The ingredients in what everyone calls 'the gritty mix' weren't selected randomly. First though, you CAN grow very well in a 50/50 mix of screened Turface and crushed granite of the appropriate size, with 'of the appropriate size' being the key phrase. When it comes to container soils and when plant health is the focus, particle SIZE and the accompanying soil structure are the important considerations. What the particles are made FROM, goes to grower convenience. IOW, you can grow perfectly healthy bonsai in crushed glass if the particle size is appropriate, but it's not convenient because you would need to water hourly (approximately) and fertilize daily (approximately) to achieve the desired results. Now, substitute something that has some internal porosity (Turface/pumice/Haydite ......) in an appropriate size and you have something you can at least work with ..... and turn your back on for more than an hour or two. In the gritty mix, the bark holds nutrients, holds water, provides air porosity, and contributes some nutrition as the hydrocarbon chains that the bark is made of break down slowly. It's not needed because the load of each of these attributes CAN be carried by either Turface or the granite, except for the providing nutrition part, which isn't a big consideration because hopefully we're using a well-reasoned nutrient supplementation program. The two reasons I include bark are A) it's much less expensive on a per volume basis, and B) many people would never believe you can grow anything in a totally inorganic mix of Turface & granite. FWEIW, bark meshes very nicely with the Turface & granite because it's water retention is roughly the same as the average water retention of Turface & granite combined. The Turface is actually a little too small to be considered a 'perfect' size for soils, but so far, it's the best I've found. The bark and grit, both being of a larger size, negates the effects of Turface's small size. Turface is also a little too water-retentive to be used alone or with bark at a 50/50 ratio, and when you allow bark to become more than about 1/3 of the o/a soil volume, you can have some water retention difficulties as the soil ages and the bark breaks down. I've found that limiting the organic fraction of soils to 1/3 or less, of large and stable particles to be wisest when vitality and growth are primary considerations. It's only when we start to allow for grower convenience that we can make a good case for more bark or a larger fraction of organics. So, with the bark fraction limited to only 1/3 of the mix for best results, that leaves us 2/3 of the mix to play with. 2/3 Turface, even screened, would be too water retentive. 2/3 grit would not be water retentive enough to be a reasonable choice for most, though it would still support very healthy growth if you're willing to stay apace with water/fertilizer requirements. Most, including me, can't or wont. That leaves us with dividing the remaining 2/3 of the mix between something that holds water and something that doesn't. This offers a considerable degree of adjustment for water retention. Let's imagine that you used something with approximately the water retention of the AVERAGE between Turface + granite, like Haydite or pumice. That would work, but there is no adjustability like there is with the Turface/granite @ 2/3 of the mix. On it's face, it may seem that I just chose 3 ingredients without much consideration, but you can see how much thought went into devising a soil that holds almost NO perched water yet still has good water retention and holds enough air to make virtually any root system happy. Plus, it's adjustability makes it suitable, using only the 3 ingredients or in some cases only two once it is well understood how the soil works, for use with virtually any tree. Oh - I should add that most bonsai growers have a pet soil recipe, but there are few that actually fully understand how soils work and what constitutes a 'good' soil. From the plant's perspective we can say that soils that support significant volumes of perched water will be limiting to growth and vitality where soils that do not support perched water will not. This is an undeniable fact, and we can make some pretty precise estimations of how suitable a soil may or may not be based on the size of the particles it is made from, which of course determines how much perched water it will hold. Simply put, perched water kills, so it's in the best interest of the plant to avoid it to the greatest degree possible. That help? ;-) Al

In Connecticut, DED has been long present. So, it's possible that the elm is somewhat resistant, but DED is gradually killing it. There also Elm yellows, if that's present (it's rampant on my lot). Did the "arborist" say if it had symptoms of DED? What was the recommended "treatment" for -- DED, insects, etc? It looks like it has a large lawn for a root zone, so you could rule out soil disturbance/compaction. Fertilizing the root zone of the tree won't make a difference in the long run, tho providing a grass-free (mulched) area in all or part of the root zone can bolster an old tree. Anyways, might be best to get some more opinions on the tree from some different arborists. I agree -- it'd be a shame to loose it.

I have several wild American Elm growing on my property near Waco, Tx. I still have at least one of these potted (about 2' tall). IF someone wants it, I will send it to you bare-rooted free of charge up until end of April, except you must agree to post here annually its growth results and agree to at least weekly watering if no rainfall during spring -fall for first year. Our American Elm here appear to be DED- free, but the trees are much shorter than described back east. Our native Cedar Elm appear to be the better choice for here, but the few large American Elm growing only along river and creek beds do look nice. I am not an expert on American Elm, only an interested observer on the western fringes of their territory.

I have 3 of the elms you mention (Accolade, Jefferson and Princeton) and they are all good choices. We have some Accolades across the state of Michigan, and they seem to do very well even in spots where they are not cared for. Just a very nice dark green and fast growing. If you are considering Accolade, I would also take a look at the Triumph elm too. I've seen both original parent trees and think the triumph has a more classic look although it's similar to Princeton, but with the additional disease resistance. There are huge regional differences that impact how they look in your climate zone. I have planted several Princeton elms over the past 5 years and they are exciting to watch grow. It's insane how quickly they gain caliper and height, but a lot of what I have read indicates they are prone to breakage due to upright included branches. The Jefferson elm is a mysterious one. They are very hard to locate. I mail ordered what I thought was a Jefferson Elm, only to find out there was a mix up and it was a Princeton. This was from one of the only resellers of the Jefferson so I'm sure there are many out there who have a tree that is different than what they thought they had ordered. (Picture on this website is definitely incorrect and is of a Princeton elms ....http://www.missouribotanicalgarden.org/PlantFinder/PlantFinderDetails.aspx?taxonid=265902&isprofile=0&letter=U) I drove a couple of hours to Ohio to pick up a Jefferson elm. North Branch Nursery had them and a few other varieties. You should check them out if you are close. The Jefferson seems promising and has some unique characteristics such as better branch angles, leafs out about a week sooner as well as having a different genetic makeup than other elms. ... not sure if this really mean much :) Also, it would be less common and unique! Here is one of the few pics I was able to find of a "young" Jefferson elm being planted @ the Whitehouse. Check out this study for some info from your state where Triumph and Accolade both do very well. https://bspm.agsci.colostate.edu/files/2013/03/Ohio-Elm-Trial-March-1-2016.pdf Good luck!