Hello everyone. Seedlings are off to a good start, many have true leaves starting. They all currently in the Dixie cups that I used for germination, and I'm wondering when to move them up to regular sized Solo cups or similarly sized plant pots. I figure I'll at least wait for one set of true leaves. They'll be going into potting soil which has some fertilizer. Thanks in advance
-
If you need help identifying a pepper, disease, or plant issue, please post in Identification.
When to move up to larger cups?
- Thread starter Suezotiger
- Start date
So is space the only issue with starting seeds in larger pots? Next year I'll definitely start in bigger pots and leave them there for a good while til moving them outside
Assuming one plant per cup, you can wait a while. (If you've got two or more, it's best to separate the plants before their roots get too entangled.) The roots do tend to grow a little bigger than you might think, so it won't hurt to check in a few weeks. Wait for the soil to be close to dry, and gently tap the entire plug of dirt out. If you see more than a few roots, start thinking about an upgrade.
You just don't really want to get root bound but they can do very well longer than you think. Not to get away from this post, but I don't get why start them in something smaller and having to keep transplanting (other than the fact you have limited space). I plant all of mine in solo cups and they stay in there until transplant date.
Just seems way easier and just as effective to me to do it in a bigger growing medium and not have to transplant as often. I get it though. I'm just cautious with them and don't like tinkering with them. I find the more I tinker the worse off they are most times.AaronB said:
yes, if you pre-germinate them in tupperware/plastic bags before first planting there is little reason to use smaller containers as you should be close to 95% success rate (you only plant the ones that have germed so....)Suezotiger said:
If you don't pre germinate and say your seeds have 75% germ rate, then you just wasted a lot of time cleaning pots out that failed etc. That's why people who plant more this way use the 72+ cell starter trays. you only waste about 1sq" of space for the bad ones vs 3sq" for the solos/3in pots.
Also they can plant more than they want to keep and only select the strong ones. So they really only have enough room for 500 3" pots but plant 750 seeds in the starter trays and select the best looking ones.
My experience has shown me that the plants I start out in larger containers ( 5 gal ) don't focus on growing a good stable root system but more on growing up and out.spicy_echo said:
I have seeds I started in trays and the moved up. I just potted up again and the roots looked real nice. Thick white and hairy.
So my two cents says that by starting smaller and potting up forces the plants to focus on making good healthy roots. If they have good healthy rrots they are a good healthy plant.
^ My experience is the opposite, that you just keep stunting the plant the longer you keep it in a smaller pot.
I start out direct sewing in solo cups and they are then transplanted into 5 gal or larger before they ever fork or reach 1' tall. They most definitely have a good stable root system as it is required for good growth up and out. No good roots = no good growth up top, and vice-versa.
It's easy to think "good roots" if there's a huge tangled mass of roots when you pull a plant out of a small pot to transplant, but that's the opposite of what benefits the plant. That wad of roots means the plant exerted a lot of energy into a absorption system that relies on a much smaller volume of soil so the nutrient uptake rate is necessarily lower. You can't super-feed a plant to make up for it because the same amount of fertilizer in such a small area will burn the roots compared to it being spread out over a larger area roots were able to spread into sooner.
The plant has evolved over millions to billions of years to do that itself IF given enough room to do so - it evolved growing in infinite ground soil, not in a little cup.
I start out direct sewing in solo cups and they are then transplanted into 5 gal or larger before they ever fork or reach 1' tall. They most definitely have a good stable root system as it is required for good growth up and out. No good roots = no good growth up top, and vice-versa.
It's easy to think "good roots" if there's a huge tangled mass of roots when you pull a plant out of a small pot to transplant, but that's the opposite of what benefits the plant. That wad of roots means the plant exerted a lot of energy into a absorption system that relies on a much smaller volume of soil so the nutrient uptake rate is necessarily lower. You can't super-feed a plant to make up for it because the same amount of fertilizer in such a small area will burn the roots compared to it being spread out over a larger area roots were able to spread into sooner.
The plant has evolved over millions to billions of years to do that itself IF given enough room to do so - it evolved growing in infinite ground soil, not in a little cup.
If we're going to follow evolution (a hilarious arguement) for growing plants, shouldn't we pull out our molars (wouldn't want to crush the seeds while chewing), and randomly deposit seeds with our feces? Or is that too much of a deviation, and raising birds would be closer to reality?
Ah, conjecture. What are all these people doing with coir, but growing large plants in small containers with compact root systems? Different solutions for every medium/method.
Ah, conjecture. What are all these people doing with coir, but growing large plants in small containers with compact root systems? Different solutions for every medium/method.
