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

[Dav4]

OK, as a counter example (sort of), I just potted a Chinese elm (ulmus parvifolia) that I had dug up a couple of years back and planted in a grow-box, using mostly Mule Mix (very similar to Turface), with about 20% pine bark and maybe 10% granite grit (unnecessary, I think.) The box was filled with fine roots from top to bottom (excepting the top 1/4" or so, perhaps.) They looked very healthy. (Sorry, I neglected to take any pictures during the potting process.)

Granted, this mix was not pure Mule Mix, and elms grow roots like crazy, anyway, but still...
Oliver

Inquiring minds want to know...which Mule mix product did you use, was it sifted, and to what average size granule?

 

[Poink88]

OK, as a counter example (sort of), I just potted a Chinese elm (ulmus parvifolia) that I had dug up a couple of years back and planted in a grow-box, using mostly Mule Mix (very similar to Turface), with about 20% pine bark and maybe 10% granite grit (unnecessary, I think.) The box was filled with fine roots from top to bottom (excepting the top 1/4" or so, perhaps.) They looked very healthy. (Sorry, I neglected to take any pictures during the potting process.)

Granted, this mix was not pure Mule Mix, and elms grow roots like crazy, anyway, but still...
Oliver

As is this example...
http://bonsainut.com/forums/showthread.php?14534-Roots-in-Turface-Potting-soil

 

[63pmp]

Effectively, a drainage layer shortens the pot. The saturated zone normally found at the bottom of the pot without a drainage layer will be found above it - shortening the depth of your pot by approximately the height of the drainage layer. A key dependency on the height of the saturated zone is the difference in grain size between the drainage layer and the planting media - if you have a very coarse-grained drainage layer and a very fine grained planting medium, the height of the saturated zone will be maximum. As the grain size difference decreases, so does the height of the saturated zone perched above the drainage layer.

Scott

Yes, this is true. Sometimes this is not a good thing, but for deep pots, and especially terra cotta pots with only one hole, a gravel drainage layer will lift the potting mix out of a puddle of water that invariably forms from an uneven surface of the pot, or if the pot is not exactly horizontal. I also think a drainage layer allows oxygen to access the entire bottom of the potting mix, and aids drying of this puddled water. With potting mix's without a drainage layer the entire bottom surface of the soil is in contact with the pot and is saturated, oxygen will struggle to enter these lower soil areas until the saturated zone dries out, which may take a few days in some cases.

I've have used a drainage layer consistently for 10 years now and see trees where the roots have grown completely through the gravel, or have not grown into it at all, I think my trees are better off with it then without. I use a stable zeolite gravel, from 1-3 cm in size, only because that's what I have; anything that is stable is fine. It also stops my potting mix from washing out the drainage holes of plastic grow pots.

Mark asked,

"I agree and I'm interested in any data or studies that you can point me to that document this."

No, only from my own experiments with air filled porosity. I lost about 20 japanese maples one year from a poorly designed potting mix, they were doing fine for a month or so after repotting, and then I had a warm, wet week and maples started dying left right and center.

Other trees were suffering as well, but the maples fell over very quickly. It was back to the basics to see what the physical properties of the mix was. I came up with a mix that was about 22% AFP and have been using it ever since.

It's hard to find anything on Japanese maples, there is nothing about salinity tolerance, ammonium tolerance, pH and fertilizer requirements. I discovered last growing season that J. maples are susceptible to nitrate induced chlorosis. Never had that before, but its a function of high pH and nitrate fertilizer. Very little information available, even in scholarly papers. Really need people who are prepared to be more qauntitative in their approach to growing J. maples to post up, as climate is extremely important in the care of them, so one person doing it won't provide a broad enough data pool.

About wicks, I have used wool, cotton and nylon cord. They certainly drained excess water from the pots, but often fell out, stopped wicking for unknown reasons, attracted the dog. It's good for when a tree is not draining properly, say, from an overabundance of roots, and its death to repot, but in the long run it's easier to modify the potting mix AFP, and repot before a problem begins.


