Napa Oil Dry Sift Results

Heathm_32

Seed
Messages
2
Reaction score
6
Posting this here for anyone who is interested in the volume post sifting NAPA 8822. I sifted the bag with a 3mm sifter, and the results were pretty shocking to me. The whole bag resulted in about 4 qts. of particles >= 3mm. This bag cost me $15 from my local Napa. With the increase in cost and the low volume of usable particles, it seems this option is becoming less and less feasible vs bucking up and buying true bonsai soil. Hope this helps everyone!
 

Attachments

  • 20231005_193921.jpg
    20231005_193921.jpg
    238.4 KB · Views: 146

Orion_metalhead

Masterpiece
Messages
3,110
Reaction score
4,694
Location
Central NJ
USDA Zone
7a
Bags tend to have different results. Ive had similar bags like this as well as the opposite.
 

Heathm_32

Seed
Messages
2
Reaction score
6
Here's the second bag.
 

Attachments

  • 20231005_195227.jpg
    20231005_195227.jpg
    244.1 KB · Views: 120

Gabler

Masterpiece
Messages
2,523
Reaction score
3,533
Location
The Delmarva Peninsula
USDA Zone
7a
I use it unsifted for deciduous trees for its higher water holding capacity and higher cation exchange capacity compared to pumice and lava. Carpinus caroliniana and Acer rubrum in particular grow well in wet soils, so I'm not worried about short periods of poor aeration right after watering. Fagus, Liquidambar, Ulmus, and Lagerstroemia spp. transpire so fast that the mix quickly dries anyway between waterings, and even most Quercus spp. don't seem bothered by the finer mix, although they mostly grow in drier upland soils in nature.

I have just a handful of conifers, so I used a similar NAPA-based mix, and they don't seem to like it. My Pinus taeda and P. Virginiana suffered fungal issues this year, so I plan to keep them drier and plant them in a pumice-based mix moving forward.

It seems most bonsai soil advice is tailored to pines and junipers, but there's plenty of trees, (e.g. Taxodium distichum) that thrive in wetter conditions, and we should be focusing more on species-specific mixes, rather than a one-size-fits-all mix.

Take that with a grain of salt. I still have a lot to learn, but I figured my experience was still worth sharing.
 

JackHammer

Chumono
Messages
507
Reaction score
558
Location
North Eastern Ohio
USDA Zone
5b
Put in some water drops into the fines - they will clump, and then scoop out the clumps and they could be usable. It also clumps inside a soil mix so keep that in mind, otherwise you could end up with a ball of clay in your pot which is exactly what you don't want. I am finding that bark and wood chips are giving me plenty of water retention so I haven't been using the oil dry.
 

queenofsheba52

Chumono
Messages
513
Reaction score
577
Location
West Michigan, USA
USDA Zone
5
I also have given up on the Napa Oil Dry: too much dust and not enough particles of good size. We are Classic Car lovers so we always have Oil Dry on hand; I just leave it in the garages now.
 

Orion_metalhead

Masterpiece
Messages
3,110
Reaction score
4,694
Location
Central NJ
USDA Zone
7a
I have found tractor supply saf-t-sorb acts as a better substitute. I get a decent quanity out of the bags, especially bags in the top of the pallet, and the color is more to my liking. I am looking for cheap alternatives to perlite at the moment.
 

Eckhoffw

Masterpiece
Messages
2,999
Reaction score
4,899
Location
St. Paul Mn.
USDA Zone
4b
Oil dri premium is a nice alternative. Not DE, but calcined clay. Way less dust, and usually contains more useable particles. IMG_9861.pngI’ve ran some tests on particle degradation. Oil dri VS. DE and I would say it’s a wash.
Study can be seen here.
 

Gabler

Masterpiece
Messages
2,523
Reaction score
3,533
Location
The Delmarva Peninsula
USDA Zone
7a
Oil dri premium is a nice alternative. Not DE, but calcined clay. Way less dust, and usually contains more useable particles. View attachment 512283I’ve ran some tests on particle degradation. Oil dri VS. DE and I would say it’s a wash.
Study can be seen here.

Isn't that just Turface?
 
Top Bottom