I recently picked some up, but have not looked at it. I would think 1/4 inch is WAY too big! It should be the same size as perlie. As far as your tests, remember the product is already about 50 thousand years old.
Here's some good info on DE for soil. See the "regular" grade. To me this is perfect for my needs.If you really want the best possible product, find this Axis stuff.

Here is a link that might be useful: Axis DE

This post was edited by Drew51 on Mon, Oct 27, 14 at 13:29

If the goal is an aggregate medium, 1/4" would be a perfect size, Drew.

I guess the biggest would be the coarse grade by Axis if you want a larger size, and if you can find a distributor. I myself find the smaller size works fine.

Yeah, the goal is a "gritty-ish" mix ultimately.

Drew, coarse perlite is bigger than 1/4". I have a small amount of coarse perlite. If I can find the camera I'll take a picture later today of what I got in the NAPA 8822, the crushed pumice I have, and that little bit of coarse perlite for size comparison.

Also, thinking of calcined DE as being "50 million years old" isn't really meaningful. This is DE that has been heat-treated to make it less crumbly, so it doesn't just dissolve when it gets wet. Clay could also be thought of as being "50 million years old" but if you get plain clay kitty litter and put it in your pots, you will soon have a potful of muck. But if you use calcined clay such as Turface, eg it has been heat treated in a particular way, it will hold up and not dissolve into mush. The heat treating changes the basic nature of the raw material, like putting a clay pot in a kiln.

The issue with Floor Dry and its ilk is that the stuff isn't really made to be a soil supplement - its purpose is just to hold together long enough to soak up something yucky - so the heat treatment seems to be variable depending on what manufacturing facility it came out of. Works great for some people, for some people it turns into mush in water.

I have never seen Turface so I don't know what the "normal" size for that is, but this does seem very small to me.

Drew - seriously - that link you put up takes you to a sweepstake page for one of those fly-by-night "free coupon" sites. I think you accidentally copied the wrong link in there. You might want to edit that out.

Anyway - about the Axis - I can't find anywhere on their website that says where you can get it. I remember reading awhile back that its even harder to find than Turface, especially if you want just a bag or two instead of a full pallet. Do you have a source to recommend?

Here is a link that might be useful: AXIS - Click THIS link - not that other one!

This post was edited by zensojourner on Mon, Oct 27, 14 at 13:06

OK, link fixed. I know what coarse perlite looks like I use it too. No, no sources, you can maybe search for Diatomite. Most places though sell the small size. I have never seen DE turn to mush, I highly doubt it will. I also use Optisorb, but it too, is small and again is fine for my needs.
Here is a photo, works fantastic for me!
But maybe you need something bigger, best look for something else, like pumice or turface. I myself don't like turface because of the small pore size. Roots are unable to extract water from it, unlike pumice or DE, which roots can grow into. Check that link again.
Also many studeis on DE confirm it's usefullness. Studies on turface have shown sand is better.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0341816212001841
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0341816211001615
http://scihub.org/ABJNA/PDF/2010/5/ABJNA-1-5-1076-1089.pdf
http://hortsci.ashspublications.org/content/45/4/679.full.pdf

Drew - I have no qualms about the usefulness of properly calcined DE as a soil additive - its finding such that is the issue. Its not a criticism of calcined DE when I say in some areas it turns to mush - that's just a manufacturing thing. If it were being made specifically for soil amendment as Turface is (and apparently as Axis is) it would be more consistently stable across the country.

I also use pumice. I have no problems with that either.

Your NAPA 8822 looks bigger than mine. Maybe I was just unlucky and got an odd bag full of smaller stuff. Or maybe there is bigger stuff hiding at the bottom of the bag. When I find the camera I'll take a picture of what I have.

Or is that the Optisorb in your picture? I thought about the Optisorb but it costs twice as much as the Napa 8822.

AND ... I have news re Axis and the NAPA 8822. I will start another thread for that specifically.