Paul

 

[mcpesq817]

Man, turface is so terrible

Let's see - this japanese maple was grown in the ground for a number of years, dug up last year, and with few feeder roots, was planted into an Anderson flat in 100% pure turface. In case folks don't know, an Anderson flat is approximately 15"x15"x5". You can see in the attached pictures taken this afternoon just how terrible the rootball is now a year later. I don't know, maybe I should have used Superthrive or humic acid?

For what it's worth, I repotted a juniper earlier this weekend that was in Boon's mix (actually prepared from a repotting workshop with Boon three years ago). I was a bit surprised to see that there was a hard, cement-like mix at the bottom of the pot that needed to be scraped off.

 

[Brian Van Fleet]

Not a totally fair comparison, since they're not growing side by side, but here is a J. Maple grown in no Turface, but akadama and lava, 2:1, after combing out, bare-rooting, washing and pruning the roots.

 

[youngsai]

I also pulled turface from my soil mix and the soil I'm selling, after seeing how my trees responsed to it, I felt I had to pull it. Nothing flourished in turface by itself, everything with pumice by itself flourished. My supplier of pumice has offered me a fired clay about 1/4" clean, but I said no to that because it seemed as if Hagedorn's argument did not center around the size of the particle but more on the CEC and physical properties of the particle. So I know I'm being redundant, but shouldn't I leave it out of my mix even though it is a larger size high fired clay?

 

[Stan Kengai]

Not a totally fair comparison, since they're not growing side by side, but here is a J. Maple grown in no Turface, but akadama and lava, 2:1, after combing out, bare-rooting, washing and pruning the roots.

The reason it's not a fair comparison is because mcpesq's maple has only been out of the ground for a year. And I would say his results look pretty good for only a year.

 

[Brian Van Fleet]

The reason it's not a fair comparison is because mcpesq's maple has only been out of the ground for a year. And I would say his results look pretty good for only a year.

I'm kind of laughing now, because I didn't know which "side" mcpesq was taking, and typically avoid the soil wars threads. I just thought the trunk size, subject matter, and camera angles made the two photos an interesting comparison of roots.

I will state, however, that the age of most of the fine roots on both maples shown are likely very close in age. Neither looks unhealthy, but the texture and thickness are different. I believe soil grain size impacts this.

 

[Poink88]

I will state, however, that the age of most of the fine roots on both maples shown are likely very close in age. Neither looks unhealthy, but the texture and thickness are different. I believe soil grain size impacts this.

Just out of curiosity...between the two, which is the preferred (better) texture & thickness?

 

[Poink88]

I'm kind of laughing now, because I didn't know which "side" mcpesq was taking, and typically avoid the soil wars threads.

For me (and maybe for mcpesq), it is not about taking sides...it is about proving that Turface is a viable substrate and not as bad as most make it to be.

 

[Brian Van Fleet]

Just out of curiosity...between the two, which is the preferred (better) texture & thickness?

You noticed I said different, not what is preferred. When I'm doing root work, I know what I want to see, and I know how to get what I'm looking for, but that's me. Have you developed a preference yet?

 

[mcpesq817]

I might have been a bit sarcastic in my first post here I'm actually not taking any side, except perhaps the side that says that turface can be a viable substrate for some people, for the right trees, in the right circumstances, etc. I've posted before how I think 100% turface is very prone to dry spots, particularly when organic cakes are used (that condition almost completely goes away when you mix turface with a different soil component).

That being said, I've gotten results like these on other trees, including boxwoods, tridents, yews, hinoki cypress, and both deciduous and pine seedlings. Particularly on field grown trees, I think turface can be a great medium. In most cases, it's impossible to completely flatten the rootball and remove all the original field soil. The turface does what its marketed to do with playing fields - it wicks away the excess moisture from those areas which helps ensure a better rootball. If I remember correctly, folks like Larry Jackel also use it as a component for recently collected ponderosas and other yamadori - I forget whether he mixes the turface though, or whether he just backfills the rest of the container with turface around the rootball - I seem to recall the latter. So, I think people overgeneralizing and saying turface is terrible and that your soil sucks unless it includes soil imported from halfway across the globe is bunk.

