Dry-stall vs Horticultural pumice ... was algae and moss in seedling pots

Joseph Kraatz plantnut@cox.net
Mon, 23 Apr 2012 08:11:19 PDT
I have used Dri-Stall for years.  The only difference is that horticultural pumice is more expensive.   Joe,  Oceanside, CA

On Apr 18, 2012, at 7:53 AM, David Moore wrote:

> Hi, I ran into this thread and want to offer a clarification: as I
> understand it, Dri-Stall is technically a 'calcined clay' (fired but not to
> the point of full vitrification).  This is why the material does not break
> down like aggregated clay in its natural state.  The physical
> characteristics of the clay ensure that it retains its high CEC after firing
> (which also burns out any organic matter.)
> I am looking for insight and observations (or even better,
> scholarly/technical references) that might guide me on choosing proportions
> of calcined clay and horticultural pumice when preparing a media for
> long-term container growth of specimen plants.  Here locally (Santa Cruz
> County, CA) some of the bonsai enthusiasts are HUGE advocates for Dri-Stall,
> I have them to thank for turning me onto this material.  If these folks
> trust their precious plants to Dri-Stall I consider this a solid
> endorsement.
> I appreciate any insight and suggestions, thanks very much!
> Dave Moore
> _______________________________________________
> pbs mailing list
> pbs@lists.ibiblio.org
> http://pacificbulbsociety.org/list.php
> http://pacificbulbsociety.org/pbswiki/

More information about the pbs mailing list