/or vapor form to sustain plants between waterings. Air - it must contain a volume of air sufficient to ensure that root function/metabolism/growth is not impaired. This is extremely important and the primary reason that heavy, water-retentive soils are so limiting in their affect. Most plants can be grown without soil as long as we can provide air, nutrients, and water, (witness hydroponics). Here, I will concentrate primarily on the movement and retention of water in container soil(s).

There are two forces that cause water to move through soil - one is gravity, the other capillary action. Gravity needs little explanation, but for this writing I would like to note: Gravitational flow potential (GFP) is greater for water at the top of the container than it is for water at the bottom. I'll return to that later.

Capillarity is a function of the natural forces of adhesion and cohesion. Adhesion is water's tendency to stick to solid objects like soil particles and the sides of the pot. Cohesion is the tendency for water to stick to itself. Cohesion is why we often find water in droplet form - because cohesion is at times stronger than adhesion; in other words, water's bond to itself can be stronger than the bond to the object it might be in contact with; cohesion is what makes water form drops. Capillary action is in evidence when we dip a paper towel in water. The water will soak into the towel and rise several inches above the surface of the water. It will not drain back into the source, and it will stop rising when the GFP equals the capillary attraction of the fibers in the paper.

There will be a naturally occurring "perched water table" (PWT) in containers when soil particulate size is under about .100 (just under 1/8) inch. Perched water is water that occupies a layer of soil at the bottom of containers or above coarse drainage layers that tends to remain saturated & will not drain from the portion of the pot it occupies. It can evaporate or be used by the plant, but physical forces will not allow it to drain. It is there because the capillary pull of the soil at some point will surpass the GFP; therefore, the water does not drain, it is said to be 'perched'. The smaller the size of the particles in a soil, the greater the height of the PWT. Perched water can be tightly held in heavy (comprised of small particles) soils where it perches (think of a bird on a perch) just above the container bottom where it will not drain; or, it can perch in a layer of heavy soil on top of a coarse drainage layer, where it will not drain.

Imagine that we have five cylinders of varying heights, shapes, and diameters, each with drain holes. If we fill them all with the same soil mix, then saturate the soil, the PWT will be exactly the same height in each container. This saturated area of the container is where roots initially seldom penetrate & where root problems frequently begin due to a lack of aeration and the production of noxious gasses. Water and nutrient uptake are also compromised by lack of air in the root zone. Keeping in mind the fact that the PWT height is dependent on soil particle size and has nothing to do with height or shape of the container, we can draw the conclusion that: If using a soil that supports perched water, tall growing containers will always have a higher percentage of unsaturated soil than squat containers when using the same soil mix. The reason: The level of the PWT will be the same in each container, with the taller container providing more usable, air holding soil above the PWT. From this, we could make a good case that taller containers are easier to grow in.

A given volume of large soil particles has less overall surface area when compared to the same volume of small particles and therefore less overall adhesive attraction to water. So, in soils with large particles, GFP more readily overcomes capillary attraction. They simply drain better and hold more air. We all know this, but the reason, often unclear, is that the height of the PWT is lower in coarse soils than in fine soils. The key to good drainage is size and uniformity of soil particles. Mixing large particles with small is often very ineffective because the smaller particles fit between the large, increasing surface area which increases the capillary attraction and thus the water holding potential. An illustrative question: How much perlite do we need to add to pudding to make it drain well?

I already stated I hold as true that the grower's soil choice when establishing a planting for the long term is the most important decision he/she will make. There is no question that the roots are the heart of the plant, and plant vitality is inextricably linked in a hard lock-up with root vitality. In order to get the best from your plants, you absolutely must have happy roots.

If you start with a water-retentive medium, you cannot effectively amend it to improve aeration or drainage characteristics by adding larger particulates. Sand, perlite, Turface, calcined DE ...... none of them will work effectively. To visualize why sand and perlite can't change drainage/aeration, think of how well a pot full of BBs would drain (perlite); then think of how poorly a pot full of pudding would drain (bagged soil). Even mixing the pudding and perlite/BBs together 1:1 in a third pot yields a mix that retains the drainage characteristics and PWT height of the pudding. It's only after the perlite become the largest fraction of the mix (60-75%) that drainage & PWT height begins to improve. At that point, you're growing in perlite amended with a little potting soil.

