Development and Harvest Yields of Greenhouse Tomatoes in Six Orgnaic Growing Systems

[Microbeman]

And hydrolyzie fish was what 2%? That is the Total Nitrogen express on a wegight percntahge basis. Of that I thoguth ammonium as repored (by the gram) as was nitrates (by the gram)? I need to look at that again.

I just pulled this from Neptune's website, in keeping with the 'theoretical statement' that what is stated as the NPK analysis is indeed the percentage of potentially ionic nutrient which we discussed by email. I've avoided reading through the tomato paper which I assume is what you are referencing because it is excessively boring FMPOV and I have so many better things to read and do. Tell me, if they state an ionic value for an organic substance which varies from the stated NPK analysis, do they justify this or do they just make reference to someone else's standard (e.g. Smith 1986). If they do just make such reference have you tracked it down and verified it as fact or is it just one of those other statements out there (e.g. average weights for bacteria/fungi; organic molecules are assimilated by leaf stomata, etc.) [everything I said might be a pile of *** because I am guilty of not researching this]

Edit: Okay, quite obviously I am full of ****. I read through the tomato paper and it was obviously not what you were referencing regarding ionic values of the fish hydrolysate. Also the high representations I mentioned previously I had confused with the conventional chemical fertilizers used in the experiment. Shame on me for commenting before I know what I'm commenting on. So, where are the NPK organic fertilizer values you are referencing 2ndtry?

 

[secondtry]

Hey Dave,

Secondtry, what do you do with the pine bark fines that pass through the 2mm screen? Im still screening through the 3.5mm screen, and I have no clue how much will pass through the 2mm screen.

I have composted it and used it as mulch and used as ground cover.

If its alot, Id feel like im wasting money, if I didn't use it.

Yea but how much money in the longer run? I am not sure it depends upon each grower, but considering the cost of buying medical cannabis I don't mind too much.

I was thinking once I run out of compost, I could use it as a substitute. Maybe 7.5% EWC, and 2.5% Fines.

Sure, that sound like it may work, maybe mix both together (with some lime) before hand(?). You seem pretty adapt at testing AP, CC, etc so that's a good route to go with testing.

Edit:

I decided to test the AP of the nursery mix screened through the 4mm, and I got 12%. It looks like Ill be doing the sift through 2mm. I was hoping I wouldn't have to haha. Sifting isn't fun

Well, Ive sifted some through the 2mm and tested for AP. It came out at 33%. Huge difference those fine particles make. Once I get some EWC, compost, azomite, and dry organic nutes in there Ill retest it.

Wow, that's a cool report, thanks a ton! I had not measured the difference before, only after screening out < 2mm particles. Very cool, thanks. You are adding humic acid too right? The CEC of your media should be pretty good (~20-40 meq/liter or greater (?)) once you have it all mixed up, as should the bulk density, nice.

Did I send you the PDF on how to do the ash test to find the % OM of media? It's easy to do and worth knowing IMO. I can attach it if I have not done so.

Ill do a test with and without perlite, to see what type of results I get. Like you already said, perlite isn't necessary with APBF if it has been screened. Looking like that already.

Great, thanks.

 

[Microbeman]

Please see my edit in previous post

 

[Microbeman]

If you can post paper titles, author or keyword I can get it tomorrow if MrFista doesn't have time.

I believe some are cited in some of the articles I emailed to you.

 

[MrFista]

Sure, post some titles.

I'm fully aware of soil food web, tims awesome and ongoing work, read most of the compost tea list, etc etc etc.

Far as I know - there's still disagreement over how to assay numbers of soil organisms.

Look at archaea - they're everywhere, where's the soil food web information - there is practically nothing. A whole kingdom just not there. What good is that to me really?

I'm here because I will learn from it. Science, methodology, everything adds to the big picture. I don't really care less about potting mix I've overcome that learning curve ages ago to the extent I'm happy with my efforts.

But I totally understand your desire to make a superior mix and if you do I'll be learning from and using that information as well though most of it will not apply due to your localised shopping habits.

