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

Al

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 

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.    

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

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 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.

"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.

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     

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

I don't know the various histories here but think all viewpoints should be welcome. Let people make up their own minds. I personally like it when people provide links so that I can read the sources for their opinions. If someone doesn't want to follow the links, they don't have to. Many people with or without scientific backgrounds actually prefer references and often reach different conclusions. :) If someone doesn't like a particular poster, since there isn't an ignore list here, they can skip over what they are saying.

As to the tension in this thread, well, that happens on the internet. It's one of the main reasons I don't much like Garden Web and mostly stopped going years ago. (Plus their horrible format.) Too many big fish in various little ponds having p*ssing contests - with some of the advice given quite questionable. Some people seem to like conflict. I don't - at least with my gardening pursuits. Hopefully it's not as bad as it used to be over there. YMMV.

I don't see the same thing here however. In fact that's one of the things I really like about this place - a great many people who really know their stuff, who are willing to share, and who treat each other with respect. 

Back to the serenity of tending my baby figs... 

Unfortunately, it's sounding like "deja vu all over again"!

I appreciate the sharing of information and personal experience. Some people put a lot of time and effort into helping other forum members, and I have benefitted greatly from the posts on this forum. Even when I don’t agree with a particular point of view, I still often learn something useful.

I’m not a scientist and am often not very scientific in my approach to things. I figure that if something works for me, that’s a good thing—even if I don’t understand all the reason s why it works. At the same time, the more I understand about the science behind certain recommendation, the better, so I try to learn whatever my aging brain seems capable of understanding.

I've spent a fair bit of time around people who feel passionately about one subject or another, and have noticed something that seems counterintuitive, and yet is very common. I call it the “law of small differences”. Basically, it is that people who might disagree completely on big things, like politics or religion, often get along just fine because they are careful to avoid stepping on each other’s toes, but in areas where their differences are really pretty small, such as distinctions in the finer points of growing figs, people often become less cautious about giving offense, and can quickly become seriously upset with each other. Debate can be a very good thing—it’s especially valuable to “spectators” attempting to evaluate ideas—but when it moves from discussing the merits of an idea to questioning the merits of a person, there’s rarely a positive outcome. We’ve all seen rifts form between knowledgeable forum members, and all too often it ends with someone leaving, which is a shame. A little more care about separating the person from the perspective would make for a better forum. 

ok, i don't know what kind of fig that is, but i want them.

pete

Gina,

By any chance; is that fig called "Saint Valentine" ?!?!

I have [Saint Fig(s)]:

St. Anthony,

St. Jean,

St. Jerome,

St. John (I think),

St. Pio,

St. Rita.

I couldn't agree more. A little bit of dissonance is a good thing, provided we don't play the man. Too much harmony and we'd all start mulching with fairy floss.

I have one fig, 4 months old. A St. Dominique Violette. I've a Blue Province and a White Nicolina on the way.  I'm in awe of the breadth of knowledge I find here and am grateful for those that sustain it. We can only benefit from a willingness to share.

Thanks!

By the way, did anyone read about the study that found the roots of young plants produced and reacted to sound? It wasn't Beethoven, though, lest anyone get any ideas.