You cannot add coarse material to fine material and improve drainage or the ht of the PWT. Use the same example as above & replace the pudding with play sand or peat moss or a peat-based potting soil - same results. The benefit in adding perlite to heavy soils doesn't come from the fact that they drain better. The fine peat or pudding particles simply 'fill in' around the perlite, so drainage & the ht of the PWT remains the same. All perlite does in heavy soils is occupy space that would otherwise be full of water. Perlite simply reduces the amount of water a soil is capable of holding because it is not internally porous. IOW - all it does is take up space. That can be a considerable benefit, but it makes more sense to approach the problem from an angle that also allows us to increase the aeration AND durability of the soil.

Al

http://forums2.gardenweb.com/forums/load/contain/msg0214580016564.html

And most people call it dirt, lol at least dignify it by calling it soil, dirt uis that stuff thet gets under your fingernails. An enjoyable conversation Al and whoever else is reading. George, I have several of those lava stones planted with succulents. One of the members of my club buys the stuff, carves out planting holes and sells them, planted and empty. I've done a few myself, easy to work with. Makes a nice looking display as evidenced by Al's pic. If you want to see some of my succulents look me up on facebook I have a bunch of my Philly Flower show entries posted there.    

Is that a variety of jade by your thumb Al? I really like the frosted tender growth.

I'm not sure what it is - I think it's a sedum. Maybe someone more expert than I @ succulent ID can offer a positive ID for you - BLB maybe?

Jason - sorry for straying from the rails, here.

Al

Looks like a sedum to me too, not sure of the cultivar

Dave, As I promised, here are some references to get you into the horticultural literature on comparisons between coir dust and peat:

http://hortsci.ashspublications.org/content/29/12/1484.full.pdf

http://hortsci.ashspublications.org/content/32/5/844.full.pdf

http://www.hriresearch.org/docs/publications/JEH/JEH_1999/JEH_1999_17_1/JEH%2017-1-49-52.pdf

Here is another interesting passage about coir found in:

Thomas D. Landis and Nancy Morgan

Growing Media Alternatives for Forest and Native Plant Nurseries

USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-58. 2009

"Coir is a waste material made from the fiber in the shell of coconuts. During the late 1980s, a method was developed to process coconut husks by grinding, washing, screening, and grading. Because it is only found in tropical areas, however, its main cost is transportation. Coir is being used as a substitute for peat moss because it has a high lignin content, decomposes slowly, wets easily, and holds water. The pH of coir is ideal, ranging from 5.8 to 6.5, but the EC can be high if the husks have been stored in salt water. In this case, the product needs to be thoroughly leached with fresh water, although reputable suppliers will have already done this. Coir has a moderate CEC of 39 to 60 meq/l (less than peat moss), and can adsorb mineral nutrients (Newman 2007). Coir improves the aeration and wettability of peat media, and is an excellent root medium."

As for the some of the points Tapla brings up, sphagnum peat moss costs ~$17 for a 3.8 cu ft bag. A 14.3 lbs block of coir from Crystal Company cost me $20 delivered. I have not measured it precisely, but that block of coir expands when hydrated to a volume way in excess of the hydrated sphagnum peat moss. Even if they were equivalent in volume, I personally can afford the extra $3. As for supplying adequate calcium & magnesium to a soilless media, there are lots of ways to provide those nutrients other than using lime. I see no merit to the objections Tapla raises based on these points.

In the initial paragraph of post #41, Tapla makes the statement, "The 'sweet spot' for container media is about a full number lower on the logarithmic pH scale (closer to 5.2 than 6.2 - charts for comparison furnished on request), which means that not only would there be no room for the use of lime in coir based soils (except for plants that prefer high pH levels), but there would also be no room for the normal upward creep in pH that accompanies aging soils watered from municipal water supplies. This is all common knowledge for those with a basic understanding of soil science." Like so much of what Tapla writes, it appears to me that he has the details wrong. It also appears his "basic understanding of soil science" is seriously amiss. On page 5 of the publication "Understanding pH Management for Container-Grown Crops" by Dr. William R. Argo and Paul R. Fisher the authors write: "The pH range found when growing in plants in soilless media is much smaller than can be produced in a chemical solution.......... The typical recommended range for growing crops is even more specific, around 5.8 to 6.2." Please note the "crops" they refer to are the plants produced by the greenhouse and nursery industries for sale. Please also note the line in the quote from Landis & Morgan above concerning optimum pH. To be sure, there are plants with pH optimums below 5.8, but most plants have an optimum range as described by Argo & Fisher. There are plenty other references supporting this point in the literature. I have no idea where Tapla came-up with pH 5.2 being the optimum in soilless media, but he is clearly, badly mistaken. As for pH creep due to water alkalinity, there are lots of simple, economic ways to manage that, many of which are discussed in Drs. Argo & Fisher's publication.

