Good Growing Practices - an Overview for Beginners

I'm glad you showed a picture of the medium you use because turface comes in two sizes. One is a powdery mix and the other is larger. I'm getting the larger assuming the thats what in the picture, I am also getting some vermiculite to add.

Yes - if you want Turface, ask for 'Turface MVP' or from John Deere dealers it's packaged as 'Turface Allsport'. Vermiculite lacks structural stability, something I'm trying very hard to impress the importance of on thread followers. It's very water retentive and breaks down into small particles easily. I use a wide variety of ingredients for soils, but almost never use vermiculite. I have a 3 cu ft bag that is 15 years old & still more than 3/4 full. In almost all cases, perlite is more appropriate for container media.

Al

Oops - I actually meant to post this picture of the little __________. It's a better picture of the plant a little older & recently pruned a little. Know what it is?

Al

Hi Al,
Is it a begonia?
Linda

Hi Al, it is a very pretty plant.

I was looking up the 'Turface', specifically where I could find it in my area. I ended up on the turface website, looking at a spec sheet. Not to say I'd want to substitute, but it looks very similar to a floor absorbent, correct?

Smileymom, Try some of your landscaping companies, thats where I found mine. It comes in a #50 bag for around 22.00
Acts

Pilea microphylla 'Variegata Tricolor' aka variegated tricolor artillery plant.

Linda - Some floor absorbents can be substituted, if the size is appropriate and the material has been fired at high enough temps that they're stable. To test, freeze them in a plastic class or dish overnight. Thaw the next day & see if they retain their structure. Some floor absorbents are calcined (fired at high temps) diatomaceous earth, and some, like Turface are calcined Montmorillonite clay. When the topic is container soils, size is important. Ideal for the gritty mix are particles in the 1/8" size range, with the bark being a little larger @ 1/8-1/4 or so. For the 5:1:1 mix, the bark should be from dust size to about 3/8".

Try the John Deere dealer @ 385 Crosspoint Pkwy in Getzville [(716) 568-1440] for Turface Allsport. If you're interested, you should be able to find Gran-I-Grit crushed granite in grower size at elevators or feed stores catering to those with farm animals, but not the big box stores.

Al

Keep checking prices. You should be able to get it for a little more than just half that. I paid less than $10/bag for the last half pallet I got.

Al

The colors are so vivid in your plants. I am working on changing my soil composition. Just have to obtain all the ingredients.

Thanks for the nice compliment, Peg.

I find many of the growers I talk to decide they'd like to start growing in soils like I use, and I think that's great. If you happen to be struggling in your ability to keep your plants happy, deciding to change to a more open soil (one with superior drainage/aeration) is probably the singular decision most likely to result in significant progress. I also find that often, growers get really excited about the recipes and in a hurry to get started. If you go about it at your own pace, you're much less likely to get frustrated if you can't find things. Late fall and early winter aren't the easiest seasons to find pine bark of a favorable size, but I think that's where you should start your search. That way, even if the Turface and grit are elusive, you can always fall back on the bark-based mix I posted a picture of in my first post 10/29 upthread. They're both excellent soils for houseplants, and I use the 5:1:1 bark-based mix for all my mixed container plantings scattered through the gardens & on the decks.

I guess I would hope that you don't get frustrated too quickly and that you don't lose site of the fact that I'm selling (that is, recommending) a concept rather than recipes. The recipes are simply the best ways I've discovered to implement the concept.

Take care. Hope to ttyas.

Al

I am planning on finishing up with what I have before purchasing more. A friend gave me about 5 lbs. of potash this summer. I have been adding it to the bottom of my container pots before adding in soil. It's still too early to decide whether or not this helped.

I also have azelea ferterlizer and am reluctant to use it since I don't have azeleas. I do have one camilia that I spinkle lightly with it though.
Hate to see it wasted.

Hello,

I have spent the last few days reading and taking notes on all the information you have given here.I was noticing in your pictures you grow succulent and cactus.How does the fertilizer change for them? Most cactus-succulent fertilizer is something like 2-7-7.

The plants in your pictures are just beautiful !!!

jo

Peg - I talked upthread about the importance of following a good nutritional supplementation program. I'm not sure if it was on this thread or somewhere else where I cautioned against using a little of this and a little of that because someone thinks it might work. Far more often than not, those elements or compounds aimed at supplying a singular nutrient (in your case with the potash it's K [potassium]) end up being a limiting factor, rather than a benefit. If your plants don't exhibit recognizable symptoms of an actual K deficiency, adding the extra potash is going to unnecessarily contribute to what is dissolved in the soil solution. The more there is dissolved in the soil solution, the harder it is for plants to absorb water and nutrients. PLUS, if you have WAY too much potash (which isn't hard to do) it can cause antagonistic deficiencies of other nutrients.

