So why don't you get some of that nasty brackish fetid strip mine swamp soil from good old Pennsylvania, pot a few pines in it, and see if patience or pathogens prevail? - Looks like a perfect opportunity to prove your point and silence any proponents of logic.

Al

Please read my LAST entry in the pumice forum. I have one question though. Why would anyone want to pick a fight with some guy named "head-cutter"?

I did read your last post Jack, yes, you are right. And we were beating a dead horse, very dead. I've been involved in a few cross-posts with good old Al before and he seems to be one of those who, when confronted with a different opinion about something--or--a different way of doing something, takes great pleasure in tearing it down, while trying to discredit the person.

I don't really mind because I've known a lot of people like that during my life and--I'm living in a country where a westerner (according to the average Vietnamese guy) can do nothing the 'right' way.

In my case I try to provide some help or information based on things I've done and 'learned' over the years. I'm also always open to new ideas and, if they sound good, will try them in my work. If they don't work out or, don't work out for me, I try something else, no problem.

It's not really a fight anyway--you've obviously read his last post in this thread.

Bob
Happily stumbling along in my absurd lack of any logic.

When someone makes an absurd statement in which most third grader would see the lack of logic, then has nothing to offer to back it, he should expect to be called on it, especially after accusing someone who was talking about specific applications of know science of beating a dead horse. If you find something I said in error - correct it please. If you find any errors in my logic, point them out. Just because I say something that doesn't fit within someone else's narrow perspective doesn't mean I'm in error and my observations and rebuttals aren't on target.

If I offer a different opinion, I explain WHY I hold that view. I would think that anyone with an open mind and knowledge sufficient to validate his opinions would crave open discussions about soil science, not avoid and discount them.

BTW - no one picks a fight with good old Bob. He's a fight waiting to happen, as he immediately gets defensive when anything anyone else says indicates he might not know as much as he gives himself credit for and turns to a variety of tactics to avoid the issue, ad hominem verbal aggression being his favorite. Take a close look at past posts to get a feel for the disdain with which he treats newcomers to bonsai to get a true look at what he's about.

You guys can attempt to minimize what I say by discrediting me, but the fact is, you really haven't shown anything I said to be in error. I'm really not here to discuss people or argue against them personally; and what we're discussing now isn't important.

What was the purpose of posting this thread? If there is a point to it - why not make it?

Al

Ya well, there was...it's called humor, over the inane statement you made about Jacks post.

As far as my post concerning beginners (we were all one once), it was an observation on how most; with no research, study or experience and; given the difficulty of this sport to begin with--will try to grow a plant/tree in exactly the opposite 'everything' concerning the right environment for the tree.

What you couldn't 'hear' was that I was using my best 'Mr. Rogers' voice.

bob

Ut oh Al, calling you and raising you two Alberta Spruce...

"I'm really not here to discuss people or argue against them personally;"

"When someone makes an absurd statement in which most third grader would see the lack of logic, then has nothing to offer to back it, he should expect to be called on it, especially after accusing someone who was talking about specific applications of know science of beating a dead horse."
Busted...discussing Paul

BTW - no one picks a fight with good old Bob. He's a fight waiting to happen, as he immediately gets defensive when anything anyone else says indicates he might not know as much as he gives himself credit for and turns to a variety of tactics to avoid the issue, ad hominem verbal aggression being his favorite. Take a close look at past posts to get a feel for the disdain with which he treats newcomers to bonsai to get a true look at what he's about."

Busted again...discussing me.

Yes, I have replied to posts 'defending' the information I posted...uh...as you do?

"and what we're discussing now isn't important."

But it may be if I can find the pudding mix!!

Bob

Yes, I defend the information I post with facts, science, and logic - not by attacking the one who disagrees. There is a clear delineation. In all the discussions we've ever had, you've never refuted a single thing I've treated as fact, nor have you offered evidence of why any opinion I've offered might not be valid ..... but your character assination skills are improving. ;o) You may have a considerable amount of knowledge and experience, but you regularly operate beyond the limits of that knowledge and experience, which tends to create contradictions, and strife when your ego gets bruised.

Al

"In all the discussions we've ever had, you've never refuted a single thing I've treated as fact, nor have you offered evidence of why any opinion I've offered might not be valid ....."

Uh Al, that's probably because when you offered a good 'fact' and I agreed with it...there was no reason to disagree with you? Huh? No reason to disagree when you're right...right?

Yes, I did take issue with your broad statement that most can't learn from experience or, mostly just discounting experience as a teacher. I think history has recorded that the majority of the human race has learned from experiences...that could be one reason we're still at the top of the food chain.

I normally operate beyond my experience...that's how you learn more in life.

