Why I don't use turface anymore (with pics)

[Vance Wood]

Not the point of the thread

Sorry Dave I didn't mean to make you angry or defensive. I understand your purpose is to inform and educate people so they can make informed choices.

 

[markyscott]

I know people sometimes water their trees by putting wicks into water to soak it up. But some of us put wicks in the bottom of our pots for the opposite purpose. Letting the ends of the wick hang out in the air to dry pulls the water out like a siphon. It really works. I have done a side by side comparison using straight turface in clear plastic saucers about two inches deep. In about a half an hour after soaking by submerging, the saucer with the wick had no visible water on the bottom whereas in the saucer without the wick the water persisted for several hours.

Got it - I was thinking the other way round. I don't think I've ever seen this and I know I've never tried it.

But the answer is yes. I think that doing what you suggest will lower the water saturations proximal to the wick. I can imagine that there might be problems keeping the saturations uniform, and I have no idea to what distance from the wick saturations will be affected, nor do I know how low the saturations will go in the soil right next to the wick - probably all the way to hygroscopic. But I think the question was: Will a wick lower saturations? I think the answer is: Used this way, probably yes.

Scott

 

[Poink88]

Got it - I was thinking the other way round. I don't think I've ever seen this and I know I've never tried it.

But the answer is yes. I think that doing what you suggest will lower the water saturations proximal to the wick. I can imagine that there might be problems keeping the saturations uniform, and I have no idea to what distance from the wick saturations will be affected, nor do I know how low the saturations will go in the soil right next to the wick - probably all the way to hygroscopic. But I think the question was: Will a wick lower saturations? I think the answer is: Used this way, probably yes.

Scott

Thanks Scott.

I think (not 100% sure) that the water saturation will even out...not instant, but fast enough. That water table should go down evenly.

 

[davetree]

Sorry Dave I didn't mean to make you angry or defensive. I understand your purpose is to inform and educate people so they can make informed choices.

No, I should not have titled the thread as such. Not meant to start a turface war, this would happen with the same with any other medium.

 

[markyscott]

Thanks Scott.

I think (not 100% sure) that the water saturation will even out...not instant, but fast enough. That water table should go down evenly.

Ok. Maybe that will work for you.

Scott

 

[Poink88]

No, I should not have titled the thread as such. Not meant to start a turface war, this would happen with the same with any other medium.

No war Dave. It is a great thread and very educational.

I actually wish/hope we get more civilized discussions like this.

 

[fore]

Turface = controversy lol Funny following this, it's like there has to be 'defenders of Turface' truth squad here. I know you all know, but you can grow your trees in anything just about, and have it live. Is it optimal? is the only other question that one needs to ask, and, how much do I want to spend for optimal growth/thrive, or just for it to live? We all have budgets, and we need to work within that budget (and sourcing). But the question is the same... jmho

 

[kirk@localbonsai.com]

Thats the most contradictory paragraph I have ever read.

Smoke, I was able to extract something useful from your criticism and re-worded that paragraph. Does it make you feel big putting other people down ?

 

[GrimLore]

I used turface for several years in different types of mixes. Turface is cheap, so why not ?

I never used it or Akadama. I just won't use the Turface as it is "probably" not produced under ridged quality standards and most likely yields different results a "lot". As for Akadama I see no way of telling what I am paying for as well. The deeper it is mined the better it holds up is all I read but there is no proof at point of purchase. We slowly have been changing over from a wide variety of Bonsai mix products to Dry Stall and have good success. Some items like fresh collected and Wisteria get Dry Stall and 1/4 Pine Horse bedding. Things like Azalea get 50 pct Cactus mix and 50 pct Dry Stall. I have been looking for a black/red mix of crushed Lava to cover the surface for "looks" but see no need to change anything or "experiment". Here is one of the MANY articles I have read which leads me to my decisions. http://crataegus.com/2013/11/24/life-without-turface/ Walter Pall and John G have been my largest influence on my basic choices, not copying them exact but using the same overall products available in my area in conjunction with a ridged watering and fertilizer program. There are of course some changes for slab and tanuki projects but that is a whole different thread.

Grimmy

 

[coh]

Ever since Michael Hagedorn wrote that article, it seems the anti-turface floodgates have been opened.

You do mention an interesting and potentially important point. Other than the size, the one concern I have with turface is that it is not manufactured as a soil component. It is manufactured as a field additive to soak up moisture, etc. So I do wonder about the batch to batch variability. BonsaiJack recently posted an analysis which showed turface to have a pH of 4.something. How representative is that...no idea. But perhaps some of the problems people have had with turface are due to variations in batch quality.

Then again, I keep wondering about those who have been using it for decades with no problems...and I keep coming to the same conclusion: it's the user who is causing the problems. Learn what turface does, learn how to handle it (what to mix it with, how to water) and you should be able to use it. Will it give "maximum" or "optimal" results? I don't know. But I've seen plenty of people whose plants are more than "just alive" in turface to be terribly concerned.

BTW, dry stall and floor dry are also not produced for soil components, so the same concerns about batch to batch quality apply there.

Chris

 

[GrimLore]

Ever since Michael Hagedorn wrote that article, it seems the anti-turface floodgates have been opened.

You do mention an interesting and potentially important point. Other than the size, the one concern I have with turface is that it is not manufactured as a soil component. It is manufactured as a field additive to soak up moisture, etc. So I do wonder about the batch to batch variability. BonsaiJack recently posted an analysis which showed turface to have a pH of 4.something. How representative is that...no idea. But perhaps some of the problems people have had with turface are due to variations in batch quality.