What makes a fertilizer appropriate for various plants doesn't have anything to do with what's ON the box (label). It's the NPK %s and the ratio of nutrients to each other that determines what's appropriate. There is nothing special in azalea fertilizer that makes it particularly good for azaleas. It's probably 30-10-10 with urea as the nitrogen source so the urea can produce an acid reaction as it breaks down.

Hi, Jo - thanks for the kind words. Who says that cacti or succulents prefer 2-7-7 or something similar? (I'm smiling - not being confrontational - sort of a poke in the ribs.) They USE nutrients in about the same ratio as other plants, so it's difficult to envision how someone could make a case for providing nutrients in a ratio other than that which they use. We know that plants use about 6X more N than P, and about 3/5 as much K as N .... this is on average, but the range of variation is very small.

I gave Nitrogen, because it is the largest nutrient component, the value of 100. Other nutrients are listed as a weight percentage of N.
N 100
P 13-19 (16) 1/6
K 45-80 (62) 3/5
S 6-9 (8) 1/12
Mg 5-15 (10) 1/10
Ca 5-15 (10) 1/10
Fe 0.7
Mn 0.4
B(oron) 0.2
Zn 0.06
Cu 0.03
Cl 0.03
M(olybden) 0.003
To read the chart: P - plants use 13-19 parts of P or an average of about 16 parts for every 100 parts of N, or 6 times more N than P. Plants use about 45-80 parts of K or an average of about 62 parts for every 100 parts of N, or about 3/5 as much K as N, and so on.

If we use 2-7-7 as an example, we know that because all plants use about 6X more N than P, that 2-7-7 supplies about 10.5X as much P as the plant can use relative to N, and more than 5X as much K. As I mentioned to Peg earlier in this post, and because we all fertilize as a function of the plant's N needs, the excess P and K will unnecessarily contribute to what is dissolved in the soil solution. The more there is dissolved in the soil solution, the harder it is for plants to absorb water and nutrients.

It's only when I'm intentionally trying to manipulate a plants growth habit that I use a fertilizer OTHER than one in a 3:1:2 ratio, and that is for ALL my plants. For review, 3:1:2 ratio fertilizers include 24-8-16, 12-4-8, 9-3-6, and a fertilizers RATIO of nutrients to each other is far more important to sound nutrition than its NPK %s.

I think there are not many ways to become a good grower. The best way, is by paying your dues and gaining a good understanding of the intricacies of how plants grow and interact culturally with their surroundings. That takes time. In the meanwhile, new growers can advance in their abilities very quickly by following the direction of someone who does understand some of the intricacies. This may not make a new grower proficient in the true sense of the word, but it can help circumvent a lot of initial frustration and increase the satisfaction:effort quotient while in the process of refining understanding.

All of the information you need to be an accomplished container grower fits together like a jigsaw puzzle that is under assembly. Each of the pieces are somehow connected to the other pieces - either directly or extraneously, but they ARE all connected. If ever you’ve put a jigsaw puzzle together, you probably remember that it’s easier when you try to get the outer 'frame' together first. This outer frame is representative of an understanding of the most basic knowledge that is needed for success. Of the basic knowledge, most important is an understanding of how the soil/water relationship works & how the individual soil components interact as they relate to the whole. Basically we need to understand that a healthy root system is required if the plant is to be healthy. Then, and easier to understand are a very few additional issues like the importance of light to your growing experience, how fertilizers work and what fertilizer is most appropriate ……. We also need at least a very basic understanding of how some of the other cultural conditions might affect plant growth/performance. Once the grower has this essential understanding in grasp, that is to say the framework of the growing puzzle completed, assembling the rest of the pieces will occur at a rate exponentially faster than the rate at which you progressed at the outset of your growing experience. Unless this basic framework is complete, we’re basically relying on trial & error, which is certainly no short cut to success.

Al

Thanks for clarifying that Al. ^_^ I kind of-sort of get the fertilizer thing, without getting all the math.

A picture perfect plant. And a perfect picture of the plant!

Thank you once again for clarifying fertilizers for us. Guess I should take an inventory of what I have and begin there. Please throw in any additional information and feed our minds. This opens so many doors.

