clinoptilolite Zeolite

Arlithrien

Shohin
Messages
395
Reaction score
502
Location
Tampa, FL
USDA Zone
9b
Looks like it's on Amazon for $3 for a 3lbs container. Appears to be similar
Over here DE 100% stays wet way to long.
De supposed to have a low cec level and zeolite a realy high one.
It holds a ton of moisture as well but if you use it to replace the pine bark the pH value of the soul Wil change no doubt about that.
Zeolite ph value should be between 6,8 en 7,2 and bark between 5 and 6 pH so that is quite a difference but unless it's a real acid lover like azalea for example i wouldn't worry about it
I'm thinking zeolite added to DE would help aerate and dry faster than 100% DE but if not lava should do the trick. Found some on Amazon thats $3 for a 3lb container, particle size comparable to 8822. Using the listed dimensions to calculate volume, it comes out to being 3x cheaper than the pine bark I was buying on Amazon. And it doesn't break down.
 

Arlithrien

Shohin
Messages
395
Reaction score
502
Location
Tampa, FL
USDA Zone
9b
I know it might be semantics, but I think using the word "replace" is just plain wrong. Zeolite and Bark are NOT at all alike. One could NEVER replace the other in chemistry nor physical structure. Bark is a "dynamic" particle in that it begins deteriorating as soon as you water the mix the first time. The bark slowly releases organic acids as it decomposes. Zeolite, is a mineral, it is not inert, while "fresh" it will bind up various cations, and slowly release some once the all the bonding sites are saturated. This dynamic cation exchange property is completely different than what bark does. The structure of the zeolite does not break down over time, where bark eventually crumbles into "dust" or "mud" in the 2 to 3 year span.

So one product does not replace the other.

However, you can create unique mix designs with bark or without bark. The mixes are not "replacements" for each other, each mix will have its unique characteristics based on the ingredients.

Based on the components of your mix you need to modify your watering habits, and your fertilizer choices. The various mixes are unique, and require unique adjustments in watering and fertilizing and repotting frequency. Each is unique. There is no replacement for Akadama, no replacement for bark, no replacement for DE. These are all unique. You need to understand your media, and how it works in a mix.

My suggestion is to pick materials for your potting mix based on your individual local availability, cost, and your desired watering habits and your desired fertilizing habits. Then for your mixed collection of conifers and deciduous, use only 2 different mixes made from your selection of ingredients. Limiting to 2 or 3 basic mix designs will make it easier to keep track of what needs water when, and what needs fertilizing when. One key for me is availability, if I run out, I need to be able to restock within a few days. That is one factor that drives my selection.

This all seems incredibly complex. And part of the problem is the science behind the different mixes is not well documented in layman's terms. There are "tried and true" mixes, and there are experimental mixes. My suggestion is to go with the "tried and true" designs. Keep it simple. There is plenty of documentation that most mixes that include only a single component, the 100% mixes, have serious shortcomings. Once you get to a 3 component mix, performance is usually pretty good. Pick one component for long term soil structure, pick one for water holding capacity, and then pick one component for unique properties, for example pH buffering, or perhaps for CEC, or pick one like Akadama, that has a unique suite of properties.

Then once you pick your components - stick to them and learn how to water them and fertilize with them. IF you have a thousand mixes, you will never figure out when to water or fertilize.
It is semantics but I should have worded my post better for context.

I've read suggestions to use ~20% pine bark as an organic supplementation to an inorganic substrate mix, allowing the storage of nutrients.

In my current DE/lava/pinebark mix the thought process is that the DE serves as a water absorption component, the lava provides aeration, and the pine bark for holding nutrients. In context, My thoughts are the zeolite could "replace" pine bark in my mix as the high CEC component.

Here's some data I found comparing CEC values of different substrates. What's notable is the cmol/L as that's by volume so it's more comparable. Zeolite CEC rate is leaps and bounds higher than the other substrates listed.
 

Attachments

  • 1-Cation-Exchange-Capacity-CEC-of-Several-Horticultural-Substrates.png
    1-Cation-Exchange-Capacity-CEC-of-Several-Horticultural-Substrates.png
    23.4 KB · Views: 67

Leo in N E Illinois

The Professor
Messages
11,337
Reaction score
23,254
Location
on the IL-WI border, a mile from ''da Lake''
USDA Zone
5b
The way I read the table Zeolite has 40 to 80 times higher CEC, so an order of magnitude greater CEC than pine bark.

Therefore a mix that is @20% Zeolite would be great for its CEC. Better than a bark based mix. I certainly think you can grow high quality trees in a mix like this. You should use it. But understand it is different than a bark mix, for several reasons, including it is much more efficient at holding nutrients. You will need a lighter touch with chemical fertilizers. I would use a mix like this if I had a local, reasonably priced source of Zeolite. Unfortunately I have not found a consistent supply of an appropriate particle size zeolite within a 2 hour drive from my house. (I hate paying shipping fees for "dirt").

I use bark based mixes for the property of bark that it breaks down. As it decays it releases weak organic acids. It is "food" for mycorrhiza. I do not use it for its CEC. That is why I don't use the term "replacement", when comparing a Zeolite based mix with a bark based mix. They are simply different. By the same token, I do not consider a bark based mix a replacement for an akadama based mix, again, they are simply different. Require different watering and fertilizing.

I have grown bonsai in totally inert mixes. Right now I have a Itoigawa Juniper in a mix of crushed quartzite and pumice. Nothing else. It has been in that pot for over 9 years, without being repotted. I like inert mix designs for just this purpose. It allow long period between repotting. You can not do this with a bark based mix design.

But currently I keep the majority of my trees in a mix that has a bark component, as I have not been able to get a reliably source of Akadama. All the akadama I bought in 2018 & 2019 has gone to mud, even in the bag stored in the unheated storage shed. Absolute crap. Purchased from 2 different local vendors. That is the problem with purchasing a product labelled in a language I can not read. You never know what you are getting.
 

Arlithrien

Shohin
Messages
395
Reaction score
502
Location
Tampa, FL
USDA Zone
9b
The way I read the table Zeolite has 40 to 80 times higher CEC, so an order of magnitude greater CEC than pine bark.

Therefore a mix that is @20% Zeolite would be great for its CEC. Better than a bark based mix. I certainly think you can grow high quality trees in a mix like this. You should use it. But understand it is different than a bark mix, for several reasons, including it is much more efficient at holding nutrients. You will need a lighter touch with chemical fertilizers. I would use a mix like this if I had a local, reasonably priced source of Zeolite. Unfortunately I have not found a consistent supply of an appropriate particle size zeolite within a 2 hour drive from my house. (I hate paying shipping fees for "dirt").

I use bark based mixes for the property of bark that it breaks down. As it decays it releases weak organic acids. It is "food" for mycorrhiza. I do not use it for its CEC. That is why I don't use the term "replacement", when comparing a Zeolite based mix with a bark based mix. They are simply different. By the same token, I do not consider a bark based mix a replacement for an akadama based mix, again, they are simply different. Require different watering and fertilizing.
The zeolite I ordered on Amazon came in today. Roughly a gallon for $6. The average particle size is a bit larger than 8822 with most particles being between 1/8" to 1/4" There are definitely fines and dust that needs to be sifted out but overall seems pretty dang cheap.
 

Attachments

  • 20200601_152630.jpg
    20200601_152630.jpg
    164.8 KB · Views: 59
  • 20200601_153141.jpg
    20200601_153141.jpg
    180.7 KB · Views: 55

kale

Shohin
Messages
281
Reaction score
362
Location
Colorado, USA
USDA Zone
5b
The zeolite I ordered on Amazon came in today. Roughly a gallon for $6. The average particle size is a bit larger than 8822 with most particles being between 1/8" to 1/4" There are definitely fines and dust that needs to be sifted out but overall seems pretty dang cheap.
Oh that's nice! The stuff I found at a local store called Murdoch's had way too small of granules so I gave up on the idea of it.
 
Messages
1,099
Reaction score
3,945
Location
Amsterdam
USDA Zone
8a
@defra

I'd not considered it since I had ready access to DE (Foetsie Ba) - but now I'm going to give it a go.

You're still using it, right?
 

defra

Masterpiece
Messages
3,237
Reaction score
5,991
Location
The netherlands Zone 8b
USDA Zone
8b
@defra

I'd not considered it since I had ready access to DE (Foetsie Ba) - but now I'm going to give it a go.

You're still using it, right?
hi Jeremy, yes im still using it and am still happy with it.

........
I'd not considered it since I had ready access to DE (Foetsie Ba) - but now I'm going to give it a go.
.......
does this mean you cant get your hands on foetsie ba anymore?
if so i have a source for you!
please note i have no experience with using the zeolite pure i always mix it with serval components
 
Top Bottom