I'm a lazy caretaker that is the success lol. This dirt can get waterlogged so mostly I let whatever rain we got take care of them. I watered a few times though when we were getting over 100 during the summer. My guess is that when it is very hot they are heavy feeders because the roots are huge. It was just Miracle grow potting mix because it was more loose than the other types available. I give them a slight vinegar bath every so often too 2tbsp gallon to lower the ph a little more than the dirt and it seems to pick up their growing speed. PH 7 down to around PH 5.8. I did the whole coarse dirt product last year with some but, I'm too inattentive and they went dormant lol. That and a lot of the products were not readily available nearby. My mother is heavy on water so the coarse stuff would work better for her. It was a tiny pup that I pulled off the mother plant with only one root. It hasn't bloomed but, probably will in the spring. My seedlings are about half this size. I'm lazy this year so they are all going to sleep. Seeing how well they rooted though I'm going to get them pots two sizes up. The only difference I have with pots being clay/plastic is that clay dries the dirt faster and plastic works better on quick growing things but, I can grow in either doesn't matter. The black nursery pot in the background is an experiment in mutation. I read an article on graft mutation. I basically grafted a large piece of a hippeastrum cousin onto a bulb and it took. At the site of the graft strange things may occur between the two different plants.In a year or so I'm going to take a piece of the grafted area and see if I can get a plant from it.

'You' (used collectively to mean 'all')can imagine multitudes of scenarios in which this or that may or may not work and then say "see - it doesn't work when this, this, and this occurs"; but the fact is, when you look at things from the perspective of what's best for the plant, what I said holds up to even the closest scrutiny. Grower convenience and what is best for the plant are usually mutually exclusive; and if you have a heavy/light watering hand - that is grower error; and while a very open soil like the gritty mix pretty much eliminates the problems created by a heavy-handed waterer, there is nothing that can eliminate the limiting effect of a lack of water, regardless of soil choice. If you know you have a heavy hand on the watering can, and even though logic dictates you should simply fix the propensity, it makes perfect sense to use a soil that doesn't hold perched water - problem solved. As we've seen, there's not much you can do about forgetting to water plants. Is it better to knowingly use a water retentive soil that limits growth and vitality to accommodate questionable watering habits, or fix the watering habits so your plants have the potential to be all they can be within the limits of other cultural factors? Soil choices vary more from grower to grower than they would from plant to plant if plants had a say in things. Virtually ALL plants crown in conventional container culture would prefer a homogeneous mix of soil ingredients that yield a soil that holds ample amounts ow air and water, but no perched water. Perched water kills, even if it provides the grower with the convenience of adding an extra day or ten to the intervals between watering. That is simply a fact. when the grower starts to use a soil that provides extended intervals between waterings compliments of that perched water 'reservoir', he is sacrificing growth/vitality on the altar of convenience. "It works for me" simply indicates someone is satisfied with the status quo - nothing more. It doesn't address the fact that there might well be something or some way that is much better. If the grower(s) I'm talking to are happy with how things are, then I'm happy too. Obviously there is concern for that soggy layer of soil at the bottom of containers that is being addressed in this thread, with ways being discussed to reduce its known limiting effects. Again - easiest and best is to eliminate the possibility it can exist. What if you want to grow a single and formal specimen in a deep container. Should it be mandatory that you under-plant everything to act as a sponge? - or would it be better to simply change how the soil is structured? I should reiterate here that when using water-retentive soils in containers, it's the shallow containers that present the larger challenge because a much higher % of soil remains totally saturated after watering. I'm not sure how the quality of water got into the picture, and I do realize that SF's water is probably the best in the nation because of where it comes from (melt from the SN mountains), but it doesn't matter if there is SF water or water from any other municipality occupying the perched water table. It's the existence of that perched water table and the soil's water retention, not the quality of the water that is at issue. FWIW - it's easy to assume that Echeveria has shallow roots (dictated by genetics) when growing in heavy soils because they need lots of air to remain viable and won't penetrate deeply into soils that lack adequate aeration. All plants that normally have shallow roots when growing in situ do so because air, water, and nutrients are found there in the most favorable ratios. Those same plants, grown in containers in a well-aerated soil will very happily occupy the entire soil mass from top to bottom. I've grown Echeveria (sempervivum, too) in deep pots & their roots colonized the entire soil mass. Roots are opportunistic, and though they don't 'seek' water/air/nutrients, they DO grow wherever those conditions are favorable. Al

Good morning ladies and germs! *That got such a good respone on Davesgarden.com that I can't resist once more saying it!:) You guys are cool. I visited Chub Harper yesterday and I'm going to start again hammering away (Ken are you listening) on the ACS Database. Even though a grant through the ACS will be provided to someone to do the same, there's a lot of work that needs to be done so the world can have access to the best resource...that's ever been available. Thanks again ya all, and Resin - you're the horse that everybody never bets on, but they should! Don't ask... Riddles that make sense only to me I'm going to let fly - thanks a lot my friends. Dax

I've been lurking on GW for many years and have been looking forward to being active on kitchen forum for when I was finally ready to start construction. When GW disappeared I had heart failure because how was I supposed to build a house without all of you?! I was so relieved to see the KF still around! Well, we are finally starting after years of delay, so here goes my first question! People seem to LOVE their MGS and Dornbracht pull down faucets. I haven’t been able to see either so wanted to know how you chose one vs the other and if there are pros and cons to each? Is there another option at that level I should be considering? I am most likely getting a pulldown faucet for my island prep sink. Because it’s open to the great room, if you thought it were a better look, I’d also be open to a pull out. I just know I want to be handsfree to wash veggies under a spray. For my cleanup sink, which is out of sight from the great room, I’m debating if I should choose the MGS or Dornbracht pulldown faucet, or if I should consider the Dornbracht Elio faucet with Profi sprayer which was recommended to me. I can’t find a Profi in a showroom and don’t know how easy or difficult to handle. Some other brands I’ve played with seem to be a little difficult to turn the head upwards to spray the upper rim of the sinks and caused me to fumble a bit to get the head back in the bracket (weak hands). The flexibility of us each having a faucet to use while doing dishes is in the plus column (we plan to have a big sink), but I am trying to figure out if the Profi spray gives you any other advantage you don’t get with a regular pull down. The idea of having to hold the lever of the sprayer isn’t appealing but maybe it does something really well that I’m not aware of yet. At the cleanup sink, I only care about function and looks aren’t in the equation. THX!!!!!