Ohh, thanks! You guys are very kind. As you have questions or comments, I'll be glad to add my comments or answer to the best of my ability ..... and I'll try to keep things as easy to understand as possible. My hope is that, together, we might help you isolate and eliminate some of the factors that are limiting, while providing an understanding of what actually makes them limiting.

Al

Thanks so much for the answers and information Al,

We have been discussing "store bought fertilizer, what about natural things? I have a large worm bed that I use the top portion of as "mulch" to cover beds & put under bushes during the winter.Not the worm castings but the stuff that's not completely broken down,we also till it into the ground when making a new bed.

Then there is the worm casting's, I've been told it's good for anything and I have mixed it into some potting mediums while making them.I have a friend who comes and gets worm castings & she uses it in all of her plants inside and out.

I was also given a product it's labeled on the box "kricket krap" it's labeled as being 3-2-1.What if anything could I use the latter for and what are your thoughts on worm castings?

We recently moved onto a piece of property and if I rake back freshly fallen leaves "last few years" there is what I call natures own compost.Any thoughts on uses for that?


thanks for sharing all the beautifully interesting pictures and how did you manage the last teeny tiny one?

jo

I find that last one quite amazing.

I never could understand how to collect "kricket Krap" or worm castings.
I imagine they feed the worms, then remove them to their own kennel and wait. Haaaaaaaaa!

Good question and a good opportunity for me to go a little deeper into why your choice of soils, and particularly their structure is so important to the o/a health of the planting.

I think the most important part of the message carried in this thread is that if you provide a soil that starts out as a well-aerated medium and stays that way for the life of the planting or at least the interval between repots (as opposed to just potting up), you'll have done yourself a considerable favor that will be manifest in your ability to consistently produce healthy greenery. There is a stark difference between growing in the garden and growing in containers. On a scale of 1-10, with 1 being growing in the garden and 10 being full scale hydroponic growing, container culture is probably about a 7 or 8. IOW, container culture is MUCH closer to hydroponics than it is to growing in the earth, so it shouldn't be a surprise that much of what works well and holds true in the garden, DOESN'T work well and can even be counter-productive in containers.

I think there are actually two points in your question that need to be addressed. One is, 'what do these organic soil amendments do to the soil's structure, something I think should be judiciously watched over'? The other is, 'what do/can they provide and how effective are they/can they be'?

From the structural perspective, growing in soils comprised of fine particles (peat, compost, coir, sand, topsoil ....) already presents a significant set of problems described at length above, so for best results, we would want to shy away from those soils whenever possible. Adding even more fine ingredients to your soils, like worm castings; manure, which breaks down quickly; vermipost; various meals designed to to deliver nutrients - hoof/feather/bone/horn/cottonseed/alfalfa meals .....; all add to the problem of increasing water retention and decreasing aeration in a soil that is probably already too water retentive from the outset.

From the nutritional perspective, there just is no way to make nutrients available to plants in anything resembling a favorable ratio and on schedule (so WE know what is actually available, and when) than via soluble synthetic fertilizers. It is immeasurably easier and more effective.

Before I explain, I'm going to say that I am results driven. I don't care about ideological or political arguments against soluble fertilizers. If a person wants to self-limit by allowing politics or personal ideology to take precedence over what is most efficient and best for the plant, I won't argue the point, but I will debate the issue from the perspective of what works best and most efficiently.

Using organic soil amendments in containers is fraught with uncertainty. Plants cannot absorb nutrients locked in large molecules that make up the even larger hydrocarbon chains that must first be cleaved by soil biota (soil life) before the nutrients can be reduced to an elemental form plants can take up. The problem with this scenario is that soil biota populations and activity levels fluctuate dramatically in containers. Since we depend on their numbers AND activity, their ability to make nutrients from organic sources available is very erratic. What you apply today in the form of organic soil amendments may not be available for weeks. The term 'organic soil amendments' also includes fertilizers that derive nutrients from organic sources, as that term more accurately describes them.

