It will not have much macropores. All that fine partical will surround the pine fines and it will have bad PTW.
Try

6 parts pine fines

1 part MGMC

2 parts kitty litter(unsented) or perlite.

I have found even the small 8 qrt bag of MG perlite works great for me as it is only 15% of the mix.

I just made a batch today-

5 part Pine fines 1/8-3/8"

1 part perlite

1 tbl sp of lime per gal of mix.

I even leave a little small pine dust so that is why I don't add peat, but it is more like a 1/4 part fine material.

I just use MG all purpose fertilizer 1/3 strength every watering.

I think that if pursuing excellence in container media, eventually you'll come to the realization that if you shoulder the responsibility for your plants' nutritional needs while focusing on your soils' structure rather than their ability to deliver nutrients, you're going to be working a more productive plan that's less fraught with the potential for difficulties. Nutrition for containerized plants is very easy, with all of the plant's nutritional needs being able to be satisfied from one container. There is nothing in the manure that can't be had from a soluble fertilizer, more efficiently, and with no potential for a negative impact on your soil's structure; and, the less tolerant of wet feet your plants are, the more important it is to focus on your soils' structure.

Best luck.

Al

Why drop the manure compost?

It's actually fairly coarse, IIRC part manure and part bark fines with some sand - I'll have to check.

[tapla, I didn't see your post before replying.]

Frankly, I'm wondering why I'm worrying about structure at all if it means that I'm essentially removing from the soil the ability to support the plant. I'm pretty happy with MGMC all by itself. My only problem so far is giving the roots enough room, which is not a soil issue - it is a $$ issue.

While in some cases I have the feeling that the plant *could* be doing better, would a little more fertilizer do it? I've fed only three times this year (MG 1T/gal).

OK, so let's do an experiment. But how radical? For instance, I could go full hydroponic. But I'm not willing to fund and care for such a setup. (Plus, it isn't mobile.)

You're saying I should remove the bulk of the soil nutrition and feed continually? More $$, which defeats the initial purpose. And I don't see a great deal of difference between that and full hydro (save mobility).

Would the new setup be *that* much better than my current one?

Frankly, I'm wondering why I'm worrying about structure at all if it means that I'm essentially removing from the soil the ability to support the plant. What makes you think a well-structured soil must necessarily lack the ability to support a plant? I have more than 300 containerized plants in well-structured soils with no issues in that regard. I'm pretty happy with MGMC all by itself. My only problem so far is giving the roots enough room, which is not a soil issue - it is a $$ issue. Based on the number of complaints and the general consensus about MGMC soil as it comes from the bag, I think it probably IS a soil issue. It's difficult to use that soil AND give roots room to rum without giving up the ability to water properly (so at least 10-20% of the total volume of water applied exits the drain hole when you water) or having to worry about it raining. That soggy layer of soil at the bottom of the pot that always accompanies MGMC is always limiting of root function, which limits the plant - a given.

While in some cases I have the feeling that the plant *could* be doing better, would a little more fertilizer do it? I've fed only three times this year (MG 1T/gal). It's not possible to determine from the information supplied what the most limiting factors might be, but it's possible that nutritional deficiencies might be one of them. Given what we know about soil structure and MGMC's tendency toward retaining too much water, soil choice has to be considered as a potentially limiting factor.

OK, so let's do an experiment. But how radical? For instance, I could go full hydroponic. But I'm not willing to fund and care for such a setup. (Plus, it isn't mobile.) All container growing is much closer to to hydroponics than growing in the garden. On a scale of 1-10 with 1 being growing in the garden and 10 being full hydroponics, container gardening is probably about a 7 or 8, so it's not beyond the pale to suggest that a different set of standards should apply. Feeding the soil instead of the plant is a lofty goal when gardening in the earth, but not very effective for container culture, especially if it means using soil amendments that diminish the soil's structure and increase the volume of perched water the soil holds at container capacity.