So far the stuff I have has NOT turned to mush. It is coming from the new mining facilities via EP Minerals. Says that on the bag. More in the new thread ...

Show us the studies that say sand is better than Turface, and that plants can't extract water from Turface. My plants don't seem to realize these "facts".

From your link: " Warren and Bilderback
(1992) and Owen et al. (2008) found that
calcined clay reduces water use and increases
fertilizer efficacy in container production
when used as a substrate amendment. Turface
has excellent drainage, porosity, and
water-holding capacity (Table 1), is mechanically
stable, and has high cation exchange
capacity as a result of its montmorillinite clay
makeup (Warren and Bilderback, 1992).

In several places throughout the last link you provided the author notes that Turface has very high water retention and dries quickly. If that is so, how can you say that plants can't access the water because of small pore size?

All "claims" - no substance, again.

Let me know if you'd like to parse the "study" you linked to. I'll be happy to accommodate you.

Al

Oh please, not this again. Can't we just have a nice discussion about things that are not Turface without people getting upset and insulting each other?

I don't care about sand. Really I don't. I just want to get my stable, calcined DE and be able to find it easily almost anywhere in the country. Apparently we can do that now.

I will say this about that last study. It tested 3 different plants in each of 3 different substrates - 100% Turface, 100% sand, and some kind of cycad mix that I'm not going to bother examining further.

Because here is what that study showed - that a 100% Turface substrate tends to dry more quickly than a 100% sand substrate.

All that means is that in that one particular use, using 100% Turface, one of its drawbacks was highlighted.

It doesn't REALLY mean that sand is better than Turface, though it does show that in some instances some plants may grow better in 100% sand than in 100% Turface. That's NOT TO SAY that the plants actually grow well in either substrate! For all we know its like comparing Hitler, Sadaam Hussein, but ignoring Ghandi. We could say that Sadaam was better than Hitler - all the while ignoring the infinitely better humanitarian Ghandi.

Basically all that study really shows is that Turface isn't perfect.

Didn't we already know that? Isn't that why the gritty mix is a MIX and not 100% Turface? Does anybody REALLY want to grow anything in 100% Turface OR in 100% sand?

IF there needs to be more discussion on this, could folks take it to another thread please? Pretty please? With sugar on it? Please?

Otherwise I'd be glad to hear what anybody thinks about the NAPA 8822, I really would.

Thank you.

Here is a link that might be useful: GOOD NEWS about Axis and NAPA 8822

This post was edited by zensojourner on Mon, Oct 27, 14 at 15:49

The documents Zen linked from Axis state 0% water available to plants from turface. Good enough for me not to use it. I could care what others do, just stating what works for me. If not informative for you, so be it. It may be to others.
Yes, nothing is perfect. I agree there. Thanks for that link, lot's of good info there. I didn't know about it.
One of the reasons the smaller size works for me is most of my pots are outside. I have maybe 20 house plants, about 40-60 pots outside, varies by year. Next year will be less as I have too many commitments next summer. I need to cut amount down. Anyway, they dry quickly, the smaller size retains water longer. I'm not really sure why? You would think with the increased surface area compared to the coarse grade, it would dry quicker, maybe not? Maybe less air, so remains wet longer. Still enough air to have awesome roots. So that is why it works better for me.
I did try some coarse grade DE from repotme.com, but now they seem to only carry the small grade? And are out of that right now too. Even if it worked better the price was too much.

This post was edited by Drew51 on Mon, Oct 27, 14 at 16:10

Wait, WHAT? What did I link to that says Turface has 0% water available to plants???

OMG now I'm de-railing my own thread. For heaven's sake.

Look, I don't care for Turface myself on purely theoretical grounds. Take that how you will, give that I've never been able to lay hands on the stuff AT ALL. For all I know it works much better in practice than it does in theory. So given what I've read I don't care for it.

WHICH IS NOT TO SAY that it doesn't work well! Because clearly it does. So I don't care for Turface. So what? I've never even touched the stuff! That has nothing to do with how well it works for other people in other circumstances who have actually been able to find and use it.