In comparison, when you apply a soluble synthetic fertilizer, like Foliage-Pro 9-3-6, you can be sure you're supplying nutrients that are immediately available for uptake, in the same ratio in which plants use them, and you know exactly how much is available. It doesn't get any easier. I noted there is a technical difference between a fertilizer (Miracle-Gro) and a soil amendment (feather meal), but even that point eventually becomes moot from a strictly nutritional perspective. Plants take up elements that are dissolved in the soil solution and in ionic form. What they take up are salts. As noted, the large molecules that make up hydrocarbon chains in organic fertilizers/soil amendments cannot be taken up by the plant unless the hydrocarbon chains are broken down into elemental, soluble form by soil organisms. At that point, the elements from soluble fertilizers are exactly the same as the elements from organic sources, which is why the plant could care less. At the point in time where nutrients are assimilated by plants, they are ALL soluble and in elemental form, regardless of whether they came from a dead fish, compost or a hose-end sprayer.

I'm all for easy and uncomplicated. Nutritionally, you can hardly go wrong using a 3:1:2 ratio fertilizer like MG 24-8-16 or 12-4-8, or my favorite, Foliage-Pro 9-3-6.

Thanks again to all for the kind words. The little Portulacaria afra (mini jade) is a cutting from its dad in the picture above. I saw a plant in a thimble once, which gave me the acorn idea. To grow it, I drilled a hole in the bottom of the acorn after filing the bottom flat so it would be stable. It sets in a jar top on a paper towel under lights. I water it every night with distilled water from an eye dropper, and fertilize occasionally. The acorn lasts about a year before it rots & the roots break it up.

Al

This message was edited Nov 9, 2011 1:57 PM

Good morning Al,

I was a little late getting into this conversation of information ! So I have a question that goes back to a post or 2 that you talk about your potting medium that you use and where you show pictures of your mixture.I was looking at the mixture and you said one of the important things is the size of the particles in it.

My question is what is the importance of what those particles are example: broken up pieces of terra cotta from old broken pots.(instead of crushed granite) If they are broken down into the right size are they just as effective to use.Especially if some kind of peat is being used which holds water and Terra Cotta draws out water

I'm the student in the class that will drive the teacher crazy with questions.But it's because I'm interested and want to understand your way of doing things,To successfully compare what other people think to have an informed idea on what works and what doesn't.There are a lot of theories out there!
Including my favorite plants (hoya's) like to and grow better being root bound.I've never let a plant get root bound & I always trim roots.
Ok I'm finished haha hope your day is pleasant
jo

Great questions - looking forward to answering when I have more time. Heading to work & trying to deal with a kitten that likes to walk on the keyboard for some reason. ;-)

I will say though that there are a lot of beliefs and theories that don't hold up under even casual scrutiny. One of my favorite quotes is, "The destroyer of weeds, thistles and thorns is a benefactor, whether he soweth grain or not." ~Robert Ingersoll

In some cases, dispelling horticultural myths is as much as favor as lighting the most productive paths. I'll be back later. ;-)

Al

thank you Al,

Hope your day is delightful.

Making my way through fact and myth is something I've been trying to do.But trial and error isn't the best way to do it.I don't have a plant I am willing to sacrifice to see if something will or won't hurt it.Your info. seems to come with as close to proof as I've ever seen any where.

Jo

I'm tagging along asorbing as much as I can and appreciating all the pics.

I didn't come by the information I'm sharing by trial and error because I too, recognized the futility in trying to progress at anything other than a snail's pace with trial and error in place as my only way of assimilating knowledge. There is just SOOO much going on with plants that you can't see, that it's virtually required that you have a good understanding of how plants and the associated sciences work to become truly proficient. Yes, growing is supposed to be fun, but it's also supposed to be rewarding. Unconsciously, we all seek balance in our devotion to our pastimes. Some are perfectly content to buy plants as others of theirs die, in a sort of 'revolving door' plant policy. I think most, my self included, get greater satisfaction from their ability to nurture plants and keep them healthy over the long term.

I was at a business meeting in Chicago about 25 years ago. I was bored and wandering the halls of the building on a Thu night when I discovered there was a bonsai show being set up. I was granted permission to watch, and I was immediately enthralled with the little trees in diminutive pots. I knew right then, that I HAD to learn how to create the beautiful works of art that were their little trees that looked like something just plucked from the meadow or mountainside. I went home & tried my best within the limits of my nonexistent skill set. After failing miserably because I couldn't keep my trees alive, and with no one to guide me, I set the trees aside and started studying. I learned after a while that soil science and physiology were basic requirements if I was ever to become proficient. I studied diligently for about 4 years before I felt I had enough basic knowledge to keep my plants alive and healthy.

