1) You'll need to decide what is most appropriate for your purposes. The rule of thumb I use is: If a plant will be in the same soil for more than one growth cycle (longer than a year), I prefer to use the gritty mix, though in most cases there is nothing wrong with the 5:1:1 mix - it remains serviceable far longer than peat/coir/compost-based mixes. 2) The only way to extend watering intervals to upwards of a week w/o using an automatic watering device is to use a soil with enough fine particulates that it supports a fair measure of perched water. There's no sense in going through the effort of making either the 5:1:1 mix or the gritty mix if you're going to negate the very reason for making them in the first place (long-lasting aeration) for the sake of perceived convenience. You might as well stick with a soil from a bag that already has the water retention built into it. Al

I have seen where the Pine Bark Fines is referred to as 'soil conditioner' as well as the Turface being referred to as 'soil conditioner'. What exactly is Turface, They are both "soil conditioners" Pine Bark fines are organic. Turface is calcined Montmorillonite clay. Check your area for John Deere Landscape suppliers. If you can't find that then check your Tractor supply for "Oil Dry" in 40# bags. It will need to have the fines removed with an 1/8th inch screen. I've also read that it was like kitty litter, isn't that the same as the grit? So confused! :S the kitty litter is a clay product. The chicken grit is often a crushed granite product. It is a volume and aeration additive (?) that does not soak up water like the clay or the bark. I plan on buying the Reptibark for my Gritty so I won't have to screen and not for sure what I will need to get for the 5-1-1 bark fines. For the 5-1-1 mix check out the pine bark soil conditioners. See if it is ground to a fairly small size and is 100% pine. I have seen some that have other items like ground forest products whick are of questionable background. Locally I have Lowes, Tractor Supply, and Atwoods. I called Tractor Supply and they carry the Manapro grit for $4.99 and Atwoods has a 5lb bag of grit for $2.87 (they didn't know what brand). Then do I need to get the Lime and Gypsum for both (which for which mix?) or can I get just one of the two to use on both mixes? If I understand it correctly the lime is added to the 5-1-1 mix at the rate of 1 tablespoon per gaollon of mix. Seems that the ph of the 1-1-1 mix warrants the use of gypsum in the mix and then epsom salts are added to the water to help free up Ca and Mg. I don't have to make very much so I really don't want to have to buy 50 lb bags of all this! lol Also, what exactly to do for both on the fertilizer that's listed? you can add a Controlled release fertilizer or it is recommended to water with a weak fertilizer solution. Tapla has written on this and is worth the read Thank you so much for the help and sorry for all the q's! Thanks Al for all the help you are giving everyone!