You're saying I should remove the bulk of the soil nutrition and feed continually? More $$, which defeats the initial purpose. And I don't see a great deal of difference between that and full hydro (save mobility). I'm not saying you should do anything you're not comfortable with. I'm just putting facts together for your consideration - facts based on what we know about soil science and coupled with the combined experience of myself and myriad others. I really have no stake in what soil you choose, but I think you're missing some important parts of the picture. I'd like to help however I can to see that you get all you can from your gardening experience, but I won't twist your arm to get you to go in any particular direction. If you're happy with the status quo, I am too. ;-) Most of us are focused on plant health and yields, and are willing to spend a little more time/effort/$$ to ensure that end, but I realize we don't all order our priorities in the same way, and that's fine - no judgment. However, if $$ are your concern, you'll be interested in knowing you can make a much healthier soil than MGMC for somewhere near half the price, which would leave a lot of extra $$ to cover the relatively inconsequential cost of fertilizing a little more frequently.

Would the new setup be *that* much better than my current one? I'm not waffling when I decline to give an unequivocal 'YES', only because of the # of variables that have an exponential effect on your likely outcome, but based on soil science first and my own personal experience as validation of that science, I can say without question that well-aerated soils that hold little or no perched water offer much greater intrinsic potential for plants to grow much closer to THEIR genetic potential.

More than 20 years ago, I left soils based on fine particulates like peat, compost, coir, sand, topsoil, composted forest products ....., behind and never looked back. In plain words, the difference was stark.

No matter your path, I wish you well in your endeavors. Take care.

Al

Al, thank you for the thoughtful and articulate answer.

In defense of MGMC, I have gone through two major re-pottings this year and I see no evidence of PWT in my containers.

However, I used some old junk commercial peat mix to fill out one large pot, and it has exhibited all the worst advertised traits of peat-based soils, especially hydrophobia. So I believe that the opposition to that type of soil has some foundation [pun].

I've got some basil that badly need re-potting, so I'm going to try one of these mixes - probably a version of my original modified closer to TheMasterGardener's proportions. (And as he suggested elsewhere, the compost in lieu of the lime (that I don't have) as a buffering agent as much as a nutrient supplier.)

I will be able to compare directly to older basil grown in MGMC. (Not entirely a direct comparison as they were up-potted considerably younger and will start with fuller roots.)

A further question:
If the "more structured" soil drains better, won't there be run-off from the waterings? I don't mind a "10-20%" runoff when it's just water. But 10-20% of a feed is a significant loss.

It seems that the strategy many of us take is to water all our plants first with just plain water to fully wet the medium and let them drain thoroughly. Then go back and water with fertilizer solution until we just start to see some drainage again. Some loss is inevitable when using water soluble fertilizer, I don't see it as consequential in the long run.

You can get the 5 lb bulk box of Miracle-Gro All-Purpose (24-8-16) for around 15 dollars. Obviously this depends on how many plants you have, but for most people this lasts for multiple seasons.

Occasional supplement of epsom salts might be helpful ($5 for a 2 lb bag, should last several seasons). If you see an iron deficiency, an iron/micronutrient chelate may be necessary (I paid $9 for a quart three years ago, and I still have 3/4ths of it left).

That's about as complicated as it gets, thankfully.

I agree with greentiger87. My number one choice fertilizer is the 24-8-16 all purpose. I too get it in the 5 lb box. Next time I will get the huge 15 lb box.

With regards to hydroponics, I consider the inorganic container mixes a non-recovery hydroponics setup. I have used everything from sand to hydroton and I think the small 1/4-1/16in particle size that we screen to with turface and/or pumice is about perfect.

Organic soil components have a pretty good CEC, which means they hold nutrients well on a bulk density to bulk density basis. Because all container media must have a low bulk density to perform well, all container media will have a lower CEC than mineral soils, but that's more a function of the soils weight per a given volume, rather than its actual ability to hold nutrients. You're assuming that any nutrients you apply will be washed from the soil at the next watering, but that isn't true. The soil components hold nutrients reasonably well ..... they just can't hold nutrients as well as mineral soils because there is more soil per volume of topsoil than container soil, so they hold less.