Brian's roots are very nice indeed and seem to be a bit thicker than mine. I should preface that my posts are not intended to rag on him at all - I think his pictures make for a good comparison and informed discussion. The unknown variables are his daily care techniques versus mine, and whether his tree is one year out of the ground and had few fine feeder roots upon collection (otherwise, I think our climates are fairly similar, with his probably being a little hotter and more humid in the summer). Assuming the variables are the same as mine, the more expensive akadama mixture seems to offer marginally better results. Are these marginally better results worth it? From a cost perspective, it was much cheaper filling an anderson flat with turface at $12 a 40-pound bag, than having to fill it with an akadama mixture -- I think I ended up with a very healthy rootball. So, I think I'll stick with turface for instances like these.

 

[Poink88]

You noticed I said different, not what is preferred. When I'm doing root work, I know what I want to see, and I know how to get what I'm looking for, but that's me. Have you developed a preference yet?

No, and that is why I am asking. In my mind, the finer (as long as healthy) the better.

Let me me re-phrase the question in a safer way then. What do you want to see when you are doing root work (in terms of root texture and thickness)...more like yours or mcpesq's?

Thank you.

 

[coh]

The difference in root thickness is interesting. I would think a lot of that could probably be explained by what the root systems looked like a year ago, when the two trees were potted. Mcp stated his tree was dug from the ground and had almost no finer roots. I bet Brian's tree had a well established root system that was cut back/thinned during repotting (but not to the extent of Mcp's tree). So some of those roots on Brian's tree are probably a few years old, which could explain their being thicker than the 1 year old roots on Mcp's tree. Particle size must play a role as well.

Mcp, I'd like to see how that root system evolves over time. Hopefully you will post a photo at the next repotting. Will those roots stay really fine, or will they tend to develop into a root pad that looks more like Brian's...

 

[Don Blackmond]

For me (and maybe for mcpesq), it is not about taking sides...it is about proving that Turface is a viable substrate and not as bad as most make it to be.

this whole debate can be summed up as: it can work v. a better option is.

the debate is entertaining, no doubt, but the polarity stems from underlying different premises.

viable versus optimal.

 

[Poink88]

this whole debate can be summed up as: it can work v. a better option is.

the debate is entertaining, no doubt, but the polarity stems from underlying different premises.

viable versus optimal.

Very true.

All I can say is that people can definitely do worse than this material (Turface)...but no one is bashing those materials.

As mentioned and I'll repeat, it boils down to economics. What is available (that works) that is affordable to me.

 

[Dav4]

These are two maples that are having their roots remade while in a mix containing turface, lava, and pumice. They are both early in their development, with the second larger tree actually having been ground layered only two years ago. Brian's tree has an exceptionally well developed, more mature root system then the other trees posted...it represents what I'm shooting for with my trees. That, and his obvious skill at working deciduous tree root systems, has to be taken into account. Though I suspect the akadama is playing a role as well, there is no way to quantify the benefit without a much larger sample size to compare...but I'm willing to play. This should be one of those threads where folks update images of their trees/roots routinely. Eventually, we should have a large enough data base to make some more reasonable comparisons.

 

[Poink88]

Good idea Dave!

 

[nathanbs]

Very true.

All I can say is that people can definitely do worse than this material (Turface)...but no one is bashing those materials.

As mentioned and I'll repeat, it boils down to economics. What is available (that works) that is affordable to me.

because no group of persons is swearing by monkey poop and sawdust as passionately as the turface abusers, oops users

 

[Don Blackmond]

Very true.

All I can say is that people can definitely do worse than this material (Turface)...but no one is bashing those materials.

As mentioned and I'll repeat, it boils down to economics. What is available (that works) that is affordable to me.

I'm not bashing turface. I use it by the pallet. It is what it is: cheap and readily available. You can grow healthy trees and healthy roots in turface. But, there really are not many materials worse than turface. Fine sand. Dirt. Potting soil. What else?

Like I said, I use a lot of turface (MVP). But, and its a big ass but, I don't use it on expensive trees. I have a few good quality trees, and I've used turface in the soil they are in. I don't do it any more. There is a reason for this.