BillsBayou
Chumono
I'm restarting my soil test tomato project. The first start proved that I don't know how to start tomatoes during a virus pandemic. Who has time for plants when mobility-impared and at-risk relatives are running out of toilet paper? Since I can't start seeds, I've gone to the local nursery and purchased three varieties of tomatoes.
Why tomatoes? I want quick results. Given the funding and facilities, I'd love to run this test using junipers, pines, maples, elms, ficus, fukien, and of course, bald cypress. Each group would be made up of hundreds of trees. I'd have equipment on hand to measure anything and everything about the chemistry of the substrates as the test progresses. But no. I have a suburban backyard. Tomato plants will produce well when they're happy and nothing when they're stressed. Their growth can be measured weekly, if not daily. The purpose of this test is primarily to compare fertilizer holding capacities of akadama, zeolite, and pine bark. No fruit bad. More fruit good.
Here's the substrate mixtures I'm using:
From left to right, all blends are equal proportions and total 1 gallon each (I measured):
Group 1, The High CEC Group, varies the high CEC component
Akadama/Pumice/Lava; Zeolite/Pumice/Lava; Pine Bark/Pumice/Lava
I expect the APL (Boon's mix) to be very good at holding liquid fertilizer and encouraging root ramification.
The ZPL (Bill's mix) will be compared to the APL.
The BPL (Wildcard mix; B for bark) is a test to see how pine bark compares to both APL and ZPL.
Group 2, The Haydite Group, begins with my usual bonsai soil, then tweaks it a bit:
Haydite/Pine Bark; Haydite/Zeolite; Haydite/Pumice
HB, as I said, is my standard mix
ZP to compare against HP, but with possibly less water retention and certainly less crush-ability for roots to move through the substrate.
HP, haydite/pumice, should have higher water retention than the ZP blend, but less CEC fertilizer holding capacity than either of the other two blends.
Group 3, The Pure Group, 100% of the following:
Zeolite, a rival to...
Akadama, the perfect substrate from Japan, and certainly better than...
Haydite, lowest CEC of the three, but super hard but jagged for root ramification. Some water retention, but mostly from capillary retention, not actual absorption.
If all goes well, I will see discernible differences between the three blends in each group. But how to compare the groups to each other? I don't know. That brings us to the tomatoes.
The tomato varieties: Cherokee Purple, Super Fantastic, La Roma III.
Each planted respective of the order of the three groups listed above.
I haven't raised tomatoes in a decade, so I'm hoping for answers to these questions:
1) Can I grow tomato plants in ANY of these substrates?
If any one of these varieties (maybe all three?) completely die off, then I know that's a bad variety for the test. If a variety lives, then there's a candidate for next year's test.
2) Does any variety show discernible differences within any of the three groups?
In each group, I want to see differences between the blends. I'm going to fertilize each plant in every group with the same measure of fertilizer using the weakly weekly (weekly weakly?) approach. If APL is better at holding fertilizer than ZPL or BPL, I want it to be easy to see. However, if the entire group is doing equally well, or poor, then maybe that variety is no good for the test.
3) If nothing definite comes from comparing the three groups to one another, what variety will work well across all three groups in next year's test?
Whatever the results, I hope to be learning something about how the substrates affect this plant.
Finally, this test is nothing if I don't actually pot the damned things. Oh look, I did.
From left to right:
"Cherokee Purple" is the smallest of the three varieties at the time of purchase.
"Super Fantastic" is the tallest.
"La Roma III" is less sturdy than the others. This may be more of a vine tomato.
As Coronamania allows, I will be spacing the pots better and building a lattice system for each row of plants.
Because I'm using bonsai substrate blends, each pot drains very well. This allows me to water each plant daily without water over-saturating the soil. I think. By running water through the soil, I'm washing out fertilizer from any substrate that is poor at holding it. This is on purpose for the test. It is my hope that daily watering will help some substrates to shine while others lag behind.
I hope to be posting pictures to this thread each week.
EDIT TO ADD: I almost forgot. I have three more plants of each variety and plenty of each substrate left over. If anyone has any reason for me to add a different mix to the tests, let me know. I do have Diatomaceous Earth, but I think it acts like pumice and I wasn't sure if it would have expanded the results of the test. Otherwise, I'll just put the remaining plants in potting soil and eat happy.