If you're fertilizing weekly or every other week, and watering so 10-20% of the water you apply exits the pot, it doesn't mean you're losing 10-20% of the fertilizer you applied. Besides - as GT mentioned, fertilizer is very inexpensive on a per application basis. I maintain more than 300 container plantings and still have more than a quart left of a gallon of 9-3-6 I bought in spring of '09. Today, the gallon costs about $48. @ 300 plants over say 3 years, fertilizer costs average about 5.3 cents per plant per year. Call it a dime. If you have 50 plants, that's still only $5 per year, and you save much more than that on your first bag of pine bark vs MGMC. Plus, if you really want savings, MG 24-8-16 or 12-4-8 are much less expensive than FP 9-3-6.

I honestly think that if you resign yourself to a little more frequent watering and fertilizing, you could see a marked improvement in plant health with much greater ease and predictability. Still - it's your call & I'm sure we all wish you the very best.

Al

"a version of my original modified closer to TheMasterGardener's proportions. (And as he suggested elsewhere, the compost in lieu of the lime (that I don't have) as a buffering agent as much as a nutrient supplier.)"

The mix with JUST lime will in fact buffer ph, and even the long term with adding more lime every few months, so really you get a good buffer with out all the compost and added fine material- that will cause PWT.

When adding compost to the pine fine mix; you will just be introducing microorganisms that may break down the bark into fine particle material quiker then if just no compost was used.

I used a mix of Promix bx/compost. It made a easy mix that did hold up well and gave me a good harvest so far. This mix will last just this one year. The promix/compost will not hold up like bark will. I found that roots grown in the promix/compost are a bit darker in color and thinner compared to the plants roots in bark mixes.

I used these pre made peat based mixes for convenience, but after a while, you really start to focus more on plant health!

It would take a mix of 80% perlite and 20% pottingmix, to match the air porosity of the 511.

Okay, I mixed up a batch and re-potted the three basils. These fines really don't go far! One bag's worth (2 ft³, screened) just barely filled out three two-gal (10") pots. The manure compost was dry and crumbled very fine, so I used very little of it (5%?). I lieu of the peat and perlite I used the old nasty potting mix. It is dusty, but there's a lot of perlite in it. Non-optimal, I'm sure, but free. And the root balls (such as they are) are already formed around MGMC.

I've screened another bag for the new jalapeno because I just noticed that it's still in its 1.5 gal starter pot.

Decent production for an eight-week old plant, but the foliage is a little sparse and the new growth has slacked off. I'm sure when I take the pods it will pick up again...

I paid particular attention to the root balls during re-potting. (Both in MGMC.) As mentioned, I saw no evidence of a PWT - both balls were uniformly damp. (Both have a 1" layer of bark mulch.) The basil had a few surface roots, mostly at the bottom. These were three 24" plants in a 10" pot so I expected more surface roots.

The jalapeno had surface roots primarily at the bottom (which was rather narrow as the pot tapered (hard to see in the pic).

Overall, the roots were all nice and white with no fungal odor or evidence that they aren't happy.

What did surprise me a little is what might be a lack of root development. They are obviously supporting their plants successfully, but I thought I'd see more of them - particularly surface roots indicating that the plant wanted more soil.

This could be interpreted two ways: 1) the roots are perfectly happy in their soil (as mentioned, they are doing what they are intended to do, which is support the foliage and fruit above) so need no further development; or 2) development is being inhibited in some way.

Or 3) I don't know enough to judge what should be happening down there.

If your plants have been in the soil for a while and haven't at least colonized the entire root mass, the soil and/or over-watering deserves by far the greatest amount suspicion as the probable cause.