If there are studies bringing this information together already, please define your point of difference why we should repeat the same procedures? More data is all good, and... ?

IMHO...

The hardest part of creating a designer "organic" mix re: biofilm/microbial mix, is introducing organisms not naturally occuring in the development of the film. Trying to change anything in an established system. Once the neighbourhood is full you got to kill something to make room for newcomers.

To this extent I think the real results in creating superior soil will be through the development of a 'potting soil food web' that is symbiotic, mutualistic, commensal, and agressive towards outsiders.

And feeding and housing them in prime real estate. The real estate, I believe, is the easy part.

I been wrong before.

 

[Microbeman]

A quick word about unidentified acronyms. I think they are getting out of hand and should at least be identified at the beginning of a thread or when first used in a thread to assist novice readers. I have recently used a couple arbitrarily to press my point. For example in this thread, to the best of my observation (TTBOMO) the acronym AP was used and it was mentioned that it had been measured, yet I could find nowhere at its introduction where it was identified. In terms of soil and growing AP can mean;
AP - Avaiable phosphorous
AP - Acid phosphatase
AP - Area percentage
AP - Apparent photosynthesis
Ap - tilled or disturbed topsoil
AP - Alternating polarization
AP - Air Porosity
AP - Aged Pine (just kidding on this one)

I know there are some well established acronyms which should be exempt, like CT, ACT, EWC, EM, pH, etc.

What I am trying to be about here and in life is a conduit to plain language and lay understanding.

 

[Dave Coulier]

Hey Dave,



I have composted it and used it as mulch and used as ground cover.



Yea but how much money in the longer run? I am not sure it depends upon each grower, but considering the cost of buying medical cannabis I don't mind too much.




Sure, that sound like it may work, maybe mix both together (with some lime) before hand(?). You seem pretty adapt at testing AP, CC, etc so that's a good route to go with testing.





Wow, that's a cool report, thanks a ton! I had not measured the difference before, only after screening out < 2mm particles. Very cool, thanks. You are adding humic acid too right? The CEC of your media should be pretty good (~20-40 meq/liter or greater (?)) once you have it all mixed up, as should the bulk density, nice.

Did I send you the PDF on how to do the ash test to find the % OM of media? It's easy to do and worth knowing IMO. I can attach it if I have not done so.




Great, thanks.

Go ahead and provide me the ash link. Ill try that out as well.

Humic acid will be provided in liquid form via GO's diamond black. Ive thought about trying out Rich Earth, but I imagine if you aren't using it, then it must not be so great. Unless of course, you haven't heard of it, but Im pretty sure you are omnipotent at this point.

http://www.richearth.net/

 

[Microbeman]

Sure, post some titles.

I'll try to pick some out. I just noticed reference to them in passing.

I'm fully aware of soil food web, tims awesome and ongoing work, read most of the compost tea list, etc etc etc.

Far as I know - there's still disagreement over how to assay numbers of soil organisms.

I believe the most simplistic method should be used which is a number/volume and or volume/volume count meaning how many of each group of organisms per ml or cubic cm or how many cubic micrometers (um) of organisms there are per ml or cubic cm.

Some measurements given now calculate the weight (mass) of bacteria and fungi using a set of established averages. Then a mass/mass value is expressed, Because different bacterial/archaeal and fungal species have widely varying mass (weight) values, I see a potential problem with this.

The other problem I see only relates to counts of protozoa in compost tea, wherein the protozoa are cultured over a number of days and the final count is associated with a brew time for commercial (tested) brewers. Obviously the protozoa should be counted on the day (hour) of arrival, not after 5 days of excysting (hatching out) and multiplying.

Look at archaea - they're everywhere, where's the soil food web information - there is practically nothing. A whole kingdom just not there. What good is that to me really?

You are so right. [look to the Vigdis Torsvik team for progress in this realm]
I use the term bacteria/archaea because they are indiscernable via compound microscope observation. I hope to get the necessary equipment and learn to use DNA testing procedures one day.

