AusBonsai

Most of my bonsai are in 50% diatomite, and i basically water (heavily) alternating between a weak
worm juice solution and water ....
... I guess if i watered the worm juice down a little more, and automated the sytem,
I'd almost be practicing 'hydroponics' ...?
Matt.

Maybe you already are, Matt.

Hydroponics doesn't need automated watering!! SHOCK!

Grant Bowie wrote:Amounts of water used in Bonsai are small whereas for commercial fixed repetative cropping Hydroponics are ideal; once again not much to do with bonsai.

bonsai isn't topiary, topiary isn't bonsai but some similar techniques are used. Fine but don't confuse one with the other.

Grant

Agree 100%

From what I can see, Walter grows bonsai in much the same way as the Japanese have for a long time. +/- a few things...

Replying to Matt...Yes, i agree with what you are saying Matt. I am not sure that people stating...it will not affect the tree... is a bit naive because, How do we know? We have yet to produce said tree that has outlived a few generations as living proof that the experiments are a howling success. It just shows me the restlessness of todays thinking.

S.O.P wrote:Maybe you already are, Matt.

Hydroponics doesn't need automated watering!! SHOCK!

Does this mean that anyone growing a plant in a container and watering and feeding said plant is growing hydroponically? If so, then everything grown in a pot is hydroponically grown?

'Hydroponics' means growing plants with roots permanently immersed in moving oxygenated and fertigated water doesn't it? There is no drained stage is there?
Ash

From Wiki

Hydroponics (From the Greek words hydro, water and ponos, labor) is a method of growing plants using mineral nutrient solutions, in water, without soil. Terrestrial plants may be grown with their roots in the mineral nutrient solution only or in an inert medium, such as perlite, gravel, mineral wool, or coconut husk.

So Hydroponics generaly transtates to labor intensive watering I would say and yes what we do with our modern inert mediums is very much like hydroponics.

Jarrod wrote:

S.O.P wrote:Maybe you already are, Matt.

Hydroponics doesn't need automated watering!! SHOCK!

Does this mean that anyone growing a plant in a container and watering and feeding said plant is growing hydroponically? If so, then everything grown in a pot is hydroponically grown?

I guess the definition of hydroponic has progressed, I think originally it was defined as plants grown in water but now includes plants grown in a non organic substrate and fed permenantly with fertilized water, I think to qualify as being hydroponically grown it would have to be in non organic matter so plants grown in organic potting mixes or soils wouldn't qualify.

Ash wrote:'Hydroponics' means growing plants with roots permanently immersed in moving oxygenated and fertigated water doesn't it? There is no drained stage is there?
Ash

Depends on the system, a lot of systems are flood and drain which means the solution drains into a tank and then is pumped back to the plants at varying intervals.

Yeah, Ozzy nailed it. Not many plants can survive immersed in water, so hydroponics doesn't mean it's constant watering.

I defined it further back in the thread, the actual definition is inorganic growing with dissolved nutrients. There is no constant flooding, watering can be achieved by watering can.

And since a lot of mediums here are almost purely inorganic, any person growing true hydroponics does not water triple times general fertiliser. They use a PH-balanced, Parts-per-Million(Electrical Conductivity) set nutrient mix, which is watered every time (not necessarily constantly DEPENDING ON MEDIUM USED). Unfortunately, because I used a bad word, this entire debate was sidetracked.

I feel as though I need to conduct an experiment, only then will it make sense to some.

For what it is worth, I have been feeding all of my trees daily this season with fertilizer (various), superthrive and seasol. I fill a large barrel each morning and add amounts that are equivalent to the regular dosage but scaled down to daily use. My trees have displayed good but not explosive growth. The biggest impact has been in the improved colour of the foliage. I have been watering by hand for a number of years now so it's not a great deal of additional effort for me. I have some old pines which have finally picked up by using this regime.

I am using diatomite (my sylvia and maidenwell), spongelite, attapulgite and sifted pine bark (although rarely now) as components and mixed in various proportions depending on the species.

Most also have osmocote on the surface also.

I am never going back to dirt.


Steve

SteveT wrote:For what it is worth, I have been feeding all of my trees daily this season with fertilizer (various), superthrive and seasol. I fill a large barrel each morning and add amounts that are equivalent to the regular dosage but scaled down to daily use. My trees have displayed good but not explosive growth. The biggest impact has been in the improved colour of the foliage. I have been watering by hand for a number of years now so it's not a great deal of additional effort for me. I have some old pines which have finally picked up by using this regime.

I am using diatomite (my sylvia and maidenwell), spongelite, attapulgite and sifted pine bark (although rarely now) as components and mixed in various proportions depending on the species.

Most also have osmocote on the surface also.

I am never going back to dirt.


Steve

G,day Steve both products you mention funnily enough, are not fertilizers but supplements to, they are more improvers of the substrate.
Cheers Pup

Yes, understood. I'm using fertiliser plus superthrive and seasol.

SteveT wrote:Yes, understood. I'm using fertiliser plus superthrive and seasol.

I was going to say the same as Pup until you clarified it here.

I can only imagine how many bonsiaists! are have apoplexy now with you calling the preciously crafted Soil mixes as "Dirt" LOL FOFL

Like you, I will never go back to it either

I use Neutrog "Sudden impact" for Roses on the surface instead of Osmocote.

Ken

bodhidharma wrote:Replying to Matt...Yes, i agree with what you are saying Matt. I am not sure that people stating...it will not affect the tree... is a bit naive because, How do we know? We have yet to produce said tree that has outlived a few generations as living proof that the experiments are a howling success. It just shows me the restlessness of todays thinking.

Bodhi,

Very true, the testament is in the generations to come, not for us to decide. However, I think alot of these fast grown trees will not survive the long haul due to the way in which it was grown its its infancy. Like all life forms the formative years are the strongest factor in eventual longevity of a tree. Isnt the saying live fast die young, grow fast die young maybe... seems that way with many species in the wild.. the faster growing/maturing live the shortest lives.

The centenarians we see in Japan and China are trees that have had that life of bonsai (like Ray's Acacia mentioned in an earlier post) so have laid down wood very slowly due to the 'old fashioned' growing methods, hence they are durable enough to survive the long haul. The other class of great aged tree is yamadori & most countries can now lay claim to more than one centenarian in a collection. These old trees have also grown slowly in nature, often ravaged by weather and/or animal browsing, natural events (fire/flood), geological events (rockslide/landslide). Thus laying down again fine slivers of wood that are very hard & durable, how else would they survive the constant onslaught of nature at her usual way.

If you look at really old examples of softwood trees in nature the inner core that grew the fastest rots out and leaves the outer ring of harder wood laid down as the tree slowed down in middle age & on. It is only because of this difference in the woods characteristics that we have any great old hollow trunks in the wild to inspire our bonsai. Otherwise the tree would rot out faster than the growth can replace it and the tree is lost.

I dont think its a matter of restlessness, more a case of wanting everything NOW!... They want instant results and are not prepared to allow nature to do her thing her way. I feed more nowdays (constantly & heavily) than I used to (2-3times a year & then only lightly) but my trees didnt die even over a long term due to low feed rates, they simply lived on there means, growing slowly & surely a little each year. I have also acquired trees that havent been fed in over a decade, the colour isnt great but the tree still grows & produces some new foliage etc. I have collected trees that even tho they came with good root systems, took several years to gain enough strength to withstand any sort of work towards bonsai (we are far rougher on our trees than nature).

Apologies for having gone way off topic...

Matt