I was turned off the gritty mix some time ago. I now realize that this was due to my own mistakes, but have since come to love the 5:1:1 mix and don't see myself switching back. Gritty Mix - I've switched all but two of my plants (not counting cactus, who love it) out of it. For me there are three reasons I've switched to the 5:1:1 - price & availability, the weight of the mix and my general inability to get the watering down. I am all the time forgetting those darn skewers lol. Amended - I use a 4 part granite to 1 part pine bark mix, with a small amount of turface thrown in, for my Desert Rose. I originally had it in the gritty mix but in the cool spring weather it was staying wet too long. Had a lot of yellowing leaves followed by leaf drop. Switched to the granite mix and haven't had a problem since. Well, besides having to water every day but I don't mind that. I've had nothing but new growth & blooms for the last two months since the switch.

I'm probably one of the most vocal people on this forum, and I can look anyone in the eye and politely say I've helped thousands of people deal with and get better results from soils we might describe as bagged, commercially prepared, peat-based, heavy, or any one of several other adjectives, and I've done it without cutting off any discussion. Just SAYING that something is happening doesn't make it a reality. I recognize and deal with that fact that most people grow in heavy soils every day, and I've said hundreds of times that you can grow healthy plants in heavy soils - it's just more difficult and the margin for error reduced. I would ask the question Does anyone think and can they make a case that a heavy soil is better than a light soil from the plants perspective, which would include growth and vitality? When anyone expresses an opinion that almost no one agrees with, it invites disagreement. It's my opinion that to express an opinion that nearly no one else shares and to expect no one to disagree with that opinion is folly. If someone disagrees with an opinion, it is not berating anyone, it is simply expressing an alternate opinion. If someone's opinion flies in the face of settled science and that is pointed out, there may be some sort of emotional response from the person who offered the unsupportable opinion, but where does the fault for that lie? If someone keeps referring to cow's laying eggs, and as the eggs being an important source of sustenance to ancient man, and subsequently it's pointed out to that person over and over from multiple sources each time this is suggested that it simply doesn't agree with known science, and the overwhelming number of people reading the suggestion disagree, where does the blame for the discomfort lie? Wouldn't it be a better thing for the person posting about cow's eggs to become more familiar with the science so they would realize they are banging their head against a wall? Don't we have some sort of obligation to provide accurate information here that we can support? I think a thread should be started about light being king, in which Jane or anyone else that thinks light is king can state their case and others can offer their input. That way, instead of the topic being brought up out of context and off topic in thread after thread, a short statement (when it's appropriate) in a thread with a link to the compilation of all the proof and support can be provided without destroying the harmony/continuity of thread after thread, this one being a prime example, along with at least a dozen others of mine that I can think of. Doesn't that sound perfectly reasonable? I want to look closer at Jane's contention that light is king. "I believe light trumps all because I see houseplants underlit, over-watered and dying as the most common problem people deal with. Changing media will do nothing to help those people. Increasing light will. First, I allow as true the observation that some (most) houseplants are underlighted. I ask sincerely, what about those that are perfectly lit and are suffering from the effects of another limiting factor. Is light then king? What about the plant in poor light that is dying because it's never been fertilized or because it has a high level of soluble salts in the soil, or because it has mites or hasn't been watered in 3 weeks ....... will making the light perfect eliminate these other limiting factors? To logically hold that light is more important than these other issues, you MUST have answers to these questions. I have the answer: light is simply another limiting factor with the same potential to limit or improve growth, as a long list of other potential limiting factors. There is a difference in the way I support my contention than how Jane supports hers. Science, and the contentions I put forth cover all the bases, Jane has put together a scenario that illustrates light as the limiting factor in that particular case, so of course improving the limiting factor will improve growth ..... but ONLY to the degree the next most limiting factor will allow. If this wasn't true, the ONLY thing we would need to worry about in order to have consistently perfect plants is to ensure perfect light. "Of all the 'limiting factors' light produces the quickest increase in growth, causing the plant to use water and nutrients faster improving both leaf and root growth. I am talking about light appropriate to the plant grown. Changing media does nothing for an underlit, over-watered plant. It will still die." Light is necessary for 'sustained growth', but it doesn't necessarily produce the quickest growth. It's probably easiest to illustrate this using a couple of examples. A) What about the plant in either good light or bad light that is stalled because of an N,P, or K deficiency. If it's in perfect light, light can't be improved because it's already perfect. If it's in poor light, the nutritional deficiency is the limiting factor and making the light perfect will not increase growth. B) What about the plant that is horribly root bound? Extremely tight roots seriously inhibit growth and vitality. Will improving light eliminate this impediment to growth. Of