FlytrapCare Carnivorous Plant Forums

Matt wrote:And when rinsed free of peat, the AG3 plants that I acquired in 2008 also didn't hold any debris on the roots because they didn't have the "fuzziness" to them that is normal for flytrap roots.

That's odd. I'm inclined to believe you though if no other reason than I've just seen the plants and their roots arrive in such a variety of conditions.

Matt wrote: But I think you might be over-estimating the amount of debris on the roots in the photo of the seed grown. There is some, but the plant had already been soaked in RO water, so most of the debris was rinsed off the roots in the process.

Matt you can also gauge the root size by looking at the root caps. The root caps on your VFT are thinner than the ones in my photos and yes my VFTs that are established also typically have thicker root caps.

I have a few more photos to upload and few other points I'll make probably late Friday night or Saturday or Sunday. I don't want to post too much more today because I'm starting to get a bad eye strain head-ache from all the reading and typing and do have some work to do and will be gone tomorrow.

idontlikeforms wrote:I even use potassium silicate in my fertilizer. This also is known to thicken roots.

Matt wrote:It seems to me that comparing flytraps fertilized with nutrients known to promote root growth to ones that are given no fertilizer would make any conclusions drawn about how the media affects root growth incorrect, right? Just like comparing the roots of plants freshly out of TC and hopped up on rooting hormone to plants grown naturally for many years does not really provide any concrete information about how the media affects root growth?

Right but I grow all my VFTs with potassium silicate not just the LFS grown ones and all my CPs for that matter, even seedlings. And I'm pretty sure AG3 doesn't use potassium silicate for their VFTs. I may be the only person in world doing this.

Matt wrote:I noted, during repotting this early spring, that new roots really started growing sometime around mid February while there was only a small amount of visible above ground growth. I have repotted lots and lots of plants this spring over the course of the last few months and have been fortunate to be able to watch the progression of the root growth while doing so.

That's an interesting observation. I've seen the same thing a few times too with my left overs from last year but the February roots were not massive like Summer roots of course.

Matt wrote: I know you had one tray of your "mother" plants dry up and was thus set back, but do you have any extremely large plants that you've been growing in LFS over the course of multiple years? This is what I'm most curious about. How large can plants get in LFS compared to the insanely huge ones I've seen grown in peat/sand. I've just never seen one get large in LFS. For this reason, along with the other drawbacks of LFS previously mentioned (primarily that it goes from wet to dry in a matter of hours, sometimes minutes, in an arid climate on a hot day), have lead me to believe that LFS is an inferior potting medium for flytraps. But I could certainly have my beliefs changed if someone could show me a huge flytrap (like the one in the photo I posted earlier) that was grown in LFS.

I think you may be ascribing too much of a factor in growth size to media. Steve has grown large VFTs in both peat and in pith has he not? I'm inclined to believe that media doesn't have that much to do with maximum size.

I don't know that I have any huge VFTs but I do have some good sized ones and I can show some pics of the ones I've kept for flowering. Most of my larger VFts I have not kept and many of them were damaged last year in a heat wave. The year before I let some bigger ones I kept flower but they mostly exploded into little plants after they flowered. Not 100% sure why, I only have some theories about it, but my larger ones didn't do this last year. Most of the larger VFTs I currently have I actually bought last year, some of them from you and Steve BTW. I'll upload some pics in the next few days of them for you.

Matt wrote:However, I'm still convinced that plants in deep pots growing in peat/sand will get larger than plants grown in LFS as I've not yet seen a photo of a large plant with a well-developed root system (like the one in this photo) grown long-term in LFS yet.

I suspect the pot size may very well have something to do with how big a VFT can get but I'm skeptical the media has a lot to do with it. I think I will ask some of these BACPS growers how big their VFTs typically get in LFS.

My point was never that VFTs can get bigger in LFS though. I don't personally believe they can. But I'm certain they regularly get thicker roots and that they can actually grow roots faster in LFS too. My peat/sand VFTs from TP that had slower and skinnier root growth than the same VFTs in LFS from the same order still had a decent amount of top growth. They just grew their roots more slowly than the LFS batch did. Over time the LFS batch did grow their leaves/traps faster too but they of course didn't get gigantic.

idontlikeforms wrote:I've seen that a lack of a good root system can result in a VFT being badly damaged by excessive heat and/or too intense sunlight as well, even if it looked great above the soil before it got hit by the heat/light.