Why tomatoes? I want quick results. Given the funding and facilities, I'd love to run this test using junipers, pines, maples, elms, ficus, fukien, and of course, bald cypress. Each group would be made up of hundreds of trees. I'd have equipment on hand to measure anything and everything about the chemistry of the substrates as the test progresses. But no. I have a suburban backyard. Tomato plants will produce well when they're happy and nothing when they're stressed. Their growth can be measured weekly, if not daily. The purpose of this test is primarily to compare fertilizer holding capacities of akadama, zeolite, and pine bark. No fruit bad. More fruit good.
Here's the substrate mixtures I'm using:
From left to right, all blends are equal proportions and total 1 gallon each (I measured):
Group 1, The High CEC Group, varies the high CEC component
Akadama/Pumice/Lava; Zeolite/Pumice/Lava; Pine Bark/Pumice/Lava
I expect the APL (Boon's mix) to be very good at holding liquid fertilizer and encouraging root ramification.
The ZPL (Bill's mix) will be compared to the APL.
The BPL (Wildcard mix; B for bark) is a test to see how pine bark compares to both APL and ZPL.
Group 2, The Haydite Group, begins with my usual bonsai soil, then tweaks it a bit:
Haydite/Pine Bark; Haydite/Zeolite; Haydite/Pumice
HB, as I said, is my standard mix
ZP to compare against HP, but with possibly less water retention and certainly less crush-ability for roots to move through the substrate.
HP, haydite/pumice, should have higher water retention than the ZP blend, but less CEC fertilizer holding capacity than either of the other two blends.
Group 3, The Pure Group, 100% of the following:
Zeolite, a rival to...
Akadama, the perfect substrate from Japan, and certainly better than...
Haydite, lowest CEC of the three, but super hard but jagged for root ramification. Some water retention, but mostly from capillary retention, not actual absorption.
If all goes well, I will see discernible differences between the three blends in each group. But how to compare the groups to each other? I don't know. That brings us to the tomatoes.
The tomato varieties: Cherokee Purple, Super Fantastic, La Roma III.
Each planted respective of the order of the three groups listed above.
I haven't raised tomatoes in a decade, so I'm hoping for answers to these questions:
1) Can I grow tomato plants in ANY of these substrates?
If any one of these varieties (maybe all three?) completely die off, then I know that's a bad variety for the test. If a variety lives, then there's a candidate for next year's test.
2) Does any variety show discernible differences within any of the three groups?
In each group, I want to see differences between the blends. I'm going to fertilize each plant in every group with the same measure of fertilizer using the weakly weekly (weekly weakly?) approach. If APL is better at holding fertilizer than ZPL or BPL, I want it to be easy to see. However, if the entire group is doing equally well, or poor, then maybe that variety is no good for the test.
3) If nothing definite comes from comparing the three groups to one another, what variety will work well across all three groups in next year's test?
Whatever the results, I hope to be learning something about how the substrates affect this plant.
Finally, this test is nothing if I don't actually pot the damned things. Oh look, I did.
From left to right:
"Cherokee Purple" is the smallest of the three varieties at the time of purchase.
"Super Fantastic" is the tallest.
"La Roma III" is less sturdy than the others. This may be more of a vine tomato.
As Coronamania allows, I will be spacing the pots better and building a lattice system for each row of plants.
Because I'm using bonsai substrate blends, each pot drains very well. This allows me to water each plant daily without water over-saturating the soil. I think. By running water through the soil, I'm washing out fertilizer from any substrate that is poor at holding it. This is on purpose for the test. It is my hope that daily watering will help some substrates to shine while others lag behind.
I hope to be posting pictures to this thread each week.
EDIT TO ADD: I almost forgot. I have three more plants of each variety and plenty of each substrate left over. If anyone has any reason for me to add a different mix to the tests, let me know. I do have Diatomaceous Earth, but I think it acts like pumice and I wasn't sure if it would have expanded the results of the test. Otherwise, I'll just put the remaining plants in potting soil and eat happy.
Last edited:
