Potting Mix Tests Results Abbreviated

[Handy Mick]

Grant,
Where about in the mix was the osmocote added?
Was it mixed into the mix itself or payed on the bottom, middle or tossed on top?

Mick

[Grant Bowie]

Grant,
Where about in the mix was the osmocote added?
Was it mixed into the mix itself or payed on the bottom, middle or tossed on top?

Mick

The pot is about half filled with the potting component, then the amount of Osmocote is put in and mixed lightly with the component; a little more component added, then the tree; and then the rest of the component is added to cover the root system and lightly firmed in. No Osmocote at this point in the top say 1/3rd of the potting component; only the lower 2/3rds.

We would then water it in; then water again with Seasol and a liquid fert(Power Feed or Notrosol etc at recommended dose)

grant

[Bretts]

Hi all,

Today at the collection we took all the single component growing test subjects (an ash seedling growing in the many types of potential potting media components) and photographed, bare rooted, root trimmed and potted them on into a slightly bigger pot.

The ones that had done very poorly were potted on into our standard mix.(No point flogging a dead horse) The ones that had done OK or good were potted back into their original media( same type but brand new). All had osmocote added to the mix as those without had mostly done very poorly.

I will elaborate further soon but there were some interesting results.

One noticeable difference was the root growth pattern. The ones that had had Osmocote in the mix mostly had a dense root system with lots of near surface roots. The ones that were liquid fed only tended to have roots going down into the mix or most of the roots coming from where the seedlings roots had been originally cut off.

And before you ask Brett; the attapulgite performed quite well. In fact in our test attapulgite at 100% did better than both Mt Sylvia and Maidenwell Diatomite at 100%. (Stayed wetter I think; the Diatomite certainly stays drier)

I will be getting on with the Tests tomorrow and repot the blended components growing subjects. (Most of the blends performed well by the way from just a glance today)

Grant

That's interesting Grant, I have advised people not to use attapulgite at 100% as I found it worked well in a mix but when I experimented with it at 100% with a JBP seedling I found nutrient issues that I thought was pH based. I had not used osmocote in the mix so maybe this is more evidence that I have not been fertilising my 100% inorganic mixes enough
I will keep bumbling along and hopefully I will get there before I use up all of my 1000000 Monkeys
Goes to show that we need to continue questioning everything. Just because it has not worked for you does not mean it is wrong. There are so many variables that we can't be sure we have covered them all when it does not work for us.
I do have another fig that I put in 100% attapulgite, Going well after a season but I think a big increase in fert will make a world of difference as we know how much figs love fert

[NBPCA]

Hi all,

Today at the collection we took all the single component growing test subjects (an ash seedling growing in the many types of potential potting media components) and photographed, bare rooted, root trimmed and potted them on into a slightly bigger pot.

The ones that had done very poorly were potted on into our standard mix.(No point flogging a dead horse) The ones that had done OK or good were potted back into their original media( same type but brand new). All had osmocote added to the mix as those without had mostly done very poorly.

I will elaborate further soon but there were some interesting results.

One noticeable difference was the root growth pattern. The ones that had had Osmocote in the mix mostly had a dense root system with lots of near surface roots. The ones that were liquid fed only tended to have roots going down into the mix or most of the roots coming from where the seedlings roots had been originally cut off.

And before you ask Brett; the attapulgite performed quite well. In fact in our test attapulgite at 100% did better than both Mt Sylvia and Maidenwell Diatomite at 100%. (Stayed wetter I think; the Diatomite certainly stays drier)

I will be getting on with the Tests tomorrow and repot the blended components growing subjects. (Most of the blends performed well by the way from just a glance today)

Grant

That's interesting Grant, I have advised people not to use attapulgite at 100% as I found it worked well in a mix but when I experimented with it at 100% with a JBP seedling I found nutrient issues that I thought was pH based. I had not used osmocote in the mix so maybe this is more evidence that I have not been fertilising my 100% inorganic mixes enough
I will keep bumbling along and hopefully I will get there before I use up all of my 1000000 Monkeys
Goes to show that we need to continue questioning everything. Just because it has not worked for you does not mean it is wrong. There are so many variables that we can't be sure we have covered them all when it does not work for us.
I do have another fig that I put in 100% attapulgite, Going well after a season but I think a big increase in fert will make a world of difference as we know how much figs love fert

Hi Brett,

The above tests are just the 100% component tests.