Am I reading that correctly - you are in Orange County, CA, right? If so and you're using county water then your water quality looks great to me. If I'm looking at the right report (see here) then you have pH ~8 with ~16 ppm of Mg and ~48 ppm of Ca and total alkalinity of ~120 (180 as CaCO3 equiv). Your alkalinity is on the high side but the rest of the report looks great (for plants, I wouldn't drink it). 1 tsp of FP in 1 gallon of water will give you ~6 ppm of Mg and ~25 ppm of Ca. I mention this because your water has a good ratio of Ca:Mg and it already has both in higher levels than you'd get with typical usage of the liquid fertilizer most people around here talk about. To answer your question directly: no. The mixes are not neutral. The gritty mix will be closer to 7 than the 5-1-1 (which will be more acidic) but *it doesn't matter.* The pH of your mix initially has very little to do with the pH levels your mix will maintain over time. In containers the soil pH will be determined mostly by the pH and alkalinity of the water you use and by the type of fertilizer you use and its ratio of ammonium to nitrate (*and* the rate at which the plant is taking up both of those nutrients which can vary depending on temperature, cultivar, etc). You should basically assume that the initial pH of the mix itself is of no consequence when it comes to determining the pH of your soil over the long term. You do need to pay attention to the initial pH but only because if you transplant something into the mix you want the roots to function reasonably well from the get-go. All this means is that you need to raise the pH of the bark or peat slightly so they are more friendly to transplants - the directions for doing that are built into the 5-1-1. I grow citrus trees in both mixes. Either will work for you and there are pluses and minuses to both. In terms of pH and nutrient availability you will find that the 5-1-1 is slightly more forgiving than the gritty mix. At your pH and alkalinity if you grow citrus trees in containers you will almost certainly develop Mn and Zn deficiency even if you use something like FP (which, again: you do not need to do based on your water quality). You could avoid this by acidulating your water or by using foliar applications of Manganase Sulfate and Zinc Sulfate (1.5 g per gallon and 1 g per gallon respectively - they can be mixed and applied to new growth on plants showing deficiencies). Just looking again at your water report you also have adequate/luxury levels of B, S, Cl, Na, & Cu. Nickel will be in your soil via the bark and or peat and you likely don't need to add any. All your water may be missing is: Mo, Zn, Mn, & Fe. Were I you I would use a straight 5-1-3 fertilizer and then manage the micros as needed myself. You will find it much cheaper than the usual suggestion. You could also go with Jack's Professional 25-5-15 High Performance and you wouldn't have to manage your micros as often (you will still get Zn and Mn deficiency at your pH unless you acidulate or use a serious acid reaction fertilizer - but then you will blow your NPK ratios). The cheapest and easiest option would be to use the Jack's (or another 5-1-3 with Mo and Fe) and then use the foliar sprays 1-3 times a year. If you acidulate your water I wouldn't use sulfuric - you have a ton of S in there already. Maybe citric or vinegar (don't use phosphoric, nitric is dangerous). This will be moderately expensive and moderately time consuming even with a chemical injector. Do yourself a favor and avoid the expense of Foliage Pro with your water. You will be correcting micro issues in any case and you have better Ca/Mg/S than the fertilizer can offer you anyway.

I'm just musing here & not being snippy, but I think that the 5:1:1 mix performs significantly better than peat based soils, and remains structurally sound much longer (4-5 times longer, based on all other cultural conditions being equal). The gritty mix is even better, providing greater aeration and lasting indefinitely. I'm not saying that to promote what others refer to as 'Al's Soils', only to illustrate that soils that are highly aerated and structurally stable are much preferred to peat/coir/compost-based soils for the results oriented crowd. I'm able to say this based on the hundreds of people at GW and other sites that are using these soils and some fertilizer recommendations with a degree of success that has them saying they left soils like MG or other peat-based soils and will never look back. There is a crowd that wants to make things easier (these soils are much more forgiving and easier to grow in) and appreciates the idea that their plants are growing at closer to their genetic potential. Then, there is the group that feels that what they are using is 'good enough'. I have no quarrel with how folks establish their priorities, but what I usually hear, and what I'm hearing above is 'it's too much bother'. I never try to coax anyone to use "my" soils. I only point out the considerable benefits of higher aeration and greater durability and let others decide. I respect your decisions, but at the same time I can point to the fact that what's easier for the grower and what's better for the plant are often mutually exclusive. In this case, there is an inverse relationship between effort and results, but it's not as great as it seems. Yes, there is some effort involved in finding the ingredients and making the soil, but part of that effort is negated in the fact that healthier roots make healthier plants and healthy plants are less susceptible to insects and disease, and are more productive or prolific. Include the fact that root rot and soluble salts accumulation (especially for houseplants) is something you would have to work at to achieve, and you've got a pretty good case for abandoning the heavy soils. In the end, it always almost always distills to an individual decision. Is the perceived gain worth the perceived effort. Some answer with a resounding yes, and others are not so sure or unwilling to go through the trouble. I respect any one's decision because my part in trying to help folks ends with trying to provide the best science I can so they can make up their own minds. However, if the soils didn't work considerably better than conventional soils, I'd have been handed my head long ago. ;o) Take care. Al