Then again, I keep wondering about those who have been using it for decades with no problems...and I keep coming to the same conclusion: it's the user who is causing the problems. Learn what turface does, learn how to handle it (what to mix it with, how to water) and you should be able to use it. Will it give "maximum" or "optimal" results? I don't know. But I've seen plenty of people whose plants are more than "just alive" in turface to be terribly concerned.

BTW, dry stall and floor dry are also not produced for soil components, so the same concerns about batch to batch quality apply there.

Chris

The reason I trust the Dry Stall and Pine Horse bedding a lot is that is made for Horse breeders and they will not settle for anything less then Superior Quality. Also it seems that Dry Stall has been very consistent in particle size and almost no dust for the last to full seasons I have bought it. The Pine horse bedding is PURE Pine, nothing else and comes in 3 sizes. For me it is a win-win except for the color which I will correct someday by topping with crushed Lava. Also Turkey Grit is Granite so rinsing out fines is the only extra thing needed if used.

Also must add I "think" people in general are trying to mix "old" with "modern substrate" and it adds to the circus...

Grimmy

 

[nathanbs]

Ever since Michael Hagedorn wrote that article, it seems the anti-turface floodgates have been opened.

You do mention an interesting and potentially important point. Other than the size, the one concern I have with turface is that it is not manufactured as a soil component. It is manufactured as a field additive to soak up moisture, etc. So I do wonder about the batch to batch variability. BonsaiJack recently posted an analysis which showed turface to have a pH of 4.something. How representative is that...no idea. But perhaps some of the problems people have had with turface are due to variations in batch quality.

Then again, I keep wondering about those who have been using it for decades with no problems...and I keep coming to the same conclusion: it's the user who is causing the problems. Learn what turface does, learn how to handle it (what to mix it with, how to water) and you should be able to use it. Will it give "maximum" or "optimal" results? I don't know. But I've seen plenty of people whose plants are more than "just alive" in turface to be terribly concerned.

BTW, dry stall and floor dry are also not produced for soil components, so the same concerns about batch to batch quality apply there.

Chris

One of my arguments against turface is that its so hard to use properly. Thats scary when their are likely going to be a lot of people reading "Try turface its great" threads and using it without perhaps seeing all of the anti-turface threads. There are other aggregates that are much easier to use.

 

[coh]

I would think major league baseball is somewhat picky about their fields as well...I just think we should be aware that all these products are produced for other uses and are subject to changes or variabilities that could have negative impacts on bonsai.

 

[Poink88]

One of my arguments against turface is that its so hard to use properly.

I do not find that as true. Simple amendment is all I did. Most of my first collected trees are 70% Turface and 30% bark...all are doing great.

The 2 that I had problems have 95% Turface 5% sphagnum. The rest in various mixes but mostly Turface are doing fine.

==========================
Edit. I'll take that back...most of my first collected trees are in OIL DRI!!! They are however also thriving but soil will be replaced with Turface mix soon.

 

[nathanbs]

I do not find that as true. Simple amendment is all I did. Most of my first collected trees are 70% Turface and 30% bark...all are doing great.

The 2 that I had problems have 95% Turface 5% sphagnum. The rest in various mixes but mostly Turface are doing fine.

==========================
Edit. I'll take that back...most of my first collected trees are in OIL DRI!!! They are however also thriving but soil will be replaced with Turface mix soon.

As long as you do this, and that, and this, and that its absolutely perfect! I cannot think of one other soil product that if used in 100% quantity has so many issues. What if "Kid Bonsai" buy a bag of this "turface" and uses it 100% what are the chances of survival for Kid Bonsai's bonsai?

 

[kirk@localbonsai.com]

Ever since Michael Hagedorn wrote that article, it seems the anti-turface floodgates have been opened.

Will it give "maximum" or "optimal" results? I don't know. But I've seen plenty of people whose plants are more than "just alive" in turface to be terribly concerned.

Chris

I've been mixing turface mvp with crushed granite and pine bark- and my trees are quite healthy - as long as I'm getting results, I am going to keep on using it, plain and simple.

 

[coh]

I've been mixing turface mvp with crushed granite and pine bark- and my trees are quite healthy - as long as I'm getting results, I am going to keep on using it, plain and simple.

You and many others!

I've been around the bonsai forums now for over 5 years, and I really have to say that I don't remember seeing many people (if any?) recommending planting in straight turface. I'm sure there are some out there, but it seems to be a small minority.

 

[nathanbs]

You and many others!

I've been around the bonsai forums now for over 5 years, and I really have to say that I don't remember seeing many people (if any?) recommending planting in straight turface. I'm sure there are some out there, but it seems to be a small minority.

to clarify I wasnt saying that anyone recommends straight turface, but you know darn well its going to happen

 

[davetree]

Again, the thread is not specifically about turface. It is more about what happens when you use a small ingredient in a mix that is made up of larger ingredients. Markyscott explained it perfectly. It has nothing to do with turface, except for its size. Nobody here is saying don't use turface. Nobody here is anti-turface. I was just documenting what happens in particular types of mixes. The larger Turface performed just fine.

 

[nathanbs]

Again, the thread is not specifically about turface. It is more about what happens when you use a small ingredient in a mix that is made up of larger ingredients. Markyscott explained it perfectly. It has nothing to do with turface, except for its size. Nobody here is saying don't use turface. Nobody here is anti-turface. I was just documenting what happens in particular types of mixes. The larger Turface performed just fine.

I am I think