I learned early on that your soil is the foundation of your plantings, and if you don't get the soil right, you'll be fighting it for the entire life of the planting. If you DO get the soil right, you eliminate (easily) 90% of the issues people come to this forum asking remedial help for. Almost everything I know about plants has come as an offshoot of my 25 year pursuit of proficiency at bonsai. You can see by the pictures that I have no problem keeping a wide variety of plant material healthy and attractive. It's EASY - honest; ..... as easy as a good soil, good light, good nutritional supplementation, and good watering habits. I know I can give you everything you need except the light. Several years ago, I would never allow myself the boldness to make that statement, but I have helped so many thousands to understand what it takes to be proficient at container culture, that I now feel perfectly comfortable putting myself out on THAT limb. ;-)

I usually don't spend a lot of time trying to convince anyone that I know my stuff, preferring to let the reader's perception of how everything seems to fit together perfectly make the impression. I mentioned that I was recently invited to a botanic garden affiliated with U of M to address a group of specialty growers. We talked mostly about soils, but about nutrition and other aspects of container culture as well. These were people well advanced in their education, many of them degreed in horticulture or related fields, many currently making a living in fields related to growing. There were no raised eyebrows or signs that anyone dissented with anything I offered, and the question/answer period after the presentation lasted more than twice as long as the 1 hour presentation itself. Hopefully this knowledge and the fact that I'm very often invited to address groups & clubs on a wide variety of topics will ease any anxiety you have about putting anything I say to practical use.

Your original question was about particle size and what makes the material the particles are made of important.

Particle size is important because it is usually the primary factor determining water retention. Internal porosity plays a part in the equation, but I'll get to that in a sec. We know that if the particle size is too small, that your soil holds perched water ..... and perched water kills roots - period. If particle size is too large (think of a jar of marbles), there will be so much air space that water retention will be reduced to what might be a level that requires the inconvenience of having to water more often than you're willing to. Now, a soil of ALL large particles can be VERY productive, but most aren't willing to water twice per day or more often - and it's unnecessary.

The balance point then, in particle size, seems to be at about where any perched water disappears from the soil. Fortunately, we know that perched water disappears as uniform particle size approaches that 1/10-1/8" size. A large fraction of smaller particles ensures perched water the volume of which increases as particle size decreases, and too many larger particles reduces water retention with little gain - primarily a convenience issue. So, it makes good sense to keep the particle size just a little larger than what it takes to support perched water - this maximizes water retention without suffering the consequences of a perched water table.

For those that are going cross-eyed at the technical nature of the conversation, just take from this that your soils need to be made of PRIMARILY larger particles, like pine bark, to actually realize the benefits of a soil with a reduced PWT height. This is the key issue from which most growing difficulties radiate. You can't take a peat-based soil and add bark or perlite to it and make it drain well or significantly reduce the ht of the PWT. Before anyone disagrees with this, think of a quart of pudding. Will adding an equal measure of perlite or pine bark to it increase aeration or make it drain well? NO, it won't. It's only when the perlite/bark fraction becomes 80% or MORE of the whole that we get and benefit from the larger particles in terms of aeration and drainage. The fine particles simply surround the larger particles & not much changes ...... which is why I urge growers that really want improvement to get moving & find a suitable source of pine bark, or develop a soil that is comprised of larger particles. You simply cannot expect to realize the results using soils based on peat, compost, coir, topsoil, sand, or other fine ingredients as you can with the more open soils with better aeration.

Back to your question: What the particles are made FROM, is only important from the perspective of water retention. You can grow perfectly healthy plants in crushed glass if you want to, but it doesn't hold water worth a darn and has virtually no CEC (doesn't hold nutrients well). Ideally, you'll have a soil comprised of suitably sized particles that hold MOST of their water inside the particles, leaving the spaces between particles large enough that they can't hold water and remain air-filled. Pine bark fits that bill nicely as the primary fraction of the 5:1:1 mix, as well as a fraction of the gritty mix. As noted above, Turface has tremendous internal porosity (14 acres of surface area per pound, which also endows it with excellent CEC [ability to hold nutrients]), so it holds lots of water. Combining it with the bark and crushed granite, the granite being devoid of any internal porosity, offers the grower a simple way of adjusting water retention by simply varying the ratio of Turface:granite while keeping the bark fraction at 1/3 or less.

It's hard to let go of the idea we need a rich black soil for our houseplants, but we really don't. If you give it a try, you'll find the gritty mix or even the 5:1:1 mix is much easier to grow in and much more productive.

Al

More pics as I post later, Peg. I'm at work now & can't get to my photo files. I don't think I can upload here from Photobucket?