Dave2000 said:^ My experience is the opposite, that you just keep stunting the plant the longer you keep it in a smaller pot.
I start out direct sewing in solo cups and they are then transplanted into 5 gal or larger before they ever fork or reach 1' tall. They most definitely have a good stable root system as it is required for good growth up and out. No good roots = no good growth up top, and vice-versa.
It's easy to think "good roots" if there's a huge tangled mass of roots when you pull a plant out of a small pot to transplant, but that's the opposite of what benefits the plant. That wad of roots means the plant exerted a lot of energy into a absorption system that relies on a much smaller volume of soil so the nutrient uptake rate is necessarily lower. You can't super-feed a plant to make up for it because the same amount of fertilizer in such a small area will burn the roots compared to it being spread out over a larger area roots were able to spread into sooner.
The plant has evolved over millions to billions of years to do that itself IF given enough room to do so - it evolved growing in infinite ground soil, not in a little cup.
Hmmmm. Thats interesting.
Here in this next photo you can see that I have a small plant with a relatively healhy root system but still is small(ish) up top.
I think the difference between what you said and what I did was that I didn't keep it in there that long to develop a tangled root mass.. Being that you said the longer you keep it in there the more detrimental it is and that people mistake tangled root mass for healthy roots.
I agree wholeheartedly with what you said about the evolution has been in the ground and not the cup!!!
Thank you for sharing your experience. I think I'll try what you do again and go directly to 5 gal. Heck it gives me a reason to sow a new plant!!!!
 
If plants in the wild did better by entangling their roots in a ball, that's how most would be today.
Since everyone is entitled to do their own hobby the way they want, on that front it's reasonable, BUT when someone asks about repotting, it's equally reasonable to approach the topic on a factual basis and factually speaking you cannot give a plant as much fertilizer in a small pot as a large one without burning the roots. In the smaller container it's a higher concentration of fertilizer. Same for soil, more soil equals more nutrients with all else equal. You also have a much harder time of maintaining a good moisture level unless you have a drip irrigation system.
Regardless, I'd like an example of what you call a large plant in a small container, and the schedule required to sustain it. The picture better have arrays of rope, cage, or cinder blocks holding the pot up because a large plant will knock a small pot over from it's own weight without external support for the plant and/or pot, if not uproot itself from a gust of wind.
Don't be ridiculous. We do it all the time by providing them the other things they evolved to need like sun, water, NPK, but there are better and worse ways of providing those things which has been determined by years of survival of the fittest.miguelovic said:
If plants in the wild did better by entangling their roots in a ball, that's how most would be today.
Do you have any evidence that the spread of hot peppers came about primarily from toothless humans. We can wait while you find some support for that idea. There is no rationale behind your nonsense, while there is for a large spread of roots.
What they are doing is putting forth a crazy amount of effort instead of going with what is most efficient which is growing plants the way they evolved to grow. I too have grown large plants in small pots, constantly adding water and fertilizer and propping them up, then realized the obviousness of the truth, that it's counterproductive.
Since everyone is entitled to do their own hobby the way they want, on that front it's reasonable, BUT when someone asks about repotting, it's equally reasonable to approach the topic on a factual basis and factually speaking you cannot give a plant as much fertilizer in a small pot as a large one without burning the roots. In the smaller container it's a higher concentration of fertilizer. Same for soil, more soil equals more nutrients with all else equal. You also have a much harder time of maintaining a good moisture level unless you have a drip irrigation system.
Regardless, I'd like an example of what you call a large plant in a small container, and the schedule required to sustain it. The picture better have arrays of rope, cage, or cinder blocks holding the pot up because a large plant will knock a small pot over from it's own weight without external support for the plant and/or pot, if not uproot itself from a gust of wind.
sirex said:
You can develop a nice root system in a dixie cup, and you can in a 5 gal bucket as well. The difference between the dixie cup, solo cup, or 5 gal bucket is how often you are having to transplant. Like I said, I just don't see the necessity in multiple transplants when you can go a little bigger to begin with and be just as effective (other than the fact you have limited space and or other uncontrollable elements). You can grow just as good of a root system in a 5 gal bucket as a dixie cup. I started mine seedlings in solo cups last year and transplanted from that to ground come planting time. I'm not saying there is a right or wrong way, but the less you have to transplant the better IMO.
I generally go from seedling trays, to SOLO cups, to 5" plastic pots, to ground. From what I've read, and my experience (I think) supports, is the size of the growing container should correspond to the volume of water the plant's root structures can take in without having excess water being held too long in the soil where bad bacteria and fungus can grow. For example if you put a seedling in a 5 gallon pot, 95% of the soil has no roots, so it'll be holding onto water much longer than the soil that has roots. You can help this out by using a soil mix that supports fast drainage, but this can also be problematic, especially once the plant root structure is appropriately sized for the pot. My two cents
Dave2000 said:
I was mostly pulling your chain, but I do get a laugh out the evolution argument, hence the joking that followed. Apologies that you took it too seriously, perhaps an emoticon would have made it more obvious.