The potting "mixes" that combine a number of components have almost uniformly done well and better than the component by itself.

By the test results I could definately not recommend Diatomite or Attapulgite at 100%.

Grant

[c321m2s]

Ok hi all .first thing is grow in pure Diatomite . all you have to do is make sure you water alot.i mean wet the whole tree from top to bottom .a good soaking.every day .Next feed heavly .Every ten days.and dont be scared to use more Fertilizer.i mean if it says use ten mils .then double it.Use 20 mils .dont worry it gets flused out with the next watering.i follow this method and my trees fly.Because its basically hydroponics the diatomite drains super fast.so you have to water more.all in all.its a flood and drain system.feed alot.as trees get most of there energy from the sun its only a few trace elements they need from the fertilizer.you cant burn the roots as its flused out the next watering.try it and see if you dont get the best results you have ever had.also growing in soil is a thing of the past.most of the vegies you buy are grown with out ever seeing soil.100% diatomite is the way to go.as long as its 4mm or more .the PH never changes .modern substrate is the go .this is not new its a tryed and tested method .and i didnt invent it .i just collected all the info and put it together .go to youtube and see walter pall talk about modern substrate.both parts then follow that with him talking about feeding.and you might just be growing in any modern substrate very soon.

[Gareth]

Has anyone else noticed the ratios of the best performing medias?

Largest % componenet - up to 50% water holding/drainage media i.e. diatomite
Medium % componenet - 30-40% organic material i.e. coco peat, spagnum, soil even
smallest % component - 10-20% CEC media - zeolite

from what i can see, a lot of medias can be interchanged in a mix as long as they meet these three criteria

large componenet (mostly 50%) needs to be a media that will hold water, promote root growth, but also drain well, these could be things like diatomite, scoria, pumice etc
medium component (around 30-40%) organic material, just enough to promote microorganism growth to re-mineralize nutrient, but not enough to create a sopping wet mix tyhat hols moisture for days, coco peat, spagnum moss, good quality soil, worm castings etc
smallest componenet - 10-20% "nutrient holding media", stays wetter and locks up nutrients, releases them at appropriate times, the number one media seem to be zeolite

then there is the nitty gritty like trace elements being released by things such as "rock minerals" made from volcanic ash etc, which could be part of the mix.

I have been thinking this subject over for quite some time and it seems as though these results seem to reflect this though process, obviously some of the materials in each group out perform others, but essentially a well functioning mix seems to contain these ratios of these specific "groups" of elements, at least from what i can see.

G

[Bretts]

That's pretty much what I have settled on G, I like to have at least two different types of inorganic and then just a little organic. Seems to cover all bases for me.
When I start messing with trees that will not be re potted for more than 4 years then I might change things a little.

[NBPCA]

Hi all,

I also agree with Gareths observation about interchangeability of material and mixing of media.

I am still continuing with my growing experiment in different mixes and some have performed well and some poorly.

This year (Wetter and cooler than normal) the Ash growing in 100% Attapulgite and the Chinese Akadama mixed with coco peat have performed very badly and in fact the ones in Attapulgite died. Last year the Attapulgite seemed OK but it was a warmer and drier year here in Canberra.

I will have a closer look at the plants and do a report soon.

Grant

[Bretts]

Hi Grant and Mods,
I noticed that the start of this test is a sticky Can we also make these results a sticky

Big kudos again to Grant for carrying out these tests what a brilliant effort, I am sure it will be very helpful to all for a long time.

How together is the experiment to date Grant can you give us any more of an update.