I don't really care less about potting mix I've overcome that learning curve ages ago to the extent I'm happy with my efforts.

This is kinda my take as well but I am intrigued by the research aspects of exploring the concepts and would wish to challenge EJ to my own concoctions just to see.

I'm interested in the pore size and predation issue. I've got video footage of ciliates squeezing through very narrow spaces to feed.

 

[secondtry]

Hey MM,

I don't have much time right now but I wanted to respond to you post, you have a good point. I am not a huge fan of acronyms but they are very useful, I think maybe you missed my post on the 3rd page? (I will move it to the first page, you have a good point)

A quick word about unidentified acronyms. I think they are getting out of hand and should at least be identified at the beginning of a thread or when first used in a thread to assist novice readers. I have recently used a couple arbitrarily to press my point. For example in this thread, to the best of my observation (TTBOMO) the acronym AP was used and it was mentioned that it had been measured, yet I could find nowhere at its introduction where it was identified. In terms of soil and growing AP can mean;
AP - Avaiable phosphorous
AP - Acid phosphatase
AP - Area percentage
AP - Apparent photosynthesis
Ap - tilled or disturbed topsoil
AP - Alternating polarization
AP - Air Porosity
AP - Aged Pine (just kidding on this one)

I know there are some well established acronyms which should be exempt, like CT, ACT, EWC, EM, pH, etc.

What I am trying to be about here and in life is a conduit to plain language and lay understanding.

This is from my other post:
https://www.icmag.com/ic/showpost.php?p=3192959&postcount=33
-----------------------------------

Here is an edited excerpt from a (working) paper I have been writing for some time:
(to all: this is info is copy-written by me, do not re-distribute this info in a non-free platform (e.g., a book, magazine, etc)

Quote:

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Acronyms taken from:[/FONT]

• [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]William C. Fonteno[/FONT]
  “[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Problems & Considerations in Determining Physical Properties of Horticultural Substrates”[/FONT]
  ​

• [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Fonteno, et al.[/FONT]
  “[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Procedures for Determining Physical Properties of Horticultural Substrates Using the NCSU Porometer”[/FONT]
  ​

• [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Drzal, et al.[/FONT]
  “[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Pore Fraction Analysis: A New Tool for Substrate Testing” [/FONT]
  ​

• [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Gojo, a.k.a, Ganja Din, a.ka., Secondtry[/FONT]
  “[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Soil Science Multi-Disciplinary Integration: Review, Identification and Development of an Ideal Substrate for Higher Plants and SFW”[/FONT]
  ​

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]MC = “Moisture Content”, reported as a wet weight gravimetric unit, not volumetric, defined as WFP and used for CC, PWP, etc.[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]


[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]TP = “Total Porosity”, the sum of water filled and air filled porosity, dependent upon bulk density.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]

[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]CC = “Container Capacity”, reported as moisture content by % wet weight (gravimetric basis). Known as “field capacity” for soil, that is, the MC of media after saturation and natural drainage of water from large pores.[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]


[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]AS = “Air Space” (aka AP, “Air Porosity”) , the pores filled with air. According to Cornell U. if a media has less than 12% AS the plant will be hindered. For example, with TP at 50% the CC which will anaerobically hinder plants (calculated from 12% AS) is 38%. Both coco-coir and peat mixes have AS at or below 12%. Other reserachers (cite anmes) find 10% AS to be the the lowest limit. Pores lager than 416 microns are “macropores” and hold mostly air. AP is found as TP – CC.

