"Good" is a relative term that's difficult to nail down. The better you understand soils and how water behaves in soils, the better armed you would be to deal with soils that have inherent issues, mainly excess water retention. Not long ago, on another forum, I wrote the following because someone had asked if a particular soil was a 'good' choice. Rather than simply give him a 'yes or no' answer, I decided to go into enough detail that it would allow HIM to decide, instead of me, or others. It also offers something unique in that it illustrates there are two ways to look at soil choice. It meshes very nicely with the theme of this thread, so hopefully you will find it of interest. Is Soil X a 'Good' Soil? I think any discussion on this topic must largely center around the word "GOOD", and we can broaden the term 'good' so it also includes 'quality' or 'suitable', as in "Is soil X a quality or suitable soil?" How do we determine if soil A or soil B is a good soil? and before we do that, we'd better decide if we are going to look at it from the plant's perspective or from the grower's perspective, because often there is a considerable amount of conflict to be found in the overlap - so much so that one can often be mutually exclusive of the other. We can imagine that grower A might not be happy or satisfied unless knows he is squeezing every bit of potential from his plants, and grower Z might not be happy or content unless he can water his plants before leaving on a 2-week jaunt, and still have a weeks worth of not having to water when he returns. Everyone else is somewhere between A and Z; with B, D, F, H, J, L, N, P, R, T, V, X, and Y either unaware of what makes a good soil or they understand but don't care. I said all that to illustrate the large measure of futility in trying to establish any sort of standard as to what makes a good soil from the individual grower's perspective; but let's change our focus from the pointless to the possible. We're only interested in the comparative degrees of 'good' and 'better' here. It would be presumptive to label any soil "best". 'Best I've found' or 'best I've used' CAN sometimes be useful for comparative purposes, but that's a very subjective judgment. Let's tackle 'good', then move on to 'better', and finally see what we can do about qualifying these descriptors so they can apply to all growers. I would like to think that everyone would prefer to use a soil that can be described as 'good' from the plant's perspective. How do we determine what a plant wants? Surprisingly, we can use %s established by truly scientific studies that are widely accepted in the greenhouse and nursery trades to determine if a soil is good or not good - from the plant's perspective, that is. Rather than use confusing numbers that mean nothing to the hobby grower, I can suggest that our standard for a good soil should be, at a minimum, that you can water that soil properly. That means, that at any time during the growth cycle, you can water your plantings to beyond the point of saturation (so excess water is draining from the pot) without the fear of root rot or compromised root function or metabolism due to (take your pick) too much water or too little air in the root zone. I think it's very reasonable to withhold the comparative basic descriptor, 'GOOD', from soils that can't be watered properly without compromising root function, or worse, suffering one of the fungaluglies that cause root rot. I also think anyone wishing to make the case from the plant's perspective that a soil that can't be watered to beyond saturation w/o compromising root health can be called 'good', is fighting on the UP side of logic hill. So I contend that 'good' soils are soils we can water correctly; that is, we can flush the soil when we water without concern for compromising root health/function/metabolism. If you ask yourself, "Can I water correctly if I use this soil?" and the answer is 'NO' ... it's not a good soil ... for the reasons stated above. Can you water correctly using most of the bagged soils readily available? 'NO', and I don't think I need to point out how I arrived at that conclusion. What about 'BETTER'? Can we determine what might make a better soil? Yes, we can. If we start with a soil that meets the minimum standard of 'good', and improve either the physical and/or chemical properties of that soil, or make it last longer, then we have 'better'. Even if we cannot agree on how low we wish to set the bar for what constitutes 'good', we should be able to agree that any soil that reduces excess water retention, increases aeration, ensures increased potential for optimal root health, and lasts longer than soils that only meet some one's individual and arbitrary standard of 'good', is a 'better' soil. All the plants we grow, unless grown from seed, have the genetic potential to be beautiful specimens. It's easy to say, and easy to see the absolute truth in the idea that if you give a plant everything it wants it will flourish and grow; after all, plants are programmed to grow just that way. Our growing skills are defined by our ability to give plants what they want. The better we are at it, the better our plants will grow. But we all know it's not that easy. Lifetimes are spent in careful study, trying to determine just exactly what it is that plants want and need to make them grow best. Since this is a soil discussion, let's see what the plant wants from its soil. The plant wants a soil in which we have endeavored to provide in available form, all the essential nutrients, in the ratio in at which the plant uses them, and at a concentration high enough to prevent deficiencies yet low enough to make it easy to take up water (and the nutrients dissolved in the water). First and foremost, though, the plant wants a container soil that is evenly damp, never wet or soggy. Giving a plant what it wants, to flourish and grow, doesn't include a soil that is half saturated for a week before aeration returns to the entire soil mass, even if you only water in small sips. Plants might do 'ok' in some soils, but to actually flourish, like they are genetically programmed to do, they would need to be unencumbered by wet, soggy soils. We become better growers by improving our ability to reduce the effects of limiting factors, or by eliminating those limiting factors entirely; in other words, by clearing out those influences that stand in the way of the plant reaching its genetic potential. Even if we are able to make every other factor that influences plant growth/vitality absolutely perfect, it could not make up for a substandard soil. For a plant to grow to its genetic potential, every factor has to be perfect, including the soil. Of course, we'll never manage to get to that point, but the good news is that as we get closer and closer, our plants get better and better; and hopefully, we'll get more from our growing experience. In my travels, I've discovered it almost always ends up being that one little factor that we willingly or unwittingly overlooked that limits us in our abilities, and our plants in their potential. Food for thought: A 2-bit plant in a $10 soil has a future full of potential, where a $10 plant in a 2-bit soil has a future filled only with limitations. ~ Al Here is a link that might be useful: If you want to dig deeper into soil, click me ....

It wouldn't hurt or maybe it would? To experiment. I myself find that cacti, succulents respond well to soluble fertilizers Traditional mineral cacti mixes are pumice and pine bark, or pumice, peat, and pine bark.. They work well with other succulents too. I have been experimenting with coir too, seems like a nice product. Lasts longer than peat. But is neutral which is great in some cases, not so great in others. Plants that come form desert regions really do not respond well to any compost, as it is not in the environment. Also plants that come from sandy soils same thing. Some tropical succulents will like the compost. The gritty mix would probably work well with some succulents. Bigger cacti require very dry soil most of the time, and the gritty mix can get dry fast, so is a good choice. I myself don't like it for some plants like fruit trees, but any gardener that pays attention can grow plants in anything. If you decide to use compost, go light on it, as it tends to stay wet a long time, it doesn't drain well either. Be careful not to over water.

I spend a lot of time at the Container Forum, just happened to wander over here! I recommend you post on the Container forum and talk to Al (Tapla) and JAG (Justaguy). The first mix will definitely be frowned on, the second mix is preferable if those are your only choices...with 50% fines it may retain water longer than optimal but that depends on your particular microclimate. Ideally you should need to water every day, means the mix is well drained with good gas exchange and fresh oxygen to the roots daily, think of container gardening as a cross between hydroponics and aeroponics...if you find yourself only needing to water every 2-3 days due to moisture retention then you won't have an optimal root environment and best results possible. Good luck. Tom

Hmmmm....not really sure if mint can be grown indoors. But since I have kept two basil plants alive in a little 4" pot for a year now (up near the kitchen window where they can get the north facing light) I would say you should certainly try it. Mint seedlings are usually pretty cheap. Be advised though that if you plant mint in beds outside in your yard - it will spread like wildfire and take over every inch it can! Many folks sink a pot in a hole in the ground, then plant the mint in the pot to help contain it. It does not especially like full sun. Teresa