I happen to have a deep and abiding (and possibly unreasoning) hatred of perlite, largely because until recently the only stuff I've ever seen used are those little tiny pellets about the size of a small BB. That always float up and get all gray and ugly looking. I hate the stuff. But I don't go around telling other people it has no use.

I happen to like peat-intensive mixes. They have always worked extremely well for me. However I have come to realize that that is not because peat is some miracle substrate - it's because I have adjusted to using it, and using a lot of it, over a period of 4 decades. The fact that I've adapted well to using it doesn't make it the perfect growing medium - just one that I'm very comfortable with and is very familiar to me, like an old shoe. Sometimes old shoes have to be repaired, or even replaced. I'm in the process of repairing my old shoe.

So OK Drew. You hate Turface. OK. It seems to me that you are using other substances that are perfectly OK too, like the Optisorb and the NAPA 8822/Axis DE. Al has repeatedly said that calcined DE has better properties in some ways than the Turface, so I think you guys can at LEAST agree that calcined DE is a good thing. Right?

Right?

But Drew, I don't know where that item about Turface not releasing ANY water to the plants came from, but it did NOT come from me and it isn't true. And I don't care enough, frankly, to go look up tables and whatnot where Turface has been compared to calcined DE or pumice or what have you and get the exact figures.

Pumice and calcined DE beat out Turface in some areas, but neither pumice nor calcined DE (such as NAPA 8822/Axis DE) are perfect in and of themselves, either. If I could lay hands on some actual Turface, maybe I would like it better than I do when I'm eyeballing comparative charts. Who knows.

Turface is a useful component in a potting mix that is balanced to play to its strengths and compensate for its weaknesses. That's just a fact. That is what I believe Al has done with his gritty mix.

But NO potting medium is perfect in all situations. Some people have had trouble with the gritty mix in dry, hot climates because it dries out too fast. That is partially related to the fact that Turface does tend to dry out faster than some other components in those situations. That STILL doesn't mean that Turface is bad per se - it just means that a modification to the ratios of the components is in order, and in fact I've seen where Al has suggested exactly that to people who need more water retentiveness in their gritty mix.

Turface isn't the holy grail of substrates, but for heaven's sake, it isn't the Devil either! It's not an issue of whether one should worship the holy gourd or the holy sandle - they both have merit!

The Holy Sandle! NO! Follow the Holy Gourd!

But seriously - what good is ONE SHOE? OR sandle? And what good is a gourd in the desert when it's empty of water? LOL!

My issue with the gritty mix has NOTHING to do with whether or not it can work - it clearly does, often and repeatedly. My issue is firstly that I can't find the dang Turface unless I want a full pallet, and secondly the sheer weight of that mix. I LITERALLY will be unable to move a pot of any real size (say 10" or 12") if its filled with conventional gritty mix. Yes, I am that weak, which annoys me no end, you have no idea.

Geez, derailing my own thread. I just cannot believe it.

Drew, I think you have a lot of good ideas that I would like to hear.

But you are dead wrong on the issue of Turface if you are going to continue to insist that it cannot be used as a substrate in a potting medium, because clearly it can be, it has been, and it is being used exactly that way, in a variety of different mixes many of which do not remotely resemble gritty mix other than the fact that they are using Turface. And people's plants are NOT dying all over the place.

When I couldn't get coarse vermiculite any more, I started using a 50/50 blend of peat moss and MG bagged GARDEN SOIL.

That is a HORRIBLE mix. HORRIBLE. But it worked very very well for me for literally YEARS. Because I MADE it work, without actually having to put any conscious thought into it or realizing that I was doing anything special. And because plants are FAR more forgiving and adaptable than we usually give them credit for.

Trust me, Turface has more going for it than that for sure!

Drew, I hope you don't stop talking to me, because I want to hear other people's ideas, including yours. Folks who hate Turface, folks who love it - just agree to disagree and get past it.