The point I was attempting to make here appears to have not quite set in. I'm not arguing that a plant having a poor root system in inconsequential. We can all agree that a plant that has a good root system should be able to support better growth. The point was to call into question what we categorize as a "good" root system.

Joel seems to think that "thick" = "good." Matt seems to think that "long" = "good." I want to call to attention that these are just our human perceptions of "good." Just because we think it looks "good" does not in any way guarantee that it's actually healthier as far as the plant goes. If I keep my orchids too dry they send out more and thicker roots. By Joel's standard of "good" I should always grow them this way since it produces thicker roots. I view it as the plant is struggling to obtain the required amount of water, and as such it's devoting its limited growing resources to root growth instead of potential leaf growth. Really I think we should categorize a "good" root system as one that optimizes above ground growth in terms of size, robustness, leaf density etc. The best root system would be one that allows the plant to devote as much resources to above ground growth without sacrificing itself in more harsh conditions (such as a particularly hot, dry day). This could, and likely does mean, that multiple mediums can have different types of root growth, but can be equally as "good."

I've seen plenty of evidence that plants grown in a peat/sand/perilite mixture can develop extraordinary leaf growth that is robust and healthy. As such, evidence would suggest that that potting mixture and the root systems the plants produce in said mixture are "good." In fact, I've seen evidence that suggests that plants grown with sand have healthier and larger traps versus plants that are grown in pure peat or just peat/perilite. This would suggest that the sand in the mix makes it "better." On the contrary, I have never seen evidence of two plants that are grown in the exact same conditions with peat/sand/perilite versus LFS. Certainly the pictures posted of the plants grown in LFS would suggest that it can also produce plants with healthy, robust and large leaf growth, and we can then infer that they have a "good" root system. I have yet to see any evidence that suggests that LFS and the theoretically thicker roots produce better results than the long and thinner roots of the peat/sand/perilite. As such I'm having trouble drawing any conclusions that suggest that thicker = better. The evidence presented as of now seems to suggest that both may be equivalent, if that.

95slvrZ28 wrote:Joel seems to think that "thick" = "good."

I think Joel wasn't trying to say thicker=better, he was trying to say that plant can grow fine in LFS. Trying to clear a myth.

Perhaps a thicker longer roots system would make a larger plant than average. Joel doesn't have super deep pots but his plants attain a pretty good size. So maybe one day we can see a flytrap with thick roots with long roots.

ShaneF wrote:I think Joel wasn't trying to say thicker=better, he was trying to say that plant can grow fine in LFS. Trying to clear a myth.

The fact that the plants can be grown in pure LFS was cleared on the first page. The entire premise of the discussion has been based upon the fact that LFS appears to allow roots to grow thicker. On the first page, Joel plainly states that he views LFS as a superior medium to peat/sand/perilite. His views are not based on the fact that the plants appear to be more healthy, or larger, or more robust than those grown in a different medium, but rather upon the fact that they root in and grow roots faster and thicker. As such we can deduce that, for Joel, better means faster rooting, faster growing and thicker roots. I will plainly admit that Joel may have a different perspective on what "better" means for plants. From what I've gathered, (and not from this one occasion) Joel values the turnaround profit on flytraps. I have never heard him talk about any private collection, plants he would like to add to a private collection etc. This does not imply that such a collection does not exist, but the fact that he has not even mentioned such a plant suggests that his priorities lie elsewhere. As such, to Joel the "best" plants would have whatever enables the plant to get to selling size the fastest. However, for most growers this is not the case. I think most would be interested in whatever root system in whatever medium gave them the healthiest plants, whether or not they had to wait a little longer for the plant to get fully established. I am in no way suggesting LFS cannot provide this, but I will assert that I have yet to see any evidence that suggests the contrary.

ShaneF wrote:I think Joel wasn't trying to say thicker=better, he was trying to say that plant can grow fine in LFS. Trying to clear a myth.

Not really...Seems pretty clear he was saying LFS=better and also that LFS=thicker.

idontlikeforms wrote:...I believe that LFS is a better medium to grow VFTs in overall...I'm pretty certain that VFTs actually grow a little better with LFS.

idontlikeforms wrote:...Really any plant would grow better in LFS than pure peat or peat/sand or peat/perlite.