 As an aside, I think Drs. Argo & Fisher's publication is excellent. I highly recommend it. It can be obtained here:

http://www.meistermedia.com/store/books.html

You can find a smaller version that is free here:

http://extension.unh.edu/agric/AGGHFL/pHarticl.pdf

I see that Tapla claims to have “a good working knowledge of soil science” but what I read from him is badly confused pseudo-science. The constant referral to perched water table (PWT) is certainly at odds with what true experts like Ted Bilderback at North Carolina State University, Michael Raviv at Newe Ya’ar Research Center in Israel and others have to say about growing in soilless media. There are scientifically established ranges for the critical physical properties for potting substrates that are recommended for the management of potting substrates under most circumstances; total porosity (TP), 50-85%, air space (AS), 10-30%, container capacity (CC) (aka. water holding capacity), 45-65%, available water (AW), 25-35%, unavailable water (UAW), 25-35% and bulk density (BD), 0.19-0.5 grams per cubic centimeter dry weight. Of those AS, CC & AW are effected by container size, while TP, UAW & BD are unaffected by container size. Which is not to say that one should not understand what a PWT is and how to manage it. In the first link below, Dr. Bilderback devotes exactly one sentence to the management of PWT in a 20 page document. I find that a crystal clear statement about where PWT falls on the list of aspects of a growing system you should be devoting your energy to managing. I hope people find the links below useful & interesting.

http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/hort/nursery/cultural/cultural_docs/substrates/container-soiless-media.pdf

http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/hort/nursery/cultural/cultural_docs/substrates/managing_container_subs.pdf

http://www.fao.org/hortivar/scis/doc/publ/8.pdf

Another publication from the first rate group at the Department of Horticultural Science at North Carolina State University linked below does discuss PWT a bit more and explains it in very practical terms. They use the classic sponge analogy published by Art Spomer in 1974 in HortScience vol. 9, page 152 which people who grow in pots might find another helpful way to understand what a PWT is. I believe anyone who reads this publication will readily come to the realization that the PWT in a container should not be a challenge to manage unless one is growing in a small, very shallow container.

http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/hort/floriculture/plugs/ghsubfert.pdf

I also see that pitangadiego transfers his rooted fig cuttings into 1 gallon pots in a mix of 60% perlite + 40% compost and ultimately transitions into a 5 gallon pot that is 100% compost. All of which, as I think I understand Tapla, should rapidly kill the trees due to the PWT. Encanto Farms would not have much of a business if that were true. I will say again, everyone can make their own choices as to what source(s) of information they use to make their growing decisions and how they choose to value those sources.

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. 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’ve chosen other approaches that work for me that Tapla contends should not, much like pitangadiego’s methods above. 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 but I have never seen a reference that allows you to go read the primary 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. In the initial part of Tapla’s response to my prior post, 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 figs!

I have to say I'm impressed ...... by the amount of time devoted to the diminishment of one person. Strong work! It's almost a Deja Vu experience ..... as if a certain person known to have an axe to grind is back - register as a new member in March and go straight to battle. Hmmm ....

First, I do care about the growers here and at other forum sites, and I think what's really insulting is the idea someone thinks they can be manipulated into believing that my posts insult their intelligence. They can decide that issue for themselves with minimal additional input from me.

Anyone can cherry pick a statement here & there from any study that seems to support their position. I'm not interested in running from site to site trying to find something that supports my position. Maybe I'm just really good at making stuff up. If that's what you think, I really don't mind. People will assign a value to my gibberish & decide for themselves whether or not they're being led down a dead end path. I've argued with people like you before, and found it to be fruitless because the underlying intent isn't light, it's heat.

Mineral soils:

Container media:

Look carefully at the green bar and see if moving it toward the more acidic (left) doesn't make all the nutrients more available.

Al

I registered to acclaim DWD2's efforts to introduce something substantive. I don't think s/he is being vindictive.

Tapla, you're clearly well meaning, but you've not given proper attribution to the graphs you've just posted. I'd be grateful if you could help me find out. I can't make sense of them otherwise. At the very least, what does the green bar represent? Lovely plants, by the way.

The green bar is the range of soil pH they were discussing. 

