As far as I know, there is no equivalent to the Gritty Mix on the market. However, there is a fairly decent bagged mix similar to the 5-1-1. Fafard produces heavyweight mixes (can't remember the exact designation) as well as a "Nursery mix," which has a high percentage of bark. That would be better than most mixes. Unfortunately, the cost of transporting the Gritty Mix would be prohibitive. Josh

In my view the choice of what ingredients to use in the mix should be based on how long the plant will be in the mix before it is changed out. If this tree will spend a few years in this mix then I would choose the gritty mix since only 1/3rd of the mix is subject to breaking down and holding more water at the expense of less oxygen. In the basic mix almost 90% is subject to breaking down. If water retention is your concern you can decrease the amount of grit and increase the amount of Turface. Grit holds no water, Turface holds a lot. I have some citrus trees growing in 1 part bark fines and 1 part turface and for my tastes it holds too much water. I have some more citrus coming this week and I already have their planters ready with the gritty mix. Years ago I was afraid of the gritty mix for the same reason you are, concerned I would be a watering slave. While you probably will be watering a bit more often than with a peat based mix, I think you will be surprised how much water the gritty mix holds, particularly in a large, deep container. When in doubt, just increase the turface while decreasing the grit.

Around here the pine bark mix at Home Depot that works is the #302 Golden Trophy bags. I've been using this for the last 4 or 5 years. The only problem is that the #302 bags vary significantly from pallet to pallet. You need to check an open bag and make sure. If the chunks are small then the entire pallet is probably OK. If not the bags in the entire pallet is not usable. I got burned this year in my first buy and had to unload all the bags to someone's in ground garden (after a harsh winter I wasn't thinking straight :-). The bags were wet and the chunks seemed small after a quick inspection but after getting them home they stunk (which I heard was not good) and had a lot of sticks and bigger chunks hidden in them. A week later I went to a different Home Depot and found a pallet of perfect #302 pine bark and loaded up as many bags that will fit into the van. A couple of years ago the good pallet of #302 was behind a bad pallet which required me to climb over the bad pallet to get to the good pallet. The employees at Home Depot must have thought I was nuts. Last year I found #302 Golden Trophy at Menards with the same pallet to pallet differences but this year Menards doesn't seem to carry it.

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