Cation exchange capacity and water retention rates list

KennedyMarx

Omono
Messages
1,709
Reaction score
431
Location
Indiana (Zone 6a)
USDA Zone
6a
I remember coming across some numbers from a bonsai magazine, I think, that had the CECs and water retention rates for different bonsai soil ingredients. Does anyone have this saved by chance?
 
Kennedy,
I found this in a post you made about turface in April. I think this is probably what you mean:

http://bonsainut.com/forums/showthread.php?10444-Dry-Turface-water-resistant/page6


I ran across this chart in Journal of American Bonsai Society Vol 43 #4 2009 page 6. The talk about ability to hold fertilizer made me look this up to see the CEC (cation-exchange capacity ) of various materials.

CEC pH water retention
Kiryu River sand 11.7 5 low
coarse sand 0 7 low
Perlite 1.5-3.5 6.5-7.9 low
akadama 31.4 6.5-6.9 high
red lava rock 10-30? 6 med
haydite/calcinated clay 15-40 7 med
decomposed granite 1-15 6.5-7 med
pumice 15 7-7.5 low
Kanuma 62 6.4 high
Turface 33 n med
pine bark 53-100 4-5.1 high
charcoal >200 6.7-9.7 low
sphagnum peat 100-180 3.9-4.9 high
 
Kennedy,
I found this in a post you made about turface in April. I think this is probably what you mean:

http://bonsainut.com/forums/showthread.php?10444-Dry-Turface-water-resistant/page6


I ran across this chart in Journal of American Bonsai Society Vol 43 #4 2009 page 6. The talk about ability to hold fertilizer made me look this up to see the CEC (cation-exchange capacity ) of various materials.

CEC pH water retention
Kiryu River sand 11.7 5 low
coarse sand 0 7 low
Perlite 1.5-3.5 6.5-7.9 low
akadama 31.4 6.5-6.9 high
red lava rock 10-30? 6 med
haydite/calcinated clay 15-40 7 med
decomposed granite 1-15 6.5-7 med
pumice 15 7-7.5 low
Kanuma 62 6.4 high
Turface 33 n med
pine bark 53-100 4-5.1 high
charcoal >200 6.7-9.7 low
sphagnum peat 100-180 3.9-4.9 high

Can anyone with a modecum of common sense look at that chart and tell me what stands out?
 
I guess what stands out, to me, is that it is common sense. Sand and rocks are inert and poor absorbers of liquid. The rest, not being hard, non porous minerals, will hold a little water. The pH goes down as the amount of carbonate or organic the substance contains goes up. No-brainer.

John
 
Charcoal--yes, charcoal
 
I guess what stands out, to me, is that it is common sense. Sand and rocks are inert and poor absorbers of liquid. The rest, not being hard, non porous minerals, will hold a little water. The pH goes down as the amount of carbonate or organic the substance contains goes up. No-brainer.

John

Almost there....one more
 
Its all greek too me, but why does pumice have a low water retention rate and lava has a medium one.

ed
 
You have me intrigued, Al, and it seems that there might be something important to be gained from this.

I notice also by looking at the chart, that all of the componets, with the exception of the organics and the kanuma have relatively low CEC, so you must fertilize, fertilize, fertilize..... especially, if your soil is low on organics, right?

John
 
You have me intrigued, Al, and it seems that there might be something important to be gained from this.

I notice also by looking at the chart, that all of the componets, with the exception of the organics and the kanuma have relatively low CEC, so you must fertilize, fertilize, fertilize..... especially, if your soil is low on organics, right?

John

bingo......
 
Looks like I will be adding more charcoal in my mix now than I originally planned. No need to waste fertilizer. ;)
 
Yeah, you're right, I probably could have used that analogy, also. LOL. I deserve that one. Stupid brain and fingers!!!

I doesn't take but a few seconds to make an ass of one's self. For inquiring minds, it is "pythagorean theorem".

That is the last time I post while talking on the phone, as others are having a conversation behind me. Too much input.

John
 

Attachments

  • unnamed.jpg
    unnamed.jpg
    49.1 KB · Views: 370
Interesting stuff!
Peat seems like a really good substrate... what is bad about it? Acidity and may rot?

The first problem with peat is that when it is dry, it is EXTREMELY difficult to wet. The second is the fact that here in the US, we can only get it finely milled and far too small for bonsai. Walter Pall, Morten Albek and other Europeans use it, but they can get it in larger "chunks" that they call coarse peat. If you can get it coarse, you might want to try it.
 
The first problem with peat is that when it is dry, it is EXTREMELY difficult to wet. The second is the fact that here in the US, we can only get it finely milled and far too small for bonsai. Walter Pall, Morten Albek and other Europeans use it, but they can get it in larger "chunks" that they call coarse peat. If you can get it coarse, you might want to try it.

What about the stuff they use for orchids...long fibered sphagnum chopped up? I use it for top dressing.
 
What about the stuff they use for orchids...long fibered sphagnum chopped up? I use it for top dressing.

That's sphagnum moss, not peat. I use the moss as a top dressing and as a 5% soil component for quince in development (since pine bark, my normal organic component, is more likely to have nematodes).
 
Can anyone with a modecum of common sense look at that chart and tell me what stands out?

You have me intrigued, Al, and it seems that there might be something important to be gained from this.

I notice also by looking at the chart, that all of the componets, with the exception of the organics and the kanuma have relatively low CEC, so you must fertilize, fertilize, fertilize..... especially, if your soil is low on organics, right?

John


Hell, I could have told you all that, but Al keeps putting these qulifiers on who gets to answer :mad:
 
Back
Top Bottom