@dleverette When making 5:1:1 mix, I break-up the compressed chunks of peat so they pass through a 1/2" screen. I toss any sticks and such on top of the raised beds where they break down with time. Here's a tip you'll find very helpful. For large batches of 5:1:1, pour the bark onto a tarp laid on a flat surface, then wet the bark a bit. Then, add the screened peat and spread it over the bark. Add your lime on top of the peat, then put down the perlite and wet that. The trick is to use just enough water to make the mix damp when it's thoroughly mixed. Both peat and pine bark are hydrophobic (water repellent) when allowed to dry below about 20% of their water holding ability. This makes a dry 5:1:1 mix extremely difficult to rewet if you don't moisten it when you make it. The moisture in the mix diffuses, moistening the bark/ peat and "breaking" its tendency to repel water. Within 15-30 minutes of making the mix you can pot plants and water them in thoroughly w/o the frustration associated with trying to rehydrate a dry soil. FWIW, I don't use coir. As many times as I've tried it and cone comparative experiments, I've always had problems or been dissatisfied with the results. You might be interested in a comparison between peat and coir I wrote several years back: Peat vs. Coir Sphagnum peat and coir have nearly identical water retention curves. They both retain about 90-95% of their volume in water at saturation and release it over approximately the same curve until they both lock water up so tightly it's unavailable for plant uptake at about 30-33% saturation. Coir actually has less loft than sphagnum peat, and therefore, less aeration. Because of this propensity, coir should be used in mixes at lower %s than peat. Because of the tendency to compact, in the greenhouse industry coir is primarily used in containers in sub-irrigation (bottom-watering) situations. Many sources produce coir that is high in soluble salts, so this can also be an issue. Using coir as the primary component of container media virtually eliminates lime or dolomitic lime as a possible Ca source because of coir's high pH (6+). Gypsum should be used as a Ca source, which eliminates coir's low S content. All coir products are very high in K, very low in Ca, and have a potentially high Mn content, which can interfere with the uptake of Fe. Several studies have also shown that the significant presence of phenolic allelochemicals in fresh coir can be very problematic for a high % of plants, causing poor growth and reduced yields. I haven't tested coir thoroughly, but I have done some testing of CHCs (coconut husk chips) with some loose controls in place. After very thoroughly leaching and rinsing the chips, I made a 5:1:1 soil of pine bark:peat:perlite (which I know to be very productive) and a 5:1:1 mix of CHCs:peat:perlite. I planted 6 cuttings of snapdragon and 6 cuttings of Coleus (each from the same plant to help reduce genetic influences) in containers (same size/shape) of the different soils. I added dolomitic lime to the bark soil and gypsum to the CHC soil. After the cuttings struck, I eliminated all but the three strongest in each of the 4 containers. I watered each container with a weak solution of MG 12-4-8 with STEM added at each watering, and watered on an 'as needed basis', not on a schedule. The only difference in the fertilizer regimen was the fact that I included a small amount of MgSO4 (Epsom salts) to provide MG (the dolomitic lime in the bark soil contained the MG, while the gypsum (CaSO4) in the CHC soil did not. This difference was necessary because or the high pH of CHCs and coir.) for the CHC soil. The results were startling. In both cases, the cuttings grown in the CHC's exhibited < 1/2 the biomass at summers end as the plants in the bark mix. I just find it very difficult for a solid case to be made (besides "It works for me") for the use of coir or CHC's. They're more expensive and more difficult to use effectively. The fact that some believe peat is in short supply (no where near true, btw) is easily offset by the effect of the carbon footprint of coir in its trek to the US from Sri Lanka or other exotic locales. That's the view from here. YMMV Coir Study: https://sites.google.com/site/plantandsoildigest/usu-crop-physiology-laboratory/coconut-coir-studies Al

This message is to Rhizo: Well I'm not really sure how big to make hole in inches. How big would you recommend I make each hole? I'm not sure how big or how small to make each hole in inches, nor am I sure of what is too many holes in a container and what's not enough holes in a container. What would be a good size hole that is not too big or too small? Please specify this in inches. The figure you give doesn't have to be exact, just a guesstimate will suffice. As per the size of the holes, well I was thinking of making each hole between 1"-3" as a guess but I'm not really sure to be honest. The containers I have and the ones I plan to purchase don't have holes in them That's why I'm asking.

Gravel or coarse sand added to an entire planting area can help to improve drainage because it introduces spaces in between the soil particles for water to penetrate, but it takes quite a lot to have much of an effect. And it needs to be fully incorporated into the soil to a significant depth, not applied as a layer. The accepted horticultural convention is that organic matter (i.e. compost) is preferred for this purpose, as its decomposition over time improves soil fertility and structure in addition to increasing the pore space. The incorporation of the gravel or compost into the entire planting area is the same theory behind not amending individual planting holes - amending creates situations of different soil structure adjacent to each other - this impedes root development as well as water penetration. It's called soil interface issues and if your "landscaper" is self-taught or long out of school, he may not be familiar with the both the theory and the current practices. Establishing a border of drain rock at the front base of the wall where it meets the lawn (or whatever) should help to reduce the wading pool effect. It is a pretty common application here with heavy, poorly draining NW soils and if deep and wide enough, relatively effective. It can even have the appearance of a dry stream bed (or mostly dry) and become part of the garden aesthetic as well as being a highly functional application.

Contrary to common wisdom, putting gravel under the soil will make drainage worse. So save all that labor for a different project. Why do you think it stays so wet? What kind of soil or soil mix is in the planter? How deep is it?