Also...

ShaneF wrote:I believe you are wrong here. The finer sand clumps when it gets wet because of it's size. The the smaller grit sand doesn't clump much (12 grade and down).

How can you say I'm wrong and follow it up by making the same statement I did? Or at least just a rehash of what I said. I said particle size matters because too small and there are no air pockets, and you say that's wrong and that large particles are better. Furthermore how do you know there are no air pockets? Air is a gas so the pockets don't have to be large enough for you to see, they just need to be able to fill and drain in order to keep refreshing the oxygen.

Or do you mean there are no large air pockets? And if that's the case refer back to when I said if your goal is greater surface area than what you want is more smaller air pockets. Again, my statements were just a reply to a single part of the earlier post, specifically the claim that larger air pockets meant more surface area which is categorically false. I was also referring to his comment that type of sand didn't make much difference unless it could form air pockets better. Well if your goal if surface area of the air pockets then YES, type of sand can have a huge advantage.

idontlikeforms wrote:I don't see why different types of peat or sand would make much difference unless some types somehow are less prone to clumping or form air pockets better.

parker679 wrote:

ShaneF wrote:I believe you are wrong here. The finer sand clumps when it gets wet because of it's size. The the smaller grit sand doesn't clump much (12 grade and down).

How can you say I'm wrong and follow it up by making the same statement I did? Or at least just a rehash of what I said. I said particle size matters because too small and there are no air pockets, and you say that's wrong and that large particles are better. Furthermore how do you know there are no air pockets? Air is a gas so the pockets don't have to be large enough for you to see, they just need to be able to fill and drain in order to keep refreshing the oxygen.

Or do you mean there are no large air pockets? And if that's the case refer back to when I said if your goal is greater surface area than what you want is more smaller air pockets. Again, my statements were just a reply to a single part of the earlier post, specifically the claim that larger air pockets meant more surface area which is categorically false. I was also referring to his comment that type of sand didn't make much difference unless it could form air pockets better. Well if your goal if surface area of the air pockets then YES, type of sand can have a huge advantage.

idontlikeforms wrote:I don't see why different types of peat or sand would make much difference unless some types somehow are less prone to clumping or form air pockets better.

Smaller Grit sand is larger sand grains. I'm saying the larger the grains the better the drainage but this is not the case with aeration. The peat packs itself around the grains. But larger pockets for aeration would be better.

Root hairs are there to increase surface area, in the same way that cells want to be small to increase surface area... this helps the roots with water absortion. So if the ones in LFS have fewer root hairs, they will be more inefficient, and by that same logic, thinner, longer roots seem like they would be more effective in water absorption. This is what I would assume would be "better," or healthier for the plant. Like 95slvrZ28 said about his orchid, drying out will encourage it to grow longer roots in search of water, and by hydrotropism logic, the plant will actually grow bigger above the service so it may photosynthesize more energy to grow longer roots to reach the water, not sacrifice leaf growth (but I admittedly don't know these specifics about orchids- or CPs for that matter, this just comes from general botany knowledge, so if these plants are exceptions, please forgive me).

Perhaps the reason Matt's grow longer, thinner roots is because, I imagine, his medium will be allowed to dry out a bit more between watering than Joel's would in LFS, for fear of the characteristic sudden drying-out in the LFS. The thinner, longer roots on Matt's seem to have a greater surface area, for sure. It's ok to make your plant "work harder" for a certain desirable characteristic-- just like we do with trying to get more color in the traps by feeding them less, which encourages them to put out a color to attract insects.

so, that could be an answer to the original post as well: allowing it to dry out to "moist, not wet" encourages healthier roots... which would be hindered by tray method unless it's in a bigger pot, and probably even in a bigger pot with LFS, which can hold several times its weight in water.

But, like was mentioned earlier, that doesn't really seem to be what determines the health and strength of a VFT, but the Rhizome, right? And Matt's seem to be the bigger rhizome, but I'm not sure what the age difference is in Matt's plants vs Joel's, and I can't see Joel's rhizome clearly-- although some young plants that I've gotten from Matt seem to have bigger rhizomes than Joels, if I'm judging the size on his right, so maybe this is an indication that his mix is healthier for the plant. Also the main question, for me at least, would be what's better for the plant in the LONG run? I, personally, want my plant to get bigger (with the exception of the smaller clones that have been cultivated for other traits), and I would like that to happen in a shorter time period, if possible. It would be awesome to see "maximum" sizes from both LFS and peat/silica/perlite mix to compare them-- I think that would be a better indication of which is the better growing media, especially if we know how old the plant was when it reached that size, but of course other factors throw a monkey wrench into the equation, like Joel's fertilizer.

