TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk
Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
I have often wondered if there really is any appreciable difference in growth rates using LFS or peat. Here are the results.
These pots of D. burmannii were both planted at the same time (3-28-05) and grown in identical conditions (outdoors). You can see the difference for yourself.
I certainly can't answer from my experience (or lack thereof), but I know that that each medium has different characteristics about them and depending upon what you want to achieve (holding moisture, airiness, antisceptic qualities), would determine which is preferable in a given situation. But I like the idea of this discussion topic!
You probably need a few more data points to give a firm answer, i.e. I don't think one plant in each condition is enough. I would love it if someone do this experiment on large-scale, maybe with several different plants (VFTs, sundews, etc.) I would, but I don't have enough room!!
I haven't kept track of any differences in my plants, but I know that many of them just seem happier in LFS or milled sphagnum; very rarely do I use peat now. Just personal preferance.
if your plants are doing good i wouldnt be in a rush to replant. heres why:
the basic rule for growing plants is not everything works or everyone. the reason for this is not everyones growing conditions are exacly the same. even some one living down the street from you can have different growing conditions. how and how often you water, what kind and how much light your plants get, temps, relitive humidity, amount of air circulation all come into the equation. the only way i can grow Darlingtonia is in pure peat but i really dont recommend it to other growers as a starting point.
so not everything works for everyone and if your plants are doing good than DONT CHANGE A THING! ofcoures experiments are always fun and educational
Errmm.... uhhhh.... it was pointed out to me that I forgot to say which pot is which.. lol sorry.. The larger one on the left is indeed the one in pure LFS.
Michael: Yes you are correct that a single plant is hardly difinitive evidence, but I believe that the differences displayed here are conclusive enough to warrant further study. I have several other seeds on hand that I am going to be running the same experiment with. I will update as they progress.
Cole: For me, peat is a cheap and readily available alternative to LFS. The home centers and nurseries in my area dont carry it in any size bag so I have to mail order out to get it which is sort of a hassle.
Rattler_mt: I agree whole heartedly with your points. What works for me isnt necessarily going to work for anyone else.. so please people no posts down the line that say "Well Steve said so...." lol
Jim: Errrmmm uhhhhh.. *stares at ground and shrugs* lol
The reason LFS grew better than straight pete was because of aeration (sp?). Pete is a good substrate as long as it's mixed with perlite or sand. Pete alone has poor drainage, and smothers the plant roots of oxygen.
Well, LFS has some very good qualities as have been mentioned. The only drawback is that it is very lacking in trace elements, not a problem with good nutrition. I prefer peat/sand mixes for many of the common weedy species like the S. African's, but I have yet to meet a Drosera which did not take to LFS. Color ceems to come out more with the use of peat composts I think.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.