My father was an Air Force officer...he made damned sure I have NO ego to bruise ;))

You did make two comments which I would like an answer to the one only please: 'inadvertently over-watering'

How do you do that?

I'm being serious. If you have something in a good quality well-draining pot and the soil mix is of good quality, porus and percolates well while holding enough moisture to benefit the tree, how do you overwater like that?

I'm asking you to qualify something you said, not looking for a fight or an attack. Just an answer.

Bob

I welcome the opportunity to turn this into a real discussion about soils. I will say that your question is very broad and ambiguous enough to leave plenty of loopholes for circular arguments. For instance, I might make a point about how soils can meet your requirements of being porous, draining well, water can percolate through them and they can hold plenty of moisture and plants can still succumb to watering issues over time. You can then simply reply that it wasn't a good soil then, or the amount of water the soil holds did not benefit the tree, so we end up chasing our tail again.

What I will illustrate is a thorough understanding of soil science and physics. we can see what develops from there.

Much of the answer to your question hinges on the word 'if'. We don't want a soil that only performs 'if' everything is right - we want one that will perform when things go wrong, and we want a soil that will perform in spectacular (intentionally overstated) fashion for the intended life of the planting.

Obviously, drainage/aeration is the key factor in bonsai soils. To a very large degree, it really doesn't matter what soils are made of, as long as they are not phytotoxic, they anchor the plant. and they hold a favorable volume of air. Technically, they don't even have to hold water or nutrients, if you're willing to stand over them with a watering can to supply their needs, but we'll assume that we want to maximize water retention, w/o building into the soil a negative impact on root health, for the convenience of the grower.

Lets take a look at a soil ..... I think you or Jack mentioned a soil comprised of Haydite and bark, and I balked at that soil and indicated I felt it could be improved upon. Here is why: All the Haydite I've seen is usually in pretty large particles, so aeration is excellent, but Haydite's internal porosity is somewhat lacking, so all in all, Haydite doesn't hold much water, other than what it holds on its surface.

The second component, bark, lets say pine bark, holds a fair amount of water, both on its surface and internally, which makes it a good choice for container soils. The problem with bark is, if you use it in significant volume in soils, enough of the whole amount tends to break down quickly enough that plantings need repotting because of soil collapse and not how tight the roots are.

So where is the problem? There is no NEED for a large organic component in our soils. When we do have a large organic component (even pine or fir bark), soils collapse and become sludgy much sooner than soils with a low organic component. While someone in monsoon-prone locales might be happy with a soil of 2/3 Haydite and 1/3 bark, most people will find it not water retentive enough. From the plant's perspective, this is fine. Plants LOVE massive amounts of air around their roots and will put out peak growth in highly aerated soils, but most of us cannot keep up with the watering. So how do we increase the water retention using only Haydite and bark? If we increase the % of the Haydite's presence, it reduces water retention. If we increase the % of the bark component, it does increase water retention, but it also speeds soil collapse and tends to exacerbate the tendency for fine organic particulates to collect at the bottom of the container in root-rotting sludge, so for most, increasing the organic component to more than 1/3 of the o/a volume isn't such a hot idea.

But .... what if we introduced another soil ingredient to the mix? What if we add something that comes in the appropriate size and has excellent INTERNAL porosity, like calcined clays (Turface, et al) or calcined DE (Axis, Play Ball, Stall-Dry, NAPA Floor-Dry). Their appropriate and relatively large particle size ensures excellent drainage and aeration, yet their tremendous surface area and internal porosity guarantees they will increase water retention far beyond what pine bark would have. You can keep the organic component to manageable levels and still increase water retention. By adding the water retentive inorganic component and decreasing the component that is not water retentive, or by reversing the formulation, while still keeping the organic component at safe (against collapse) levels, you now have a soil that is very easily adjustable.

We can inadvertently over-water or passively allow our plants to BE over-watered by Mother Nature, simply by choosing a soil that is high in organic material, which will drain well initially, but will become more water retentive as it collapses. If we don't change our watering habits to fit weather patterns or growth characteristics, we can inadvertently over-water ANY soil that supports a perched water table.

In order for any bonsai soil to be a good soil, it must remain stable for the life of the planting. If it's a good soil today, that's no clear indication it will be a good soil tomorrow. What changes a soil from good to bad? The collapse of the organic component. Structurally, the mineral choices most of us use don't break down - Haydite, Turface, pumice ...... are all interminably stable. Bark is not. Soils made of a high % of inorganic materials virtually never collapse to the point where they affect the plant's root vitality/function. Plants in soils with a high % of inorganic components (more than 2/3) almost always need repotting because of root-bound conditions rather than soil collapse.