Al

Al, in your last photo, what is the plant I circled?

Your containers are just beautiful! I hope, when I take all this information and put it to good use, I can have such beautiful containers also.

I'm tagging along right behind you, Peg and Jo!

I get asked that question a lot! It's a begonia with a rather inconspicuous bloom, but a wonderful, almost neon burgundy leaf margins. I look for it every year, but only occasionally find it. Sorry I can't name the cultivar.

Al

It's a rex begonia. I have trouble keeping the one I have alive. I learned not to use Miracle Gro on it. I use osmacote only. Right now it is back in the dormant stage (not leaves at all).

Al, you talked about screening or filtering the pink bark fines. What do you use to do this? I have used the small pink bark mulch but am not sure what pine bark fines are.

Scroll upthread to my post of Oct 29 for a picture of appropriate size pine bark. If you have trouble keeping the Begonia happy, it's almost a certainty it's not because you used MG fertilizer - unless perhaps you were using one of the 'bloom booster' formulas, which can be a problem. I use nothing but soluble synthetic fertilizers (like Miracle-Gro) in 3:1:2 ratios for everything I grow in containers - with very good results, as you can see.

I use sieves I made to screen things. Usually, I'm able to find bark for the 5:1:1 mix that doesn't need screening - like you see in the picture I mentioned. If you were going to use it in the gritty mix, it should be screened to a size between 1/8-3/8, with 1/8-1/4 being better. I'm lucky to be able to buy pre screened fir bark in 1/8-1/4 in 3 cu ft bags from an orchid supply house.

Al

Just thought I would share that you can not chop orchid bark in a Cuisinart. As soon as we get the shredder/mulcher repaired (threw a rod) I'm going to try putting my bag of orchid bark through a few times.

If I am not being too forward, would you share with us the orchid supply house you use especially if it has the micro-nutrients.
I am having a hard time finding turface, gypsum and your favorite Flo Pro (spelling?"?)

You can get Turface Allsport at the John Deere Landscapes dealer at 11148 Cloverland Ave in Baton Rouge (225) 293-6400 or the Ewing Irrigation Stores in Baton Rouge or Lafayette, or Chastant Brothers in Lafayette (337) 234-2351. You might be able to find an orchid supply house near you for fir bark. I get mine at Oakhill Gardens near Chicago whenever I visit the city. www.oakhillgardens.com They also sell Foliage-Pro 9-3-6. If you use the Foliage-Pro, you won't need any gypsum (as a Ca source) in the gritty mix.

Al

I have managed to confuse myself when making a list of what to buy.

Is Turface used in the gritty mix only? I can get 50 lbs for $18.00. She asked if I wanted a soil conditioner.

Nothing is carved in stone, but I only use it in the gritty mix. A few growers I know use it in combination with pine bark fines and a little peat as a variation on the 5:1:1 mix.

Al

Tapla,
I have a small pond and am wondering about soil to use in prefab ponds. I have tried pine bark and found it floats. I have also tried the aquatic rocks and aggregate, but am not completely pleased. Please recommend a soil for pond plants.

Aquaculture is probably a little OT, but I know that Schultz either still does or has packaged Turface MVP and labeled it as 'Schultz Aquatic Soil'. Others have used Haydite, pumice (lava rock), and various other forms of calcined clays (like Turface) or calcined DE. All aquatic soils need to do is provide adequate anchorage and some water movement through the medium.

Al

Am I the only one having a tough time finding the ingredients for the 'gritty mix'? I know I can find the chicken grit, because I have chickens... but the other two.. I have bark for my orchids, but of course they are larger pieces.

Sometimes finding the ingredients initially is the most difficult part. For Turface Allsport, try the John Deere Landscapes dealer @ 2200 Lovell in Nashville, (865) 693-3013 - or the one @ 1337 E Weisgarber Rd in Knoxville (865) 584-3566. Look for pine bark fines, soil conditioner, landscape mulch ...... The size of the bark is what's most important. You want a product that looks like one of those in the picture upthread (10/29).

Al

Tapla, do you create those frogs? I just love them. I paint frogs and turtles on rocks.

I am getting Turface MVP (14.99 for 50 lbs) today and lime. Having a hard time finding Foliage-Pro locally so I will use the lime for now. This weekend I plan on screening pine bark and turface. I think I have spagnum peat and will use Osmacote 19-6-12 on hand for my CFR which is the closest to the 9-3-6 ratio recommended.

Thanks Al, for your findings and hard work.