As for throwing studies around purporting to support this or that opinion - I have yet to see a single study referred to by EITHER SIDE that really shows what the poster says it shows.

Granted I haven't read them ALL. But every time I do, the study as a whole doesn't quite say what it is presented as having "proved".

There are studies that show Turface can be a good soil substrate under the conditions of that particular study. There are enough of those to show that Turface has good general usability in a balanced mix.

There are also studies that show that OTHER substrates have sometimes better characteristics for given conditions. And there are enough of those studies that show that many other substances also have good general usability. Such as pumice, scoria, and even more so, calcined DE. And yes, even peat, despite the near constant vilification of it around here, is a good component in a potting mix - one that is balanced according to the strengths and weaknesses of ALL of the components.

I happen to think - given what I've read in the studies I've had access to, and NO, I am NOT going to bother to post those, I am NOT trying to convert anyone - that overall calcined DE can be a better substrate than Turface. That's my opinion. I don't think anybody would argue that it's significantly worse whether or not they agree with that opinion.

It is now much more easily acquired, as well, given that the manufacturing process has changed and should have taken care of those isolated but worrisome issues of inconsistency in stability.

BUT it is still not perfect - because I still can't get it in anything but the very small roughly 1/16" to 1/8" size that the NAPA 8822/Axis DE seems to come in. At least that is what was at the top of the bag I got.

And I STILL don't know how that compares to the size of Turface or what the effects of particle size might be. All I know is that Drew hates Turface the way I hate Perlite - passionately and perhaps unreasonably. And that this upsets Al. And things degrade from there.

I'm totally with you on not using Turface in my mix - but that is at least partly because I can't even lay hands on the stuff! I just don't have the energy to track down and try every single possible substrate, whether its Turface, coir, scoria, or anything else. If I've got something that is working for me, I'm golden. If my plants are green, I'm golden, LOL!

Guys. C'mon. I just want to grow stuff. Help me do that?

I have a few succulents growing in 100% pure Turface....a Sedum nussbaumerianum and a Crassula ovata. They seem to get plenty of water....and, in fact, I am careful with the watering because 100% Turface supports a perched water table.

If the science were settled on this issue, wouldn't my plants be dead these four years later?

Josh

From that one study:

"Turface can be used successfully to grow very drought sensitive plants if a water reservoir is provided to prevent drying out (C. Husby, personal observations). Because the substrate is inorganic, anaerobic decomposition of the substrate under saturated conditions does not occur, making a reservoir feasible as in hydroponics."

Which sorta makes it sound like they think that at least under SOME circumstances with 100% Turface, a perched water table could be a GOOD thing.

Regardless. I have yet to find anything that is a good general purpose potting medium with no other components. Bonsai growers sometimes use 100% pumice to recondition a sickly plant. You've got some succulents that are doing fine in 100% Turface. There are specific situations where people are using 100% sand, and probably any number of other substrates that get occasional use like that for some specific purpose or plant.

But I'm pretty sure that trying to put my curry leaf plants or my ginger in a 100% pumice or perlite or Turface or bark or peat or what have you substrate is not going to make them happy.

And if my plants ain't happy, ain't NOBODY happy, LOL!

So Josh - can you tell me what size particles you typically find in a bag of Turface, and how you are screening that?

Because this NAPA 8822 just seems really small to me, running something between 1/16" and not quite (apparently) 1/8". I have no idea if that is typical, or even if that might change as I dig down further into the bag, but I just thought it would be a little bigger ...

Typical Turface runs anywhere from sand-like particles up to about 3/16 of an inch, rarely larger. It would be great if Turface were a bit larger, but it works well regardless.

I use a piece of metal window screen 1/16 inch to remove the smallest Turface particles, and I keep everything above.

Oh, and I've grown Ginger in 100% bark :-)

Josh

My ginger is in roughly 1:1:1 peat-bark-pumice. Its doing great.