Dr Carl Whitcomb PhD wrote what is probably the bible on plant production in containers. I've long held that media pH is far less important than the pH of the soil solution, which makes perfect sense as the only significant/practical effect pH has is on nutrient solubility, which is dictated by soil solution pH. The hobby (container) grower has no way to realistically 'maintain' pH at a given level, even within a whole number on the logarithmic scale because of the number of factors that influence pH in container culture. It's an exercise in futility. The best the hobby grower can hope for without jumping through a lot of hoops and checking the pH of every container on a very regular basis is to be 'in the neighborhood'.

Anyway - here is what Dr Whitcomb says:

"Ten Factors to Improve Nursery Production

By Carl Whitcomb PhD, Lacebark Inc, Stillwater, OK

 CONTAINERS:

1. Micronutrient deficiencies in Containers. The pH of the growth medium means very little. If you incorporate micronutrients, they are present. If you do not, your plants suffer. Since there are few micronutrients present in the components used for container growth media, raising or lowering the pH has little effect.

Quote Al,
{I have to say I'm impressed ...... by the amount of time devoted to the diminishment of one person.}  Isn't that what you've done to Dan.

Quote Al,
{The only person I really seem to have any problem with is a guy named Dan} Aren't you being presumptuous.

Now I don't have a horse in this race but I can watch and place bets. I welcome the new information provided by DWD2. His information and sources seem knowledgeable of the products he writes about and I look forward to seeing more. I don't know what’s his line of work is or his knowledge of figs or soil mixes, but I’m sure we can all learn something from him. We also don't know the gender of DWD2 so I will just used the non-gender he.

Al, I learned things from your posting which is why I frequent this site, to get knowledge. I must say I learned a lot about mixes and PWT and things I had no idea about a few years ago. I can also say that I’ve learned a lot about figs from Dan’s postings. I really don’t see why the controversy, you seem only to concentrate on mixes and try for the ultimate one, and Dan concentrates on the growing of figs. One would think that there would not be such hard lines drawn in the sand. No “expert” is an expert, there is always more to learn, and since I’m such a novice I read and I listen and I try to put to practice what makes the most sense to me. Al,  I don’t follow your recommendations to a “T” but I have changed my soil mix. The same with Dan’s recommendations, he has provided me with a lot of good information and I put a lot of it to work. I must say that I’m being very successful and propagating fig trees. I’m not at the 100 percent level but I have a very high success rate which is very satisfying to me.

 I look forward to learning more and the more qualified participants we have the more we can learn. Just because someone contradicts your position doesn’t mean it’s an attack or all out war. Some things need to be qualified and explained.

 In closing I must say no matter how rich or poor the soil mix is I can’t eat it, but even a fig grown is less than perfect soil will still produce fruit that I can eat and enjoy.

Happy figging everyone,

“gene”

I started to say to Al that it is easy to bad mouth someone that cant even reply to that crap....But I didn't until jes now!

All I can say is that embrace what is useful and reject what is not useful.  Tapla disagrees with my potting mix and he is entitled to, I disagree with him that it's not good as it is working for me.  All I really care about in this thread is, not the couple of he said she said bull arguments (all the publications and information are great to read and pick and glean things from for sure) how this experiment goes and to see what other mixes are working for people or tweaks that need to be made etc, I'm not saying anyone is wrong, but for sure nobody is right, including myself.

I don't care if someone takes an alternate position, I'm used to that, but phrases like "He doesn't know what he's talking about - his "basic understanding of soil science" is seriously amiss. - what I read from him is badly confused pseudo-science - as I read more of his posts, I kept reading statements that were scientifically nonsensical. - 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. .... and dozens more insults smack of an axe to grind. Perhaps it's because a bad taste left in DWDs mouth after he tried the same type of strategy on the container gardening forum at GW. Making sweeping statements and promises of tomato harvests so heavy they would require cages made of concrete reinforcing wire if a certain brand of soil was used and a nutritional supplementation program was followed that didn't make much sense or gain much traction because most of what he was saying, flew in the face of the practical experience of so many, and so found most of the posters at odds with most of what was said. I stayed relatively quiet in that thread, but it was evident that DWD held ill will for some unknown reason and it's carried over to this thread. Too bad.

Al     

Thank you both: Tapla and DWD2, for your expertise in soil management.

Both arguments are informative (but different).
It is now up to all the rest of us to (possibly) experiment some more,
and stick to whatever 'works' best for us [individually].

Wish I had something clever to say to cut the tension in this thread. How about a recipe for mudpies anyone?