Air/fabric pots promote just what you're saying is counter-productive. DWC produces a hilarious mess of tangled roots. Evolution is relevant at times, but modern horticulture is about bending to plant to our will and needs, from germination through to selective breeding.
You clearly haven't grown in coir before, the points you're making are only relevant to soil. And in that application, you are more or less correct. I prefer to catch plants, especially peppers, well before they become rootbound/stalled out.
Drip system/Blumats (or hand water, for those with endless time), multiple feeds per day of a moderate EC (re: maximizing daily nutrition in a small container without foolishly burning the roots). Yes, staking/support is required. That's rather obvious once you have a solid grasp on gravity. It's really quite simple, hence why it's so popular. Properly set up, it's a fraction of the work of most mediums, especially soil.
miguelovic said:
Well and then the biggest most obvious reason to me: You don't have to mess with the outside elements.
 
Regarding labor with both methods, that's not really possible. Given enough soil there is practically no work to soil growing including no equipment or cost, except initial setup (till in compost for soil) which any method requires appropriate to that method, then for larger soil ratio grows, a few cents worth of water in times of drought.
As for popularity, what % of the world's hot peppers would you estimate are grown in other than large soil environments? I'd guess less than 1%.
As hard as it is to accept, farmers making a living doing this had it right and still do.
Sorry, my aunt just died and my sense of humor is mitigated by travel plans when it's -5F outside.miguelovic said:
Regarding labor with both methods, that's not really possible. Given enough soil there is practically no work to soil growing including no equipment or cost, except initial setup (till in compost for soil) which any method requires appropriate to that method, then for larger soil ratio grows, a few cents worth of water in times of drought.
As for popularity, what % of the world's hot peppers would you estimate are grown in other than large soil environments? I'd guess less than 1%.
As hard as it is to accept, farmers making a living doing this had it right and still do.
I love a good thread hijacking.
Apologies for your loss. My sense of humour is odd, and there's the whole jackass thing going on.
There isn't much to it, beyond topping up a reservoir, which, much like the watering, can be automated. Tilling in compost, or throwing a dash of nutrients in a reservoir. Which is less labour intensive? I've yet to see it argued that soil (potted or field) grown crops are less labour intensive than hydroponics. Lower start up costs? Of course. Less yield per m2 under cultivation? Yup. Less labour intensive come harvest time? Yeeeep.
Large swathes of the US are under drought conditions, some areas nearing the decade mark. Field grown crops are dependent on irrigation, and consume ten to twenty times the amount of water compared to hydroponics. This is going the same direction as your argument that water stressing is more work than a regular watering schedule. Reality just isn't with you.
You're widening the topic to a ridiculous extent. How many THP members are acreage farmers? Less than 1%. How many growers of any plant, anywhere, are acreage farmers? Less than 1%. How relevant are those statistic? They're not. I said popular, not the dominant growing method for global production. Try to keep things in perspective.
You are correct on that point though. China produces the majority of fresh peppers globally, with less than 1% grown soil-less. But with a lack of arable land and rapidly expanding population, their hydroponic industry grows at a dramatic pace.
Dave2000 said:
Apologies for your loss. My sense of humour is odd, and there's the whole jackass thing going on.
There isn't much to it, beyond topping up a reservoir, which, much like the watering, can be automated. Tilling in compost, or throwing a dash of nutrients in a reservoir. Which is less labour intensive? I've yet to see it argued that soil (potted or field) grown crops are less labour intensive than hydroponics. Lower start up costs? Of course. Less yield per m2 under cultivation? Yup. Less labour intensive come harvest time? Yeeeep.
Large swathes of the US are under drought conditions, some areas nearing the decade mark. Field grown crops are dependent on irrigation, and consume ten to twenty times the amount of water compared to hydroponics. This is going the same direction as your argument that water stressing is more work than a regular watering schedule. Reality just isn't with you.
You're widening the topic to a ridiculous extent. How many THP members are acreage farmers? Less than 1%. How many growers of any plant, anywhere, are acreage farmers? Less than 1%. How relevant are those statistic? They're not. I said popular, not the dominant growing method for global production. Try to keep things in perspective.
You are correct on that point though. China produces the majority of fresh peppers globally, with less than 1% grown soil-less. But with a lack of arable land and rapidly expanding population, their hydroponic industry grows at a dramatic pace.