Its an edible ginger that got lost - I kid you not - under something else in the kitchen for like 2 or 3 months. When I found it, it was a wizened shriveled up remnant of a garlic rhizome - except for one very healthy looking sprout on one small knob. Very dark green sprout despite being in virtual total darkness, all nice and pinky and fresh looking around the base. Like a good healthy ginger sprout ought to be.

I figured anything that tough deserved a chance, so I broke it off even though it was a smaller piece than I would have thought would work well, even if the rest of it WEREN'T all shriveled up. And I stuck it in a pot in that mix.

It's amazing. I think it's been maybe a couple of weeks now? I'm not sure, but it is about 6" tall, and all the sun it gets is from sitting in front of our south-facing patio door.

Anyway. So I've been using fiberglass screen which I have recently read is apparently slightly smaller than the aluminum window screen. Do I need to run out and get some aluminum window screen? Does it make that much difference?

So from what you are saying it seems the Turface is slightly larger than what I am seeing so far from the NAPA 8822. It is slightly smaller than 1/8", at least the stuff in the top of the bag is. Drat. That means the Turface is about 50% larger. That's kind of significant.

I wonder if it's OK to screen the bark to the same size - I think doctrine is 3/8" but I have 1/4" and 1/2" hardware cloth for screening. I was going to use the 1/2" hardware cloth but maybe I should go to the 1/4" instead? I have no idea what people are using to get to 3/8" for the bark ...

If you are making Gritty Mix, screen the bark at 1/4 inch.

If you are using Pine Bark, you can potentially screen up to 3/8 inch....due to the flat nature of the bark scales. But, really, 1/4 is better.

I do recommend a stiff metal screening implement.

Josh

My Turface MVP is good-sized. Here's a handful straight from the bag. You can get an idea of the range of particle sizes.

Josh

Here is my Ortanique in 80% Turface Pro League and 20% Fir Bark. You can clearly see the consistency of the size on Pro League compared to Josh's MVP above. My MVP looks exactly like his.

Pro League was not screened as it has virtually no fines. It is all about 1/10-1/12". There is actually a bit more bark in the mix than shown on the top as the small stuff blows away. With that much Turface, every time you water the mix moves around as there isn't enough bark on top to stick together. It would make sense to put a layer of 100% bark on top.

Pro League will perch almost 1/2" water in my test so this has a wick since it is in a Gainey pot finished inside and out. In my climate they don't need a wick in Terra Cotta.

I don't know how anyone could say that water is not available to the plant as it is clearly very happy.

This post was edited by GregBradley on Mon, Oct 27, 14 at 21:24

FWIW, "the study" also surmised that the age/size plants in straight Turface might have had a significant impact on the results, and that plantings that had the opportunity to mature might not have exhibited the negative effects.

"Furthermore, as the seedlings
increase in size and in the extent of their root
systems, their tolerance of sometimes
droughty conditions in Turface will likely
increase, perhaps ameliorating the negative
response to Turface seen in Zamia fairchildiana
seedlings. Thus, investigation of
the responses of larger cycads to the three
substrates is an area for future research."

I think it's important that people get the most reliable information available, that as mentors or coaches we need to be truthful. When we sacrifice truth and our credibility on the altar of a personal agenda, it's in the interest of the entire forum that we point to what is occurring. Personally, I could care less what people CHOOSE to grow in, but I'm very interested in seeing they get honest information in order that they might make an informed decision. I've always been that way.

I actually didn't realize this was your thread. Had I, I probably wouldn't have replied, but then we would have missed a considerable amount of light being shed. It's light we need - not heat.

In a perfect world, all of your inorganic particulates would range in size from 3/32" - 3/16" with the greatest volume in the 1/10-1/8" range. The bark can or should be slightly larger to allow for some decomposition over the life of the soil. The average size of Turface particles actually comes out being a little too fine to be ideal, but because the grit and bark combined are larger in particle size and by far the largest fraction of the soil (2X the volume of Turface), they compensate nicely for the small size of the Turface.