course not, but repotting will. Additionally, changing the soil can assuredly correct that over-watering issue referred to in the quote text, as many here will vouch for. The point is, logic won't allow us to devise a situation in which light is potentially the limiting factor, then use that particular situation to suggest that light is ALWAYS the most important factor. For every case we can imagine where light is limiting, I can imagine 30 more where any one of the individual nutrients, plus cultural conditions like temperature, moisture levels, soil conditions, insects, disease, even where the plant is in the growth cycle, can be a factor more limiting than light. This doesn't even take into consideration that we're talking about containerized plants. They're portable - so if they don't like the light where they are - move them. If you can't move them, deal with it and try to make sure that light is the only limiting factor, because if you forget to water, or you leave the plant out on the porch in a sub-zero cold snap, light is not going to be king. Everyone has a right to an opinion, and everyone has the right to post it here at GW, as long as the people overlooking the threads don't think the rules are being fractured. I think our 'rights' stop there. There is no right to expect everyone to agree with us, and there is no right to have our opinions well-received. Those things depend on how we support our opinions with facts and logic - the concrete facets; but, there are also abstract facets that determine how our offerings are received, which include things like timing, whether or not they are on topic, the reason this opinion was expressed in the first place, the manner in which it was expressed, whether it was offered in a positive or negative context .... Opening a post with the statements: "Without light you wouldn't have roots. The information offered above is backward. Light is always king." which are decidedly off-topic and when similar statements have caused plenty of friction in the past is really at the very heart of the sort of thing everyone else is being accused of, and it certainly proved unhealthy for the continuity and harmony of another thread. Suggesting that people would be better served having a realistic discussion about the gritty mix infers that the discussions we have are not realistic. I might suggest that it would be much more difficult for a person who has never used it, and would never use it, to honestly determine what is realistic and what isn't. I'm not asking this to be sarcastic or mean, but only for illustrative purposes: What part of any posts about light shed any realism on the OT, or what was there in any of those posts offering anything that hasn't been discussed at length? No one ever tries to change the way Jane grows or the way anyone else that expresses a wish to grow in a certain way grows. And I don't see anyone trying to change the way she thinks. These things just don't happen unless the person's attitude is conducive to this type of input as far as I can see, so she is left to grow in whatever way she chooses and think as she wishes - as it should be, and I wish her great success - honestly. No one ever forces anything down anyone's throat - people just won't allow it. People do disagree with some of the things she says, but that's normal, people disagree with me all the time. We learn a great deal from disagreement. Key to not being disagreed with is to give people as little as possible to disagree with (a command of the topic) and not go to the other extreme of posting statements we are sure will cause others to disagree. Al

The limits of my citrus growing experience extend to rearing a couple of meyer lemons for a few years as potential bonsai. Later, I grew a couple of flying dragons. I gave the plants away because I didn't think the growth habit was appropriate to the quality of form I look for in my bonsai. IOW, I had concluded that the growth habits of citrus as a group make them difficult and not particularly attractive bonsai subjects, though I know there are some exceptions. Citrus growers - please don't take that as a slight. There are many 'groups' of trees that don't make good bonsai subjects, and that has nothing to do with what you folks are doing. I was just offering my 'citrus' background so you can readily see I'm not an expert on citrus. I am, however, well versed in tending a very wide array of trees in containers. At this point in my 20+ year journey growing trees in containers, I have about 75-100 tropical trees, and somewhere around 200-225 temperate trees. By necessity, I repot more than half of my (a guess) 300 trees each year. I say by necessity, because we can tell within a couple of months when our trees need repotting. Whether we repot them at that time is a different5 issue, but at the point where the root mass has become congested to the point the tree can be lifted from the pot with the roots and soil mass intact, the tree needs repotting. This is a much more reliable indicator than any other method, and has been scientifically verified many times in tests by nurseries that have a vested interest in maximizing growth. They know that the growth rate begins to slow at that point, and that it continues to slow as congestion worsens. Not only does the potential for maximum growth within the limits of other cultural factors evaporate with root congestion, so does the possibility of peak vitality. Tight roots are a stress, and that stress affects the entire organism - even to the point of increasing the likelihood of insects infestation and disease. You CAN pot up before the tree reaches this point with no ill effects or decline in growth/vitality, but if the tree HAS reached that point, potting up will only allow a PARTIAL return in vitality and growth, and will set the tree on a gradual slope of decline. Soil - No plant like any portion of the soil to remain saturated for more than a couple of hours. Deprived of enough O2, metabolism and root function is negatively affected and fine roots begin to die. The longer the deprivation, the larger are the roots that are