An appropriate size bark makes a small measure of nutrients available as the bark breaks down, and makes the soil less expensive on a per volume basis. Both are minor attributes a grower can do w/o. I think that if you eliminate the bark, you'll need to change the 1:1 ratio of granite:Turface to something like 3:2 or 2:1 in favor of the granite. The reason is, the granite and bark combined make up the largest fraction of the soil, and those components are both larger than Turface. Even screened Turface is small enough to support about an inch of perched water. The Turface will tend to filter in between the grit particles and make for fewer large pores than if there was a suitable size bark in the soil. It's nothing that can't be worked around with a minor adjustment. Al

If you have access to fir bark, which is 'chunkier' than pine bark, use 1/8-1/4" if you can. If you're using pine bark, which is flatter than fir bark, use what passes through 3/8 but not 1/8". It's better to have the pieces a little larger than idea than smaller; 'too small' negates one of the main advantages the gritty mix is designed to offer - no perched water table. AL

Jane - it's not uncommon for someone to make unsupportable statements, then treat them as fact and build an entire case around them. It happens on every active forum every day of every week. I'd like to take 4 paragraphs you wrote and use them to illustrate the difference in how we think. Your offerings are in bold and I'll comment intermittently. I have seen more underlit plants than I care to mention. Those plants lanquish and eventually decline. Plants growing in light that limits their potential ("underlit plants") needn't necessarily be in decline. Decline is a condition during which a plant is using more energy than it's able to produce - nothing more than that. It's entirely possible, and it happens very often, that a plant we might consider unsightly due to it having received less light than it needs to keep it looking good (from our POV), is able to sustain life and growth under light conditions insufficient to keep it looking as attractive as we would like - indefinitely, as long as it's life span isn't limited by the fact the plant is an annual or biennial, or by other potentially limiting cultural factors. Many people mistake the label, 'low-light plant' or 'shade,' without realizing how much light is lost by having a plant too far from a window. If a plant stops growing, it is not producing roots which uptake water. Without growth doesn't matter what a plant is in. I promote light first and foremost. First, "A[ny] plant that is not growing is dying" ~ Alex Shigo, PhD; this, because growth is a byproduct of the plant's ability to make more food than it needs to keep its systems orderly. A plant that is too far from a window to keep it looking healthy can still be growing and producing roots. Even if the top of the plant seems to have stalled, the roots can still be growing because root growth always precedes top growth. Also, it does matter "what a plant is in" if it's not growing because in most cases a lack of growth is directly linked to inhibited root function, which is very often related to limitations inherent in poor media. I have no argument with your recommendations to people who choose to use a grit mix. I think its good. But the majority of people who have multiple house plants are not going through the effort to put it together. A very quick scan of any of several fora will clearly illustrate otherwise. They will just continue to stick their plants in Miracle Grow. This is also untrue. While you focus on labels like the gritty mix and the 5:1:1 mix, I focus on helping others implement a concept, the effectiveness of which you can't question because you regularly note it's superior to methods you use. Growers implement the concepts I espouse with great regularity - primarily because it makes so much sense to do so. I suggest a alternative using bark or perlite to keep the mix from clumping and enhancing the drainage. Drainage isn't enhanced to a notable degree until the threshold that's been described in many conversations is reached. It occurs when there aren't enough fine particles to fill potential air spaces between larger particles (the BBs and sand analogy). And how is a 1:1:1 ratio of bark: peat or potting soil: perlite better at preventing "clumping", something I've never had to deal with. These same people are not going to get involved in perched water. This is very important: They ARE involved with perched water. If your medium supports it, you're involved with it in a direct relationship based on how much of it there is. I'm sure to your eyes and ears this is horrifying. Not at all - I'm a realist. But it is what I deal with on a daily basis with both orchids and house plants. Its my reality and I have found my alternative is simple enough for them to follow. It is also less expensive for them. It takes exactly the same amount of thought and effort to locate and mix the ingredients for the 5:1:1 mix as it does for the 1:1:1 mix you suggest because the ingredients are exactly the same - they're equally simple mixes. The 5:1:1 mix is actually LESS expensive because it utilizes a larger fraction of low-priced pine bark and a smaller fraction of higher-priced potting soil ..... and it's lighter. My plants do not seem to have a problem with perched water. As I noted previously, they DO have a problem with perched water, in that it is sapping potential. You might be perfectly happy with the state of your plant's vitality, but you can be sure that anything that limits the roots oxygen supply limits root function limits the plant and robs potential. We all know the 5:1:1 mix supports some perched water and that the 5:1:1 mix already includes some compromise to extend watering intervals. Therefore, it would be unreasonable to ask growers to believe that a medium with a much higher volume of fine particulates doesn't hold perched water and that the perched water it does hold has no impact on the root system's ability to function w/o limitation. As I said, the roots fill the base of the pot and will grow out the drain holes. I would think that would not happen in a mix holding too much water. Why would you think that? When the soil dries sufficiently, more or less normal root growth resumes, and some roots will grow outside of the pot. When roots die from hypoxic conditions, it's always the finest roots that die first - the ones that do all (ok - 90%+) of the work. The most significant loss is in the constant death and regeneration of the finer, nearly microscopic roots. To replace the roots killed by soggy soils (so the plant can return to 'normal' function) is an expensive outlay in terms of energy - energy that would otherwise have been directed toward more blooms, fruit, longer branches, more leaves, or a simple increase in biomass. IOW - lost potential. The roots would rot and would not grow into the base of the pot. Roots DO rot and die, it just happens that it's the fine roots that easily get overlooked that take the hit. That is not what happens. It actually IS what happens, but this is another case of someone floating an explanation that doesn't fit the observation in order to refute something we know to be true. Perched water IS limiting and the more you have the greater the limitation(s). I hope everyone is enjoying their Saturday - raining off & on again here in mid-MI. Al

Locally in Albuquerque, found Greensmix Garden Bark, Small Nuggets, at Walmart, which is about the size Sal described.