Al

That study talks about a LOT of things. Most studies do. The entire study in context really has nothing to do with whether or not Turface is better than sand or anything else, they were just looking at 3 specific plants - I think they were all cycads - in 3 specific substrates from which they drew a few ideas for future study about how to grow cycads. That's what most studies are really all about. Not proving something or disproving - but figuring out what the next question to ask might be. It wasn't a study about Turface, it was a study about growing cycads.

Again, I have no interest whatsoever in a conversation about whether or not Turface is a good substrate. I concede that it is. I don't concede that it is the ONLY good substrate and I don't think you (usually) really believe that either. For me the point is moot because I have never been able to lay hands on it.

Al. You do not need to prove anything to me. I trust that you've done your homework and you've come up with a good growing medium or two here. I don't disagree with you in any substantive way.

I just can't use your gritty mix without altering it because of the weight (and the fact that for me, Turface has thus far been the equivalent of unobtanium).

So, I'd be VERY happy if you would talk to me about particle size in relation to what I CAN get, which is the NAPA 8822.

I hope that you will do that for me because that conversation WOULD be casting light on the subject.

So in hopes that you will be kind enough to indulge my ignorance and give me the benefit of your experience in this area this is what I am wondering.

As I understand it - as I have read in dozens of threads - with a gritty type mix there is advantage to having things basically close to the same particle size. Well I think that's actually got to do with any mix but I'm aiming for a gritty-like mix.

But I get a little confused because I think a lot of the threads I have been reading are older and don't always match what I see in the Soils thread (current version). Plus, I keep getting the 5:1:1 (not gritty) mixed up with the gritty.

In that thread it says gritty mix should use the screened Turface, which I THINK we have established comes in at around 3/16" maximum. I have no idea what the distribution of particle size is but basically the largest Turface particle seems to be about 50% larger than the largest particle in the small sample from the top of my one bag of 8822.

That 1/16th inch difference seems small on the one hand but when I actually look at the particles it looms much larger. Or is that smaller? It just looks so tiny.

Anyway. Here's what I've got to work with at the moment.

I rigged up 1/2" hardware cloth zip-tied into a milk crate for my first level sifter, to sift out all the big pieces.

Then I have a little "insert" of 1/4" hardware cloth to drop into that milk crate on top of the 1/2" hardware cloth for level 2 sifting and this gives me pieces that seem to be about 3/16ths and smaller dropping out the bottom.

So if I am looking at this the right way round, I take the stuff that's left on top from Sift #1 and put it in my mulch bin. Bigger than 1/2" = too big for 5:1:1.

Then I drop my 1/4" hardware cloth insert into the milk crate on top of the 1/2" and sift again. This is Sift #2.

Then I take the stuff that's left on top from Sift #2 and throw that into the bin for future use in non-gritty mixes. That is stuff that is between 1/4" and a little less than 1/2" (roughly).

Then I take the stuff that came out the bottom and sift the dust out of it using standard window screen. This is Sift #3.

What's left on top from Sift #3 goes into the bin for use for making a gritty-like mix, with the Napa 8822 and pumice (because gravel is just too heavy and I can actually get pumice fairly affordably here).

What comes out the bottom I throw into another bin for future use in making seed starting mix.

This should give me bark for the gritty-like mix between roughly 1/16th and 3/16th inches to go with the 1/16th (roughly) to 1/8th" pumice and the NAPA 8822 of about the same size as (only flatter than) the pumice.

In your considered opinion, which I value or I would not bother to ask for it, is that close enough in particle size between the squishy and the crunchy, or does the squishy part (bark) need to be screened down some more?

I surmise that a 1:1:1 bark-NAPA 8822-pumice blend is going to be more water retentive overall than conventional gritty. I believe I can deal with that. If I can grow more food than I can eat in buckets of "pudding" (eg peat mix), I'm pretty sure I can adjust - it, me, or both, as the case may be.