On a side note:
Matt, you said "the silica sand is key," talking about your mix vs peat/perlite earlier... 1 of my pots is using mix I bought from you which is obviously peat/perlite/silica... the other three are just peat/perlite because I read it wasn't that huge of a difference, and I couldn't find silica sand- though honestly didn't go searching TOO hard since I didn't think it was a huge deal. If I go get some silica sand and mix up some new media, would it be worth replanting or should I just leave them be till next year and repot them after dormancy? It's worth mentioning too, I think, that 1 of my plants isn't doing well but the others seem healthy and beautiful, so I think that one is puny because of other factors.

ShaneF wrote:I'm saying the larger the grains the better the drainage but this is not the case with aeration.

Drainage and aeration are fundamentally the same process. Both are fluid flow, you cannot have better drainage with worse aeration. One just happens to be an observation of a liquid, the other is observation of a gas. LFS may allow for faster evaporation of water due to larger air volumes being present in the medium, thus allowing for a higher volume of gas for water to evaporate into.

I believe that LFS is a better growing media overall than peat/sand or peat/perlite or 100% peat.

I believe this because:
1)I have personally seen VFTs grow thicker, sturdier, tougher roots in LFS than in PSP.
2)I have personally seen VFTs grow roots faster in LFS than in PSP.
3)I have personally seen VFTs grow faster overall in LFS than in PSP.

Maybe I'm wrong. But I do not believe so. These conclusions are based on my own personal observation seeing many plants growing in both of these medias and many times inspecting their roots.

But I do not believe PSP is a bad growing media and I do not believe that one of these medias makes a VFT attain a larger size overall in the long run. I think that VFTs can attain a certain size because of their genetics and if their growing environment is good, and this includes more than just their media or their rhyzosphere, and then beyond that they pour the vast majority of their resources into flowering, making seed, and making natural divisions and very little into additional growth.

Shane is correct though in saying that I am trying to dispell a myth about LFS that seems to be pervasive on this forum. I go to the BACPS(Bay Area Carnivorous Plant Society) meetings and chat with other CP growers many of whom are old and retired and have grown CPs for decades and many of these old growers use LFS with their VFTs. They are not dogmatic about it. To them it is normal. They think it is a good media for VFTs. This and my own observations are why I find the anti-LFS bias here on this forum strange.

95slvrZ28 wrote:From what I've gathered, (and not from this one occasion) Joel values the turnaround profit on flytraps. I have never heard him talk about any private collection, plants he would like to add to a private collection etc. This does not imply that such a collection does not exist, but the fact that he has not even mentioned such a plant suggests that his priorities lie elsewhere. As such, to Joel the "best" plants would have whatever enables the plant to get to selling size the fastest. However, for most growers this is not the case. I think most would be interested in whatever root system in whatever medium gave them the healthiest plants, whether or not they had to wait a little longer for the plant to get fully established. I am in no way suggesting LFS cannot provide this, but I will assert that I have yet to see any evidence that suggests the contrary.

SlvrZ I grew up playing strategy games and doing various things to make money. To me running a business is fun and fulfilling. It also is my family's main source of income. If I don't make good income from selling VFTs we have hard times.

I do have some VFTs that I've kept for myself/possibly to propagate that I like a lot but have had set backs with them. The setbacks have happened, oddly enough, not so much with plants that I resell but with VFTs that I've kept for myself. So with what you might call my personal collection I've seen it lose a large number of VFTs and/or die down and come back as little VFTs the last 3 years, each year. In a way my life experience these last 3 years has rewarded me for selling VFTs but punished me for trying to collect them. So I've kind of been pigeon holed against my will into focusing far more on the business/production aspect of VFTs than the hobbyist collector aspect of VFTs.

idontlikeforms wrote:SlvrZ I grew up playing strategy games and doing various things to make money. To me running a business is fun and fulfilling. It also is my family's main source of income. If I don't make good income from selling VFTs we have hard times.