I did have another thought
Maybe it would be a good idea to let these threads back into general population and if it was ok with all involved Grants article that was published in the AABC bonsai magazine could become a sticky here instead. This would be easier to understand than with all the comments mixed in.
I have to say I only skimmed over the article in the magazine as I had read it all here I thought but on second look the article seems to be missing the practical test with the trees. Did you think those results too inconclusive to put in the article Grant.
Thanks for your consideration
Brett

[Gareth]

after my above post re percentages, i have since repotted a few trees.

The mix i used, and this is simply for growing, not for in a bonsai pot, is 2/3rds worms castings 1/3 diatomite. This seems to be a quite a granular mix even with only 1/3rd inorganic.

My mix therefore, when i start potting trees will be (thus far anyway, trial and error is still very much needed)

- 30-40% inorganic consisting of diatomite/pumice mainly, zeolite, maybe some rock mineral
- 60-70% organic, consisting of good quality soil mix or worms castings (im waiting to see how these worm castings go) mainly, peat moss (for humus/humic acid) pine bark chips, fertilizer like dynamic lifter (small amount).

I think what is most apparent here is enough of an inorganic to provide great drainage and water holding capability, plus some CEC, and some organic to provide enough of a microbial environment to remineralize nutrient, but not hold too much water.

Then the minor components like fertilizer, humus and maybe rock mineral for trace element supplementation should round it out to create a "natural mix", but still provide great drainage.

When you look into sediment microbiology (in aquatic environments, which i specialize in, but also in soils which a lot of the same bacteria and microorganisms come from) nutrient not only comes from fertilizers, but also from bacteria breaking down organic material into usable nutrient. Fertilizer, although is still needed, isnt the be all and end all, and as long as you find a happy medium between excellent drainage and organics (especially nutrient and microbial rich organic material like worms castings) then although you should still fertilize, and probably still at an increased rate, the fertilizer will be kept in the soil to enrich the nutrient potential of the soil for a longer period of time, the soil will also provide nutrition that cannot be provided by organic fertilizers alone.

Just my thoughts

[Bretts]

I hear ya Garet, personally I think some trouble understanding this comes from people thinking that a large hole in a bonsai pot = good drainage.
The reason we need such good drainage in a bonsai pot is because they have shari drainage.

[Mojo Moyogi]

Hi Brett,

The above tests are just the 100% component tests.

The potting "mixes" that combine a number of components have almost uniformly done well and better than the component by itself.

By the test results I could definately not recommend Diatomite or Attapulgite at 100%.

Grant

Hi Grant, I have read through your test results a couple of times a while ago, I intend to familiarise myself with it's contents again over this weekend. In the meantime, Is there any chance, for the sake of the inexperienced and hence easily misdirected that we could stop using the words diatomite and attapulgite in the same sentence since they are dramatically different substances when used as or in potting media, despite frequent and loud claims a beginning a couple of years pleading otherwise.

This reasonable request is coming from a user of Maidenwell Diatomite of 10 years, in 4 locations, 2 very different climates, with several hundred trees, multiple species, in every container size and type available in many different ratios and someone who has also trialled (as in proper multi species, controlled environment etc.) Chandlers Attapulgite Kitty litter himself for 18 months, straight up and mixed with premium potting mixes, in different containers as above, etc.etc. Further to this I have personally worked on trees that have been grown in the aforementioned Attapulgite blends for periods ranging from 1 to 3 seasons uninterrupted and been able to inspect root systems and note improvements in foliage colour, mass root growth and plant vigour once decomposed, soft and ocasionally paste-like Attapulgite is replaced with both traditional bonsai mix and a more stable Diatomite blend.

Cheers,
Mojo

[Grant Bowie]

Hi Grant and Mods,
I noticed that the start of this test is a sticky Can we also make these results a sticky

Big kudos again to Grant for carrying out these tests what a brilliant effort, I am sure it will be very helpful to all for a long time.