I'm just trying to start from the best point possible given what I have available. Ratios can be fiddled more easily and rationally given that particle size isn't standing behind my back making bunny ears. (eg, eliminate or reduce issues having to do with particle size to make everything else easier to deal with)

I expect you may not think the use of the pumice instead of the Gran-I-Grit to be wise. I know you have reasons for using that that are good and reasonable but it just makes the mix too heavy for me to be able to use it. The pumice weighs less than half of what the grit weighs even when its wet. I have to keep the weight down.

It bothers me that I don't seem to be able to get the NAPA 8822 - eg Axis DE - in a larger size - up to 1/4" strikes me as ideal for anything I'm likely to grow, but maybe I'm wrong about that. However it seems that other people have been reporting the old NAPA 8822 in the same size range I'm seeing and they're doing alright. So maybe its not that much of a problem.

One thing I've noticed is that it seems like the folks who got the mushy NAPA 8822 reported generally larger particles, up to 1/4", than the folks who got the original NAPA 8822 in its unmushy form. Based on a small sample size and my poor memory. It was mentioned on the other thread about NAPA/Axis and I'm pretty sure I read the same report from a mushy victim in an older thread awhile back as well. Not really germane - but possibly interesting.

The sad thing is that when I move back to the Midwest I may not be able to get the pumice affordably (or at all) any more. I don't know if Dry Stall is carried at any of the feed stores back there. If not, I'm going to have to find something else yet again for my gritty-like mix.

*sigh* Just thinking about it makes me tired.

This post was edited by zensojourner on Tue, Oct 28, 14 at 0:01

I have used O'Reily's UltraSorb and I liked it.
I also did a series of experiments:

1- Soaked in water for a few days; it kept its shape and did not fall apart.

2- Froze it in water, thawed . Again, it was stable.

3- weighed a cup of it DRY. Then soaked it for a day. Then drained/strained the water and weighed it again. It DOUBLED in weight.

I think it has a good moisture quality property without making the potting mix soggy.

Seysonn

It wasn't a study about Turface, it was a study about growing cycads.

Yes that is very true, but it tells us enough. At least for me that it isn't the best product to use. I agree that is a leap, but a very logical one. Also the pore size is a problem, we know that from the Axis data, the pore size is too small to be very useful. Explains the results of the study. Of course it didn't do well. Now if we had a product that could store water, as to make for good structure and allow air, but release water as roots needed it, or if roots could grow into the product to extract water when needed, now that would be cool! Oh wait we have such a product! DE!
I used the product this year and I'm pleased with the results. We will see how the product holds up in the winter, as I have fabric containers which will be remaining outside all winter. i will inspect the DE content in the spring.
Next year I want to experiment with adding some perlite too, to see if this can even make the mixes better. It may not? i grew peppers in 15 gallon fabric containers. When i pulled gently 75% of the soil remained attached to the roots. The root growth was amazing. In some cases like with Scotch Bonnets, the roots were longer than the top side of the plant. They were extremely healthy looking too. I did this a couple days ago, cleaning up, getting ready for winter which is coming here Wedneday with a fury!
I have never seen such extensive root growth. The product is amazing. I'm sure the root pouches helped too, I'm sold on fabric containers, and DE. Plants in pots did well too, Peppers in 5 gallon plastic pots were root bound big time, but may have been without DE, hard to tell? I didn't have any controls in 5 gallon pots. I did in larger pots and fabric bags, and the roots systems were not as large without DE. Clearly not as large as those with DE. 5 gallons was not big enough for the roots. i can al least conclude that. They did fine, but the extensive growth showed they could have grown bigger if they had more room.
Another observation was without DE often the roots broke when pulling out, as the soil compacted some. It did not compact at all in pots with the DE, and made pulling all the roots out a lot easier. So as the data from Axis states less compaction, yes for sure there was less if any compaction.

The water storing ability works well for me as I cannot be around that much, plus it's just efficient as you need less water. Many places have water restrictions and conserving water is very desirable. And the fact the good stuff remains for years, does not break down. It is a great addition to container growing.

Crassula ovata grown in pure Turface in a shallow bonsai pot.

Josh