[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]
[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]BD = “Bulk Destiny”, as g/cm^3 and is dependent upon TP.[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]


[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]WS = “Water Space” (aka WFP, “Water Filled Porosity” and WHC, “Water Holding Capacity”), pores filled with water are known as “capillary” pores and range from ≈ 416 to < 0.1 micron and have a water tension of 1 to > 1,500 kPa.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]

[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]AW = “Available Water” (aka, AWC, “AW Content”), water the plant can easily use and is less in quantity than AW for microbes. Pore range is ≈ 416 to 10 microns and water tension is 1-30 kPa. These pores are termed “mesopores” and hold water easily available to the roots. Traditionally AW is defined as 1-1,500 kPa and is found as so: CC - PWP; however, I propose we define AW as 1-30 kPa and calculate said AW as I describe below.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]

[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]BW = “Buffer Water”, plants can use water within this water tension range although it requires them to work harder for it and they do so under water stress. Pore range is 10-0.2 microns and water tension is about 30-1,500 kPa. These pores are termed “micropores” and hold water easily available to microbes, but not to plants. Traditionally there is no quantitation of BW, only AW as 1-1,500 kPa, thus I propose we define BW as 30-1,500 kPa and calculate said BW as I describe below.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]

[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]tABW = “Total Available and Buffer Water”, the sum of AW and BW and can be found by CC – PWP; traditionally defined as AW (1-1,500 kPa)[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]

[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]UW = “Unavailable Water”, that which is not available to the plant. Pore range is < 0.2 microns and the water tension of > 1,500 kPa. These pores are termed “ultramicropores”.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]

[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]HI = “Hydration Index”, the value given to media that reflects the wettability of media. A higher figure means easier wettability. HI compares initial wettability with CC. An HI value of ≥ 0.80 means that the soil-less media should (re)hydrate sufficiently. Media with surfactant generally have high HI of > 0.90.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]

[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]MW = “Mass Wetness”, the weight of water per weight of media on a gravimetric dry-weight basis (g/g)[/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]PAP[FONT=Times New Roman, serif] = “Persistent [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]A[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]nhydrobiotic Point”, the point at which activity of most bacteria, protozoa and nematodes ceases and the microbes enter a state of anhydrobiosis due to excessive water tension. It is defined as media at 1,500 kPa (e.g. 1.5 MPa).[/FONT][/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]FPAP = “Fungi Persistent Anhydrobiotic Point”, the point at which activity of most fungi ceases and the microbes enter a state of anhydrobiosis due to excessive water tension. It is defined as media at 6,000 to 8,000 kPa (e.g. 6 – 8 MPa).[/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]PWP = “Persistent Wilting Point”, the MC at which plant growth is not supported, when the plant will always wilt. It is defined as MC at 1,500 kPa.[/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]MCmin = The MC at which plant and most soil food web functions being to be hindered, along with reducing the rewettability of some medias such as APBF and peat.[/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]MOM = “Media Organic Matter”, the fraction of soil-less media that is organic matter (OM).[/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]EC = “Electrical Conductivity”, the relative amount of ions in a solution or slurry.[/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]pHw = The pH score for media.[/FONT]

 

[secondtry]

Oh yea,

I also always identify an acronym in it's first usage in each post if the post is unrelated to other posts where I already detailed it. For example, in the posts to MrFista I wrote "direct microscopic enumeration (DME)", so then I could use DEM as it's much easier to type.

All the best

 

[Dave Coulier]

Ive finally gotten the results from my home-made testing with Fafard Nursery Mix. Using the methods described here I came up with:

AP= 25%
WFP= 41%
TP= 66%

The WFP, and thus the TP both seem low though. I allowed the soil to air dry for 3-4 days. I tested the WFP right after I got home tonight, then I threw it in the oven for 3 hours at 170f, and it increased the WFP by 1%. Maybe I could squeeze out a little bit more moisture, but I dont think it would make a huge difference at this point.

I know you said FOF70 is the same as the Nursery Mix, just with organic nutes added, but could it be different? The NM bag says on it 80% Pine Bark, when I originally read online it was 70%. If there really is an extra 10% Pine Bark compared to FOF70, I imagine that's part of the conflicting numbers, plus human error and lack of sophisticated tools.

Im not gonna worry about it much though. Ive still got plenty of sifting to do, and still trying to assemble everything for the mix. Im hoping to replace the perlite with the Avian Granular Charcoal from Lazzari. I emailed them asking for distributors for my area. If they email me back, Ill list them here.

 

[secondtry]

Go ahead and provide me the ash link. Ill try that out as well.

Humic acid will be provided in liquid form via GO's diamond black. Ive thought about trying out Rich Earth, but I imagine if you aren't using it, then it must not be so great. Unless of course, you haven't heard of it, but Im pretty sure you are omnipotent at this point.

http://www.richearth.net/

OK I'll attach the paper to this post. And I'll PM some other papers you wanted.

I think Rich Earth seems fine, I just like the liquid I can get with low pH; but I would use other humic acid (powered or dry) if I didn't have access to the low pH humic acid.

HTH

 

[MrFista]

Hi MM

you wrote "look to the Vigdis Torsvik team"

If you have a specific publication or database I'm keen to take a real good look.

We had a lecturer specialised in 'organisms that plants convince to do things for them'. Quizzed her on MHB. She knows all about them in orchids, and little else. Her lectures are not for a couple of months yet I'm sure some nice details will arise.

Wont see me much here for a bit (a blessed break) I'm absolutely engrossed in an ecology paper and the thought provoking professor who is affecting me and other classmates most profoundly.

Oh yes AP - aquaponics of course!

 

[secondtry]

Hey Dave,

Ive finally gotten the results from my home-made testing with Fafard Nursery Mix. Using the methods described here I came up with:

AP= 25%
WFP= 41%
TP= 66%

The WFP, and thus the TP both seem low though.

Yea they do seem kind of low, WFP (i.e. CC) should be at least 55%, up to about 70% is fine with about 65% as ideal and TP should be at least about 70%.

Dave wrote:

I allowed the soil to air dry for 3-4 days. I tested the WFP right after I got home tonight, then I threw it in the oven for 3 hours at 170f, and it increased the WFP by 1%. Maybe I could squeeze out a little bit more moisture, but I don't think it would make a huge difference at this point.

I find that method to be a bit error prone (not in calculation but in the process), it's a great method but I have trouble with it sometimes.

I would suggest you oven try at 105'C (221'F) for 24 hours; that's a standard temp/time.

Dave wrote:

I know you said FOF70 is the same as the Nursery Mix, just with organic nutes added, but could it be different? The NM bag says on it 80% Pine Bark, when I originally read online it was 70%. If there really is an extra 10% Pine Bark compared to FOF70, I imagine that's part of the conflicting numbers, plus human error and lack of sophisticated tools.

Yea I think your right, it could be different. And I think the website is out of date so that doesn't help. Maybe call and ask? But I think I know what your problem is, see below.

Im not gonna worry about it much though. Ive still got plenty of sifting to do, and still trying to assemble everything for the mix. Im hoping to replace the perlite with the Avian Granular Charcoal from Lazzari. I emailed them asking for distributors for my area. If they email me back, Ill list them here.

Cool. What is you mix again? (I don't remember) The only thing I can think of that would lower both the TP and the CC would be the bark in terms of not absorbing water well (when dry) and being dense, thus lowering CC and TP when tested with the method you used (which is the suggested field method).

Did you pre-moisten the pine bark before the test? Cornell suggests it before mixing media, and I find it makes huge difference. Aged pine bark is hydrophobic below 35% moisture content, so it's hydration index is low, below 0.8 (on a scale or 1.0). It's suggested to pre-moisten pine bark when making mix for plants so I think it's wise to do so when testing to replicate what would happen in vivo. You could soak pine bark for a few hours/day in water bath, this allows the bark to absorb over time, bringing it's moisture content to about 55-65%, roots can use water held within inner porosity of bark (which also affects TP and CC). In the lab most soil tests are carried out over a 3 day saturation period where the media is underwater for 3 days; but that wouldn't happen outside the lab (in vivo) so we use the method you are using. However, we would also be using pre-mositened [sic] aged pine bark when initially mixing the media and that would increase CC and TP.