Your question asks IF ... the soil mix is of good quality, porous and percolates well while holding enough moisture to benefit the tree ... and of course IF all those physical characteristics are in play, you would need to work very hard at over-watering. The practical side of the equation involves digging a little deeper and assigning a time factor to the soil. Stability is extremely important to our soils and it does no good to grow in chopped celery because it is well-aerated today - drains like a champ. Today's (seemingly) good soil, if not formulated with longevity in mind, is tomorrow's case of inadvertent over-watering, whether by our own hand or by the hand of nature.

I would also point out that porous is a relative term. We can use soils that by any standard other than those of a bonsai practitioner are extremely porous, yet they can still hold more perched water than plants can tolerate in a shallow container. O/a water retention is governed by several factors, particle size, surface area of the particulates, internal porosity of the particulates .... but perched water retention is a product of particle size, virtually exclusively.

Al

I didn't ask for the 'book' but ok, I'll give you part of your argument. And no, I'm not growing anything here in the Haydite/Pine bark soil mix--it's not available. My trees are in the only medium available in Vietnam, sand and Basalt rock. I don't like it because it's pure inorganic but there is no choice. I use the most coarse sand I can find then (paving)1/8th inch sized crushed Basalt to break up the mix. I've tried to add the stone to break down the 'amount' of sand used in the pots--create a little drier mix and promote drainage. The trees don't seem to care one way or the other.

The sand will, with normal watering and under normal conditions, stay evenly moist however, when it begins to dry out this happens quickly and is uniform throughout the entire pot.

Your use of 'time' and 'over time', the 'life of the planting' are sort of useless when it comes to the sport of Bonsai. For one reason or another 'most' trees will be repotted at regular intervals. It's been my experience that the least of these reasons is due to soil or a problem with soil. However, when we do repot, that's a good time to add soil mix or make a change.

When you repot a tree every few years it gets some new soil. A decent grade of Pine bark will last for up to 4 years in temperate areas. The smaller particles will break down, as you want them to but the larger ones degrade at a slower rate.

When you look at 'time' and 'longevity' in real terms of years, for the most part in Bonsai, this is on a scale of 2 to 5 years, in some cases maybe up to 7. Most soils with an organic component will last close to that 5 year end.
You also have to consider that we are around our trees all of the time (if someone is truely interested in how they are doing) and are always watching what goes on with them.

We notice when things go wrong, find out what the problem is and work to correct it.

Of course the main reason I favor organics in a soil mix is the old underlying factor. As they break down over time they provide nutrients to the tree, a small amount but some. In a straight inorganic mix (with some exceptions) you find yourself using fertilizer on a regular basis to keep the plant healthy.

As practionitioners in the sport we will always be repotting a tree for one reason or another. I will always favor some organics in the mix be it 10% or 50%. When you repot you have the chance to renew the soil.

There will always be discussion about this and we will always disagree about it, no way out of that I'm afraid.

'If' I could get my hands on some decent Pine bark here I'd still screen it and use it in my soil mix. Sort of looks good too, rather than all the sand and stone. Just me.

I find nothing wrong with a mix of sand and basalt, though some forms of basalt can be very alkaline or high in Mg. From a structural perspective, if the particle size is appropriate, sand and basalt would be a good soil for anywhere that gets lots of rain, but not so good in areas that don't get much rain.

... which is an excellent place to remake and press the point that if the coarse sand fraction was replaced in part or in its entirety with a third, inorganic component that has good internal porosity, the soil would then have the adjustability to serve in applications where more water retention was desirable. The soil would still be all mineral, but it would hold more water with NO effect on drainage and no negative effect on aeration.

The terms "time" and "over time" are extremely pertinent to any discussion about any container soil and bonsai soils in particular, and cannot be discounted. I'm not talking about 10 years, I'm talking about the every year or every second/third ..... year repots we all (should) do. Pine bark cannot be assigned a period for which it will last for several reasons. It is in constant flux from the moment it is moistened. Even the fertilizers we use affect the rate at which it breaks down. It's initial particle size and range of particle size are KEY in determining how long it will last. Particle sizes about 1/8" are initially ideal because they maximize water retention while still supporting no perched water. The problem is, 1/8" particles break down too quickly and support perched water before the next repot opportunity presents itself. Larger particles are better for aeration, and longevity, but don't hold as much water - so it's a balancing act. In order to say the bark will last 4 years, it has to be under conditions that do not promote high microbial activity in the soil, and it has to begin it's life in the soil as a screened component of rather large particles. Personally, I limit the organic (pine or fir, usually fir) component of my soils to under 1/3 and often much less or none. The reason is, higher % of even large pieces form sludge in the bottom of the pot by the end of the second year - even in view of the fact that I use chemical fertilizers almost exclusively.