I do have some VFTs that I've kept for myself/possibly to propagate that I like a lot but have had set backs with them. The setbacks have happened, oddly enough, not so much with plants that I resell but with VFTs that I've kept for myself. So with what you might call my personal collection I've seen it lose a large number of VFTs and/or die down and come back as little VFTs the last 3 years, each year. In a way my life experience these last 3 years has rewarded me for selling VFTs but punished me for trying to collect them. So I've kind of been pigeon holed against my will into focusing far more on the business/production aspect of VFTs than the hobbyist collector aspect of VFTs.

Don't get me wrong, I'm in no way attempting to fault you for what you do with VFTs. I was merely attempting to bring in another facet to the discussion, that what constitutes a better plant for one person may not be the same for another. What you assert as a "better" medium for yourself also does not imply that is a "better" medium for me. Unlike yourself I don't care how fast or how thick the roots grow, I care how healthy and large my plants get. If it takes them a bit longer to get there, but they overall get larger and healthier, I would rather have a medium that best facilitates what I wish to achieve with my plants. If someone could show me a medium that definitively produces plants of the same health and size, but with more vigor, I would certainly be interested in growing in that medium. That being said, I have yet to see anyone provide evidence that plants grown in LFS (with the same ease of watering since I can't be home to watering in the middle of the day) actually achieve these goals quicker.

idontlikeforms wrote:I believe that LFS is a better growing media overall than peat/sand or peat/perlite or 100% peat.

I believe this because:
1)I have personally seen VFTs grow thicker, sturdier, tougher roots in LFS than in PSP.
2)I have personally seen VFTs grow roots faster in LFS than in PSP.
3)I have personally seen VFTs grow faster overall in LFS than in PSP.

I do have some VFTs that I've kept for myself/possibly to propagate that I like a lot but have had set backs with them. The setbacks have happened, oddly enough, not so much with plants that I resell but with VFTs that I've kept for myself. So with what you might call my personal collection I've seen it lose a large number of VFTs and/or die down and come back as little VFTs the last 3 years, each year. In a way my life experience these last 3 years has rewarded me for selling VFTs but punished me for trying to collect them. So I've kind of been pigeon holed against my will into focusing far more on the business/production aspect of VFTs than the hobbyist collector aspect of VFTs.

Have you had VFTs that you kept long-term and didn't sell, which you grew in LFS and did well? Or are these that you kept in your collection that seem to be failing the only ones? Maybe that's a factor-- that LFS is fine in short-term, but not great long-term. I had a typical in LFS for about a year before reading more about them and moving it into a pot with peat/silica/perlite, along with some more typicals I bought, and I kid you not, it seemed to double in size in the past couple of months. Maybe it was just not healthy before and it happened to get over it, or maybe it was the media. Who knows.

I think it's about time somebody do a side-by-side

95slvrZ28 wrote:If it takes them a bit longer to get there, but they overall get larger and healthier, I would rather have a medium that best facilitates what I wish to achieve with my plants. If someone could show me a medium that definitively produces plants of the same health and size, but with more vigor, I would certainly be interested in growing in that medium.

Most people grow VFTs with peat. Most VFTs are sold in peat. Most of the growers posting on this forum seem to be growing their VFTs in peat + sand or perlite. It should not be any wonder that most of the VFTs that are large and have had pictures posted of them on this forum are grown with peat and not with LFS. But if you went to the BACPS and chatted with growers there I do not think you would treat LFS unfairly and look at it like it needs to prove itself but peat does not.

Let's take Steve's VFTs for example. He used to grow them in peat, correct? And they got large in peat. Now he grows them in pith and they still get large. I think the issue is that Steve is doing a good job growing VFTs and their genes tell them to get the size they do and that is why they grow so large and not simply because of his media. But Steve did abandon the peat/sand media that so many of the growers here cherish and switched to pith/sand and claims that his VFTs grew faster in pith too. Why did his VFTs grow faster in pith? I've commented before on Terraforums that I think it is because their roots are being aerated better in pith than in peat/sand. I don't believe the chemical properties of pith have any significant positive affect on why Steve has seen his VFTs grow faster in pith. It's not a coincidence that I believe my VFTs are growing roots faster as well as growing overall faster in LFS for the exact same reason, because the roots are aerated better in it than in peat/sand.

I don't understand why some people posting here in this forum feel it is necessary to begin with the premise that LFS cannot grow VFTs as large as they can in peat/sand, especially if they have no experience in growing large VFTs in LFS. I don't doubt that there are a number of other medias that VFTs can also attain their normal large full size in too if the growing conditions are good and there is enough time, even if the VFTs grow faster or slower in one media than in another.

Charli wrote:would it be worth replanting or should I just leave them be till next year and repot them after dormancy?

I vote to repot them. If I have the time to repot and any of my flytraps aren't in my preferred potting mix, I repot them no matter what time of year it is.

idontlikeforms wrote:Maybe I'm wrong. But I do not believe so. These conclusions are based on my own personal observation seeing many plants growing in both of these medias and many times inspecting their roots.

idontlikeforms wrote:Right but I grow all my VFTs with potassium silicate not just the LFS grown ones and all my CPs for that matter, even seedlings. And I'm pretty sure AG3 doesn't use potassium silicate for their VFTs.

Right, but they do use rooting hormone, which will have a similar effect.

idontlikeforms wrote:I may be the only person in world doing this.

That's very cool! I very much respect pioneers

idontlikeforms wrote:I think you may be ascribing too much of a factor in growth size to media. Steve has grown large VFTs in both peat and in pith has he not? I'm inclined to believe that media doesn't have that much to do with maximum size.

No, he hasn't really. He has taken large plants and potted them in pith (coir) and they grew well. But he has potted small plants and TC plants in pith and they didn't grow well at all. But he did try to make his pith mix equivalent to his peat mix in terms of water retention and consistency, so the difference in the media wasn't terribly significant in terms of physical properties with the exception that the pith dried out more (too) quickly on top, causing smaller plants to suffer. The higher pH may be to blame as well. Perhaps the high pH affects the smaller plants more.

idontlikeforms wrote:Most of my larger VFts I have not kept and many of them were damaged last year in a heat wave. The year before I let some bigger ones I kept flower but they mostly exploded into little plants after they flowered. Not 100% sure why, I only have some theories about it, but my larger ones didn't do this last year.

My theory is that it's because of the LFS Seriously though, I often had the same thing happen to my larger plants (exploding into lots of little plants after flowering) when I kept them too wet and before I started using peat with large grained sand.

idontlikeforms wrote:My point was never that VFTs can get bigger in LFS though. I don't personally believe they can. But I'm certain they regularly get thicker roots and that they can actually grow roots faster in LFS too.

Ah, OK. Well, I don't have enough experience with growing in LFS to know if that's true or not and people don't often post photos of their flytraps roots, so I've not seen enough photos to confirm or negate that. But the photos you've shown of the flytraps growing in LFS seem to indicate that may be true, but I'd still like to see a few plants' roots that aren't recently out of TC or growing in potassium silicate but that are growing long term in LFS.

95slvrZ28 wrote:Joel seems to think that "thick" = "good." Matt seems to think that "long" = "good.

I may have come across as thinking that "long" = "good" but what I really believe is that an overall large root system is necessary to support a large plant (rhizome and leaves). Therefore, I suppose I believe that "root mass (both thickness and length)" = "good"

95slvrZ28 wrote:Really I think we should categorize a "good" root system as one that optimizes above ground growth in terms of size, robustness, leaf density etc. The best root system would be one that allows the plant to devote as much resources to above ground growth without sacrificing itself in more harsh conditions (such as a particularly hot, dry day).

Right, that is almost exactly what I believe.

idontlikeforms wrote:I believe that LFS is a better growing media overall than peat/sand or peat/perlite or 100% peat. These conclusions are based on my own personal observation seeing many plants growing in both of these medias and many times inspecting their roots.

But if you overwater the plants in peat, which most people do, or you're not using 12 grit sand, then you will have poor to sub-optimal results growing flytraps in peat. You already said that you didn't know what grit sand was in the peat mix you used, right? Do you know what the ratio of peat to sand was? These things are very important and if you are coming to your conclusions without doing/knowing these things, then your conclusions may be erroneous.

idontlikeforms wrote:I go to the BACPS(Bay Area Carnivorous Plant Society) meetings and chat with other CP growers many of whom are old and retired and have grown CPs for decades and many of these old growers use LFS with their VFTs. They are not dogmatic about it. To them it is normal. They think it is a good media for VFTs.