killed. When O2 returns to the soil so normal root growth and metabolism/function can resume, the tree then has to go about the business of allocating either current photosynthate (food - energy) or stored energy to regenerate lost rootage. For this reason, you should always use a durable and well-aerated soil. You automatically sacrifice potential growth/vitality when you choose a water-retentive soil that supports any significant amount of perched water. Repotting - use your own judgement, but I have repotted my own citrus by removing the bottom 1/3 of the roots and then 3 wedges equal to 50% of of the remaining roots with no problems. I also have several friends in CA and 1 in TX that uses the method religiously. Use whatever method you choose, but removing the old soil and root pruning is imperative to best growth and vitality. Once a tree has been allowed to remain in the same soil/container beyond the point where the soil/root mass can be lifted intact, growth is permanently affected until the time that the limiting factor of root congestion is eliminated. This even applies to trees that are severely root bound and are then planted out. I have worked on trees that had original soil so compacted that the soil was harder and stronger than fully lignified (woody) roots. You guys recognize the growth spurts in your trees. Repot as a growth spurt is winding down, or early in the spring. These are the periods of most rapid root growth. Adopt your own methods if you like. I just explained the 'whys' of it and how I proceed. There's no reason it shouldn't work as well for you as it does for me, but you don't need to follow my advice or my procedures exactly. I suppose what I want to leave you with is: Your soil IS the foundation of your planting, and can certainly determine whether you'll have an easy time of it or a difficult time. The roots are the heart of your plant. You look at and fuss over the foliage, but it's the roots that are REALLY in charge. Roots come first - before the foliage, so if you keep your roots happy, the rest of the plant will be happy. Al

One thing we need to respect is another's perspective. One grower might look at growing with the attitude that nothing is going to stand in the way of my reducing the effects of every limiting factor that impact my plants' growth and vitality. Growers like this tend to look at growing from the plant's perspective. Another grower might not be interested in entertaining the thought of changing anything, so long as the plant seems to be doing well enough. I've found this to be especially true if the chance involves more effort or expense - this is more a view from the grower's perspective - how it affects ME, rather than the plant. Neither perspective is wrong, they're just different ways of looking at things and ordering priorities. We all go through the same considerations, but some people come down on the plant's side & others on the grower's side. A prime example of this can be seen in the form of people arguing vehemently against the effort involved in finding ingredients and then making either the 5:1:1 mix or gritty mix. Almost always, the argument against comes from growers who have never tried either mix, and are content with the results they get from a from-the-bag mix because it's easy. Not all of us orders our priorities in that fashion. My good enough may be her poor; and good may in fact not be good enough for her. I know a lot of people like that and admire them for their desire for continual improvement. Rachel's question is a very good one, and her commentary clearly illustrates she's been thinking the issue through (from the plant's perspective) and looking for some input. Any teacher would give her high marks for that. I say often that our plants are already genetically programmed to grow to be beautiful specimens. The ONLY thing we can do to help is to be proactive in continually reducing the effects of ALL things that have the potential to limit growth/vitality. Remember, if everything is perfect except ONE thing, that single limitation can wreck the entire growing experience. One thing for Rachel to consider is that water in plunged pots behaves differently than it does in conventional container culture. That they are partially buried turns them into mini raised beds, hydrologically speaking. As long as they are not plunged into clay, the earth will quickly wick any perched water from the soil she chooses; so she has roughly the same potential for growth/vitality using soils that would otherwise be too heavy (water retentive) to be well suited to container growing as she does if using the gritty mix or the 5:1:1 mix. Since there is little notable loss in potential, based on her growing method, if using a heavier soil, we need to look to the interval between when the pots are lifted and moved indoors and when they're returned to the garden or beds and buried. Normally, there would be considerable concern over accumulating salts during the over-wintering period; this, as a result of having to water a heavy soil in small sips to avoid the soil being wet for any extended period. Since I believe she will be watering rather infrequently, it may not be a serious issue. Just a guess - if she's watering less often than every two weeks, I think she should be ok until repot time. Also, if she's willing to cheat the state out of a little rain water and use that to water with, it pretty much makes it a nonissue. I think Rachel's free to use a heavier soil if she wants to, and it shouldn't have any notable effect on her plants. If she has a suitable bark on hand - maybe something like a 5:2or3:1 bark:peat:perlite would be good - or even a bagged soil. The only real disadvantage to a peaty soil for this particular application is that it makes repotting more difficult. So - there's a little about perspectives and growing for you to consider. I hope there's enough there for you to set course with a little greater degree of certainty. Time to get out in the yard before it gets too hot again. It looks like another day that will be pushing 100*. Take care - thanks for the kind words. ;-) Al