I can direct you to a thread I wrote that has more than 1,300 posts on this site and just under 600 on another. The thread lays out some soil physics and other science in easy to understand terms. In these threads, you'll find many hundreds of posts that extol the premise that the most important thing a container gardener (and all bonsai practitioners are) is build a soil that ensures good aeration for the life of the planting. In these threads, I promote vigorously, the use of soils based on pine bark instead of peat, because pine bark breaks down at a rate about 1/4 as rapid as peat. Basically, the idea is based on the fact that the longevity of bark is far superior to that of peat. In these threads, you'll find the theme (from me and other experienced growers) that pine bark-based soils can be pressed into the second year of service if necessary, but it is better to move to a soil with a high inorganic component if you intend to keep your plants in the same soil for 2 years or more. Bonsai practitioners KNOW that any soil with a high organic component breaks down too quickly to be suitable for most bonsai applications. I'm not saying it won't work, only that it's extra work and there are better choices. So time and soil longevity are both critical factors/considerations in deciding what makes a good soil for each individual application.

While I agree that organic components of soil do supply SOME nutrition as it breaks down, it's insignificant. You cannot depend on, nor can you build into a container soil that provides all the nutrition your plant needs. I always tell people that "Yes, your soil will provide some nutrients, but very little, so YOU must take responsibility for ensuring your plant gets all the nutrients necessary for growth, and in a favorable ratio, or you must be content with a planting that has no chance at growing at or near it's potential genetic vigor. Technically, the uncomposted pine bark we use in bonsai soils is actually a sink for N, immobilizing it and making it unavailable (at least less available) to our trees. This is shown true over and over again in other container applications, even where partially composted pine bark is represented in the soil a 70% fraction or greater. Less pine bark = less N immobilization.

I, and apparently you, grow perfectly healthy plants in mixes that are totally inorganic, which gives all the reinforcement necessary that an organic soil component is an insignificant factor in the plant's o/a nutritional needs. If it is in fact a factor, a close look needs to be given to the supplemental nutrition program being used.

Al

OK, I'll play along since the retoric has cooled down. I guess that we have all agreed that it is possible to grow bonsai in a range of soil mixes and the proof is in our own experiences. I'm sure we all agree that the range of mixes has limits and that drainage is one of the most important factors to take into account. I read Al's threads on container soils and fertilizers some time ago and I think they are a very useful reference. He clearly has done his homework. So where do we go from here?

I would like to discuss the natural history of the plants we choose for bonsai a little. I think that we have chosen to train plants that are adapted to container culture because they have been grown by humans in domestication as it were for centuries or longer. Those species or varieties which are difficult are selected out. I have only anecdotal evidence for this but perhaps it will suffice. I know many people here in CA that dig California junipers for bonsai material. They loose 25-50% of them. However if I were to dig a San Jose or procumbens nana juniper out of someone's yard I would have about a 90% chance of success. We have many chaparral shrubs that look like they are natural bonsai with beautiful twisty branches and trunks, small leaves and of a proper height. Several people have tried them and all have failed as far as I know. At this time the consensus seems to be that they cannot tolerate root disturbance. I don't know if that is true or not. I believe that there is a way to solve the problem and that is to use chaparral plants that have been successfully domesticated. The California Native Plant Society and the Theodore Payne Foundation grow plants from seed in containers and sell them to native plant landscapers. There are a few that may be suitable for bonsai. This is a project that I will spend a little time on.

You might want to start another thread, Jack. At this point I don't have anything but an educated guess, but I do have sources with greater knowledge than I, I might be able to tap for something I would trust more than my thoughts.

Mother Nature provides the level of vigor for every plant by building it into each individual plant via genetic encoding. Vegetative clones of the parent plant will always have the same level of vigor as the parent plant; from seed reproduction is a genetic combination crap shoot. Before anyone disagrees, let me go a little further and say it's up to us to provide the cultural conditions that will ensure our plants' vitality. Vigor and vitality are distinctly different, and a good case could be made that they are unrelated, but there is no need to argue that point. Vigor is constant, the genetically potential every plant is encoded with, and is measured by a plant's ability to resist stress and strain, while vitality is a dynamic condition that is a measure of a plant's ability to cope with the hand it's dealt, culturally speaking. A plant can be very vigorous and still be dying because of poor vitality. Far more often than not the term 'vigor' or 'vigorous' is misapplied and in it's stead the terms 'vital' or 'vitality' would have been more appropriate.

I'm not sure I'm correct, but it seems that those plants we harvest or attempt to maintain that continually fail have found a niche where they are able to maintain vitality, even in the face of a lack of vigor. They may well be plants that are simply not genetically vigorous, and they cannot/do not recover from the stress/strain placed upon them by collecting or repotting by individuals not keenly aware of the plant's very specific needs; so, my off the top guess is a lack of genetic vigor in these plants exacerbated by operator error.

Al