Perched water comes & goes. If it's been a while since you watered, it might not be in evidence. Try watering a pot with MCMC soil until it's fully saturated and has stopped draining. Then stick a toothpick straight up through a drain hole in the bottom so about 3/4 of the toothpick hangs below the level pot. If water drains off the toothpick (it will) you have perched water and it IS inhibiting root function to a degree linked directly to how much there is and how long it hangs around.

I did some looking around when you first posted to get a sense of who you were, and I noted that others have repeatedly suggested that a fast draining mix would be a better choice for your peppers. There's a reason for that that goes to their wanting you to get the most from your growing experience. They already GNOW that peppers like to be provided with a damp, not wet soil that remains well-aerated, as do nearly all plants. The best way to do that is via a fast draining soil that holds little in the way of perched water. How MUCH perched water a soil holds is directly related to particle size. You can say there is no evidence of perched water inhibiting your plant in MGMC, but my practical experience and perhaps your practical experience as well, based on your observation above, suggests otherwise, and we know what side the science comes down on.

That's not meant to be argumentative - only helpful. If you're happy with the status quo, there's no need to change. I just think you're leaving a lot of potential lying on the table unrealized. YMMV, but that's my story sand I'm stickin' to it. ;-)

Wishing you well ....

Al

"I did some looking around when you first posted to get a sense of who you were, and I noted that others have repeatedly suggested that a fast draining mix would be a better choice for your peppers."

? What?

"to get a sense of who you were"

ummm......what? ;)

Not to be argumentative, tabla, but you seem to have a bit of a habit of assuming the question. Because I note that the roots weren't as bound as I expected, you jump to the conclusion that, yes I do have a PWT and it is inhibiting root development, observation to the contrary.

In fact, the bulk of the surface roots appear on the bottom of the pot, *below* the alleged PWT, where surely they would drown.

Anticipated counter-argument: I've just gotten really good at watering.

;-)

Dennis

I might assume a lot because I know a lot about soils. For instance, I know your soil supports a significant amount of perched water - probably >4" at container capacity, and when it's present, it's limiting. I also noticed that each time it was suggested (by others) that your soil might be the source of the issues you were inquiring about, you were defensive about the soil for some reason, so I sort of thought I might not make much much progress getting you to take a fresh look at soils, even in spite of the fact you asked for a critique. That's fine. If you're happy, I'm happy. I was just trying to help if I could. I'll wish you the very best of luck and move along. Take good care.

Al

It is hard at times to accept new ideas when they vary from our teachings.
I remember when I was quite young being told to put rocks in the bottom of pots for drainage.So thats what I believed as being the Gospel truth,and when I read that this was not the case I said this author must be on drugs or not know anything.
But I read and then thought ,and reread ,then I started to understand. I could now see and understand why this wasn't true.
Take some time and read this Soil Link at least a couple of times

Some people grow in containers using common soil and say their crops are great.without relizing how great they could be in better growing medium.
You can give your plants what they neeed to grow or give them the ability to grow even better,and the choice is yours .
When you ask for advice ,you dont always get the reply you want to hear,but that does not make it bad advice.

Here is a link that might be useful: Container soils

If you're having to water everyday, then the perched water table is probably being used up by the plant before it can "drown" the roots and cause serious problems. Of course, this probably also means the soil volume is limiting growth, which is not desirable for vegetables.

Another possibility for why you didn't see many "surface" roots is high soil temperatures. Especially if you were using black nursery pots or plastic pots, the soil right next to container material tend to get incredibly hot when exposed to the sun, and roots will avoid it when possible.

> tapla: "each time it was suggested (by others) that your soil might be the source of the issues you were inquiring about"

What issues? You've "looked into it". Cite an issue.

In fact, I have no issue other than the expense. I have said repeatedly that I am happy with the performance of my current soil.

Consider, please, that one doesn't have to tear down one alternative in order to bolster another. If it is good enough, it will stand on its own.

greentiger, I don't have to water every day. When in the past it has gotten to that point, I pot up. (And it does rain here sometimes.)

I will grant that a PWT may sometimes be present. If it is, it is not common and it is not a problem as far as I've been able to observe. Healthy roots, good productivity.