EDIT: (never mind about finding water held by bark)
When calculating the media weight before drying (after finding air porosity) the media will weigh more (due to pre-soaking the bark) than if you had not pre-soak the bark, that will increase the CC and in turn the TP.

Peat is another issue like bark, in that peat when dry is hydrophobic, that is why a surfactant is used with peat...

I think pre-moisten the bark will make a huge difference. Cornell suggests putting a lawn sprinkler over a pile for a few hours to pre-moisten the bark.

GL

 

[secondtry]

Hey MrF,

I'm here because I will learn from it. Science, methodology, everything adds to the big picture. I don't really care less about potting mix I've overcome that learning curve ages ago to the extent I'm happy with my efforts.

But I totally understand your desire to make a superior mix and if you do I'll be learning from and using that information as well though most of it will not apply due to your localised shopping habits.

That is why I like to give the "why's", if someone understands why something is used, or why it's the size it is they are more likely to succeed in making their own media mix the fits pre-defined criteria even if using different components to make the media. The goals of 15-30% AP, 55-70% CC, 70-85% TP, 5.5-6.5 pH and 1-15 kPa water tension are very useful when making ones own media, especially if using the method DaveC is using to test media porosity...it's really pretty fun and geeky, right up your ally!

MrF wrote:

If there are studies bringing this information together already, please define your point of difference why we should repeat the same procedures? More data is all good, and...?

To me we should test because most of us add ACT (in one form or another), or add biologically rich compost, EWC, etc. Thus our results could possibly be very different from that of the studies MM referenced; their results could be less then applicable to our situation. I am going to read those papers MM sent me today, I've been stuck writing about photons for the past few days...

MrF wrote:

IMHO...

The hardest part of creating a designer "organic" mix re: biofilm/microbial mix, is introducing organisms not naturally occuring in the development of the film. Trying to change anything in an established system. Once the neighbourhood is full you got to kill something to make room for newcomers.

I don't follow you. When you first use a designer organic media there should be very little biofilm (except from compost, etc, I assume). Once we add life (e.g. ACT) biofilm can build up in media (generally around bacterial communities) and the 'life' should proliferate, self-controlling the species diversity and number as long as we provide a proper environment (ie. water, air, pH, etc). If media soil food web assays under a microscope show a complete soil food web I don't' see a reason to add more ACT (for more microbes). I agree that once media has a functioning and self-regulating soil food web there seems little reason to add more microbes (ie. with ACT).

To this extent I think the real results in creating superior soil will be through the development of a 'potting soil food web' that is symbiotic, mutualistic, commensal, and agressive towards outsiders.

To me, by creating a mix ideal for soil food web we are doing exactly that: we are allowing the soil food web (e.g. from ACT) to form and grow on it's own which offers the synergistic connections and protection from "outsiders" you seek. I don't think we should strive to control the soil food web, we should simply offer the microbes the best home we can; that is my goal anyway. (and of course we need to feed the bacteria and fungi).

And feeding and housing them in prime real estate. The real estate, I believe, is the easy part.

I been wrong before.

I agree, however I see them as two separate issues. My media is not meant to feed them per say, nor the plant. It's meant to house them, the majority of feeding (archaea, bacteria and fungi) is up to the grower. The addition of bat guano is to jump-start N-cycling through mineralization and the phosphate is to lower the C ratio of media, microbes needs P just like they need N (tho they don't need as much P as they do N).


All the best, thanks.

 

[secondtry]

Hey MM,

Edit: Okay, quite obviously I am full of ****. I read through the tomato paper and it was obviously not what you were referencing regarding ionic values of the fish hydrolysate. Also the high representations I mentioned previously I had confused with the conventional chemical fertilizers used in the experiment. Shame on me for commenting before I know what I'm commenting on. So, where are the NPK organic fertilizer values you are referencing 2ndtry?

Let me find them and I will post, I remember reading the EC values too. Also from the email I sent you yesterday I should be able to get answers to your question.