How together is the experiment to date Grant can you give us any more of an update.

I did have another thought
Maybe it would be a good idea to let these threads back into general population and if it was ok with all involved Grants article that was published in the AABC bonsai magazine could become a sticky here instead. This would be easier to understand than with all the comments mixed in.
I have to say I only skimmed over the article in the magazine as I had read it all here I thought but on second look the article seems to be missing the practical test with the trees. Did you think those results too inconclusive to put in the article Grant.
Thanks for your consideration
Brett

Hi Brett,

The article was only intended as a comparison of the materials and their properties.

The growing test is still growing of course and I should be able to give some preliminary results in about 6 months when i repot the trees and inspect roots etc.

Cheers,

Grant

[Grant Bowie]

Hi Brett,

The above tests are just the 100% component tests.

The potting "mixes" that combine a number of components have almost uniformly done well and better than the component by itself.

By the test results I could definately not recommend Diatomite or Attapulgite at 100%.

Grant

Hi Grant, I have read through your test results a couple of times a while ago, I intend to familiarise myself with it's contents again over this weekend. In the meantime, Is there any chance, for the sake of the inexperienced and hence easily misdirected that we could stop using the words diatomite and attapulgite in the same sentence since they are dramatically different substances when used as or in potting media, despite frequent and loud claims a beginning a couple of years pleading otherwise.

This reasonable request is coming from a user of Maidenwell Diatomite of 10 years, in 4 locations, 2 very different climates, with several hundred trees, multiple species, in every container size and type available in many different ratios and someone who has also trialled (as in proper multi species, controlled environment etc.) Chandlers Attapulgite Kitty litter himself for 18 months, straight up and mixed with premium potting mixes, in different containers as above, etc.etc. Further to this I have personally worked on trees that have been grown in the aforementioned Attapulgite blends for periods ranging from 1 to 3 seasons uninterrupted and been able to inspect root systems and note improvements in foliage colour, mass root growth and plant vigour once decomposed, soft and ocasionally paste-like Attapulgite is replaced with both traditional bonsai mix and a more stable Diatomite blend.

Cheers,
Mojo

No Problem,

I shall not breathe the two components together from now on. They are certainly not directly comparable materials.

Grant

[Grant Bowie]

after my above post re percentages, i have since repotted a few trees.

The mix i used, and this is simply for growing, not for in a bonsai pot, is 2/3rds worms castings 1/3 diatomite. This seems to be a quite a granular mix even with only 1/3rd inorganic.

My mix therefore, when i start potting trees will be (thus far anyway, trial and error is still very much needed)

- 30-40% inorganic consisting of diatomite/pumice mainly, zeolite, maybe some rock mineral
- 60-70% organic, consisting of good quality soil mix or worms castings (im waiting to see how these worm castings go) mainly, peat moss (for humus/humic acid) pine bark chips, fertilizer like dynamic lifter (small amount).

I think what is most apparent here is enough of an inorganic to provide great drainage and water holding capability, plus some CEC, and some organic to provide enough of a microbial environment to remineralize nutrient, but not hold too much water.

Then the minor components like fertilizer, humus and maybe rock mineral for trace element supplementation should round it out to create a "natural mix", but still provide great drainage.

When you look into sediment microbiology (in aquatic environments, which i specialize in, but also in soils which a lot of the same bacteria and microorganisms come from) nutrient not only comes from fertilizers, but also from bacteria breaking down organic material into usable nutrient. Fertilizer, although is still needed, isnt the be all and end all, and as long as you find a happy medium between excellent drainage and organics (especially nutrient and microbial rich organic material like worms castings) then although you should still fertilize, and probably still at an increased rate, the fertilizer will be kept in the soil to enrich the nutrient potential of the soil for a longer period of time, the soil will also provide nutrition that cannot be provided by organic fertilizers alone.

Just my thoughts

I agree very much with what you say and each person will find ratios of organic to inorganic that suit their environment and the organics and inorganics they choose to use.

Grant