Pot temperature is good suggestion. The basil was in a nursery pot and somewhat exposed so it may apply there. However, the jalapeno was in a clay pot that was shaded by the group.

> dickiefickle: "When you ask for advice ,you dont always get the reply you want to hear,but that does not make it bad advice."

Granted. What I don't want is mere repetition of some dogma, e.g. "MGMC causes PWT which eats roots. You use MGMC therefore you have PWT which is eating your roots." That is NOT what I am observing.

It is all to easy to "get internet religion", taking a shortcut to "the truth" by repeating what you read. Unfortunately, as we all should know by now, that results in the propagation of anything but truth (i.e. the vast "internet mythology"). I start from evidence and test these supposed "truths" before I buy in.

Will I accept that use of a relatively inert non-soil improves my plants? Yes, if I can see some evidence that it is so.

Will I accept that MGMC is a demon that eats roots? Yes, if I can see some evidence that it is so.

No evidence on the first, yet. Contrary evidence on the second. Therefore I must conclude that the second proposition has been disproved.

Now, let's work on the first, shall we?

"Will I accept that use of a relatively inert non-soil improves my plants? Yes, if I can see some evidence that it is so."

-"Yes, if I can see some evidence that it is so."-

Hydroponics.

Mixes like the 511 or even promix hp will yield healthier plants.
Hydroponics grows healthier plants that yield more, and have more nutrition because of air porosity.

Otherwise, I am a fan of good old potting mix. It is ready to use right out of the bag, and it works great in mid summer for outdoor plants.

I notice the words "good enough" being bandied about... and if that's a person's interpretation of how to grow things, that's fine.

Personally, I don't want to settle for good enough... I want to go for the gold! I want top potential, top performance. So I go through the extra steps to create my own mediums for container grown plants that are more on the inorganic side, keeping in mind the purposes a medium truly serves... and adjusting recipes slightly to cover my unique micro-environment.

There are trade offs... I've traded convenience for optimal growth potential. I water more often, and I feed on a regular basis... but I also experience growth that's better than good enough, healthy roots that don't hug the top or sides of a container, no salt or mineral buildup, and I only have to re-pot about every two or three years... as the fir bark breaks down. I can also screen out the other ingredients for re-use... so in the long run, it's less expensive to build my own mediums.

Tapla is not just some guy who comes here... he's a well known plant and bonsai expert who speaks publicly to large venues of growers and students. So, he knows a little something beyond basic backyard growing.

Vetted science and physics do always fall on the winning side. Opinion can't keep up. It's factually impossible.

If a person is happy with good enough... that's up to them. I'm not. I want the very best for my containerized plants, keeping in mind that growing in the ground and growing within the confines of a container are two extremely different environments that require different approaches.

It may simply be that the MGMC that is available in your area is so coarse and has such good drainage that you're simply not experiencing any of the problems people at this forum complain about - or at least not to the point that it's clearly visible. MGMC is different from region to region and from batch to batch. Some MGMC that I bought very early this spring worked quite well as a substitute for both the peat and pine bark portion of 5:1:1, though I was extra generous with the perlite.

However, as close as it may be to 5:1:1 in your case, 5:1:1 is still a *lot* cheaper. I've found a bagged pine mulch that works perfectly as the pine bark portion, but also has enough fine material that I don't include *any* peat. Just the pine mulch, perlite, and dolomitic lime. SO cheap, especially when I'm filling gigantic containers. If you want some built in nutrient charge, you can mix in slow release fertilizer. Even if you're happy with the root structure you're seeing now, the coarser material *will* improve it.. and it's cheaper.

I guess I'm just not seeing the problem here?

Nor I. :D

You may be right about the variable mix, but I kinda hope not since that would make every bag a crapshoot. (Some would say reason enough not to use it.)

What I have doesn't have recognizable large bits of bark. But the "peat" seems "fluffy" rather than dusty, and doesn't compact heavily. So maybe there are lots of smaller bark fines in there...