All the best

 

[secondtry]

Hey Dave,

Not to make it sound like you didn't test correctly, but how moist was your media before you tested the porosities? Not only about pre-moistened bark, but peat too, etc? I ask because with the method you are using the media should not be dry (due to the hydration factor and so media doesn't need to be soaked for 3 days). I know you are using the worksheet from OSU, and I know you posted the link to the how-to HTML page, but I thought I would re-post the how-to for people reading because the worksheet you linked has little explanation.

Here is step two from the how-to by OSU:

2. Fill the container with a relatively moist media so that it easily accepts water. Fill to the same level you would normally fill the container, and firm the media similar to when potting.

​

@ all,

here a how-to for easily testing porosity of media:

1. "Physical properties of container media"
James Altland, Ph.D.

(his info on water tension by pore size is not accurate, but most everything else looks correct)
http://oregonstate.edu/dept/nursery.../physical_properties/physical_properties.html



2. "How to determine physical properties of a container media"

(the step-by-step guide)
http://oregonstate.edu/dept/nursery...etermining_container_physical_properties.html​

 

[Dave Coulier]

Secondtry, I definitely didn't really presoak them much. When I get my all my mix components, Ill mix up a small pot, do the drying out, then pre-moisten them. Whats your preferred method of soaking them indoors, and for how long?

Im actually thinking about using some of the pine bark fines screened through the 2mm as a partial peat replacement. After looking through the 2-4mm pine bark, I dont see a whole lot of peat. I noticed when sifting, most of the peat was in small moist clumps. I had to rub it across the screen to get it to go through.

Currently this is my mix:


72.5% Pine Bark Fines 2-4mm
10% Pine Bark Fines below 2mm
5% Compost
5% EWC
5% Zeolite
2.5% Azomite

I have to ration my azomite as I only have 5 lbs of it. No place around here sells it, so I have to buy online, and shipping on a 50lb bag is gonna cost a pretty penny. Ill know for sure if Im using any of the fines below 2mm after making up a test batch. I still haven't heard back from Lazzari about their granular charcoal, so I haven't included it in the mix. Maybe Ill get the Vee-Go stuff If I can't get any info out of them. It seems business just dont like to respond to emails from customers/potential customers now a days.

 

[secondtry]

Hey Dave,

I soak aged pine bark in a big plastic tub if doing it indoor. I soak for around 24 hours, but I also add a surfactant to the water I soak the bark in, and I add hydrolyzed fish to the soaking water too.

Using small bark sounds fine, tho it will hold a bit less water. I would up the compost to replace some of the peat instead of using all bark < 2mm to replace the peat. Using peat larger than 4mm shouldn't be a big deal as long as it doesn't make up a large portion of the media.

I think you are overusing the azomite and zeolite. They are to applied by the total weight of media being mixed (before watering media and pre-soaking bark), or by volume if it's easier (but by weight is more commonly used).

You might use the following mix, you could mix it up as is (dry bark fines) and weigh it. Then find 5% of the weight for zeolite and 2.5-5% of the weight for azomite, mix them in and use for plants. Alternatively you could add azomite and zeolite by volume to the total media mixed together.

70-75% pine bark fines
5-10% compost
5-10% EWC
5-10% pine bark fines < 2mm

• 5% zeolite (by volume or weight of media)
• 2-5% azomite (by volume or weight of media)

P.S. I wouldn't add zeolite or azomite to media you are going to test for porosity. Save them for the mix you are going to use for plants.

HTH

 

[secondtry]

@ Dave,

I didn't see dolomite or calcidic limestone powder in your list. Are you adding one or the other? (if only using one then dolomitic lime is the better choice, using both however is ideal). For 100% aged pine bark a dolomite limestone powder application rate of 5-10 lbs/yrd^3 is suggested to raise pH to 5.5-6.5. For my media I plan to use about 5-8 lbs/yrd^3 (or 1-3 lbs/ft^3), I plan to start with an application of 5 lbs/yr^3; I would suggest the same for you. I plan to test pH with the PourThru method and the suggested by Cornell.

HTH