Right, and every long time grower I've seen growing flytraps, including Peter D'Amato's plants, grows them sitting in water all the time which can be easily proven to be detrimental to the health of a flytrap. Just because something has been done for decades doesn't necessarily mean that it's good. Many people seem to simply do what others do instead of questioning things and experimenting. I did this too initially when I started growing flytraps (just did what everyone else was doing, growing them in peat/perlite and left them sitting in water) and I was really skeptical about Steve's peat/sand mix and "minimal" watering scheme because I saw my flytraps grow well in peat sitting in water all the time. It wasn't until I tried it for myself, and have honed my skills growing flytraps in the peat/sand mix over the last 5 years, that I now see how superior a mix it is when coupled with appropriate watering.

idontlikeforms wrote:This and my own observations are why I find the anti-LFS bias here on this forum strange.

There are some very good reasons (already listed in earlier posts) that we're biased against using LFS here on the forums, including the fact that it goes so quickly from wet to dry with little in between time where it's just moist (the ideal moisture level for flytraps).

I think 95slvrZ28 brings up a very good point about the difference in our growing goals and the bearing it has on our different perspectives. We (FlytrapStore and JoelsCarnivorousPlants) have completely different business/growing models. Steve and I prefer to grow plants for many months, often times for more than one season, to get them to an impressive size before selling them. We have a very slow turn around time, choosing to focus on quality instead of quantity, and we probably don't sell even 20% of the flytraps you do now since you've been selling on Amazon/eBay and drop shipping. I would guess that it's rare for you to keep a flytrap more than a season (perhaps more than a few weeks) unless it simply doesn't look good enough to sell for some reason. So our growing goals are actually quite different. Additionally, the LFS is a key part to your business strategy. If you changed to a peat/sand medium, you'd have to charge far more for shipping and pass that cost onto the customer, which would likely cause a large drop in sales. It certainly makes a usable medium, perhaps even a good medium, for flytraps. But I still haven't seen any evidence that would lead me to believe that it's superior in any way and I've seen lots and lots of evidence to the contrary, that peat/sand mixes are superior to LFS.

idontlikeforms wrote:So with what you might call my personal collection I've seen it lose a large number of VFTs and/or die down and come back as little VFTs the last 3 years, each year.

That's because they're growing in LFS I kid, but I really do believe that the LFS is at least partially (perhaps largely) to blame for that. Similar things happened to my private collection when I grew them in 100% peat and 50/50 peat/perlite and in small pots. Perhaps with a quick turn around time, like you have with most of the plants you sell, LFS is fine. But long term I think it's an inferior growing medium to peat/sand.

This discussion has got me motivated enough to do an experiment. I think I'd like to plant a few similar sized plants from a particular clone in each of the two medias and let them grow this season (or longer) and see what the results are. Any chance you can send me some of that nice New Zealand LFS, Joel? I do have some NZ LFS myself, but yours looks superior to what I have. I will try to keep the flytraps in the LFS watered as you described (bottom of the pot in just a bit of water) and I'll water the ones in the peat/sand/perlite mix as I normally do. I'll snap some "before potting" photos of the roots and plants and then (try to) make regular updates throughout the year.

idontlikeforms wrote:Let's take Steve's VFTs for example. He used to grow them in peat, correct? And they got large in peat. Now he grows them in pith and they still get large.

No, that's actually not true. He took large plants out of peat and put them in coir. He hasn't successfully grown a flytrap from a small size to a large size in coir. They seem to struggle to get large in coir.

idontlikeforms wrote:I don't understand why some people posting here in this forum feel it is necessary to begin with the premise that LFS cannot grow VFTs as large as they can in peat/sand, especially if they have no experience in growing large VFTs in LFS.

As mentioned above, I will do a controlled experiment if you send me some of your nice NZ LFS

idontlikeforms wrote:But if you went to the BACPS and chatted with growers there I do not think you would treat LFS unfairly and look at it like it needs to prove itself but peat does not.

I'm not saying that LFS needs to prove itself. I have seen enough photos of healthy flytraps growing in LFS that I know it is an acceptable growing medium. I thought that the whole premise of the discussion (at least from my perspective) is that peat/sand is a superior growing medium (long term) over LFS.