When I re-use MGMC I mix in some Osmocote, but the fresh stuff is advertised as contained ferts, so I leave it alone save for the occasional wet feedings.

I am definitely going to give real 5:1:1 a try. I'll start a new thread about transitioning to it. See you there.

Thanks, greentiger.

Weird. I'm willing to bet the fluffy peat you're seeing is the composted coir that they add to give it "Moisture Control".

The version I get out here is full of coarse, recognizable pine bark. It's so obvious after I've watered a pot for a few days, because the largest pieces cover the top as if I used pine bark mulch as a top dressing. In fact, I suspect composted bark makes up more than half of the mix. So there definitely is regional variation. Maybe that explains why some people act like MGMC is the devil incarnate, and I just see it a subpar.

Several years ago, when I quit using any bagged soil mixes and began mixing my own, I noticed the quality and consistency of Miracle Gro soil products taking a huge dive. Some bags contained molds and were so broken down they were nothing but silt, while other bags contained large chunks of wood pieces along with the peat and silt mixture.

In any case, I was very unhappy with what I was getting for the cost. Why should I have to buy extra products to amend what should be a ready to use product?

If I'm going to have to buy separate items for amending, why not simply go for the best, and mix my own? I've used both the Gritty Mix and the 511 Mix with great success! I adjust each batch I make to the individual plant type, where it will be located... and by where it will be, how often I expect to have to water it. I have many areas within my home and yard that qualify as micro-environments.

Personally, I stay away from any coco products, or items that have water retention products built in. I want to be the one in complete control of moisture and nutrition, knowing that it's all too easy to over water. By using a more inorganic medium that holds its structure well, allows for excellent drainage and aeration, I've just lessened my margin of error on over watering.

I'm also able to completely control the nutrition my plants get, and it's always 100% immediately usable and available through a weak solution every time I water.

I wish that one of the most circulated pieces of information about gardening was "growing in the ground is infinitely different than growing within the confines of a container." Unfortunately, it's not. Therefore, most people don't think about how Mother Nature's environment works, with armies of microscopic creatures, worms, nematodes, bacterias, molds, fungi, etc... and how all those things work in harmony to break down dead plant matter into soil and usable food for plants' roots and maintain a good, healthy balance... but that same environment is not present within a container, and cannot be adequately made so, and that same balance cannot be kept for any length of time. The same items are not present, and the same chemical reactions are not taking place.

Therefore, it seems so simple and makes so much common sense and logic to me to think about growing in the garden as a great place to practice organic methods, while containers are much more suited to more inorganic methods.

I just purchased some Hyponex potting soil from scotts. I got a 1 cuft bag. It is the new Hyponex in the green bag. It is full of pine fines and composted forest material. It is very fluffy and drains very well. A great mix right out of the bag.

Fluffy, until it starts to breakdown quicker than you can blink an eye!

Those peat based mixes are not for me anymore either when it comes to any potted indoor plants. Annuals, whether vegetables or flowers get what ever I have on hand, even dirt from the ground. They die in a few weeks and I could care less.

Great points Jodik. I am with you and so good to see you !!!!!!!!

Mike

Mike,

After gardening a while I found the same thing!! Very true!

The only time I bought Hyponex, it was like concrete once wet. Again, I'm sure there's lot's of variation. But for me, never again..

Was it the black 40# bag?

The new green bags are great!

The only Hyponex that I've seen was a black clay sludge that looked to have been scraped from
the bottom of a pond. The worst I've ever encountered.

Josh

That is the only kind they sell here too Josh. I don't even give using that stuff a thought.

Mike

Posted by tapla z5b-6a mid-MI (My Page) on Sun, Aug 26, 12 at 16:28

"I did some looking around when you first posted to get a sense of who you were, and I noted that others have repeatedly suggested that a fast draining mix would be a better choice for your peppers."

Now I see what you mean Al.

Tapla was trying to help but.....

I am sorry Al. Now I see what you mean.