For mine, I use standard potting mix, sifted with a grate to get rid of all of the big bark pieces, then add a bit of coarse sand (not too much), then a bit of perlite.

I love your paper pot wrapper, is there a trick to making those?

Thanks for the tips! Oh I love them too, they're made from washable paper fabric- I bought them on etsy. I have way too many

I did plant one of mine in cactus soil with perlite, and it is doing wonderfully. However, if I knew then what I know now, I probably would have planted it in 5:1:1, or some variation of that mix. I agree with using bark and perlite as Brett suggests, though I would leave the sand out. But that is my personal preference, as I don't like using coarse sand in any plant.

I agree with 5:1:1. I think Bret was saying to remove the bark from the mix, which I don't agree with. However, unless your mix contains about a 70% bark to peat ratio, then it doesn't matter anyway.

Skip the sand.

Well, Al, my monstera is in potting soil and perlite because I potted it up before I knew about 5:1:1 mix. But I have to say: some of really big or hanging plants have to be in soil because it takes a lot to get up to my extra high ceilings to water. It is a compromise I have to make to have hanging plants.

I do, however, probably take them down and give them a shower and soil massage more than most people do....

L - I was actually referencing Brett's habit of screening the good stuff out of the soil; then I switched to addressing the OP. ...... wasn't even thinking about what you said (or addressing you), though I'm not sure what you meant, now? If you were talking about the 'weight' of soils for hanging plants, the 5:1:1 mix is much lighter than peat-based soils at container capacity (when holding all the water it can).

Al

Oh, I'm sorry, Al. I thought you were referring to my having used cactus soil. Let's pretend I didn't say anything. (Whistling and looking away as if I don't know anything about what's going on because don't want to explain why I am using cactus soil for anything because I am ashamed because I totally know better)

Al, that was my guilt talking....

No apology necessary - really ...... and no need for guilt. I just wanted you to know I wasn't disparaging you.

Al

Monstera deliciosas don't go dormant. Mine grows year-round. Though the leaves that emerge during winter are smaller. If any plant can withstand being repotted, it's this plant. They don't call them monsters for no reason. Mine grows roots like crazy. I repotted it back in spring. Back into the same pot, since it hasn't necessarily outgrown it just yet. The wooden stake that I initially used didn't hold up and broke, causing my plant's stems to lean over. When I unpotted it, the entire pot was one big pot-shaped tangled root mass. There was no hope of untangling those roots. So I hacked away roughly two-thirds of the roots, if not more. I just took my knife and cut away chunks. Then I repotted it with new soil and buried the ends to some of the lower aerial roots. I use a soil mix that is very similar to cactus soil. I didn't even use any perlite or other amendments. That's because this mix works great. It never stays soggy, no matter how much I water it, and it lets the roots breathe in as much oxygen as they desire.

You can most certainly add stuff like orchid bark, perlite, or even charcoal. Orchid mixes, such as Better-Gro® Special Orchid Mix is cheap, but made of high quality, sustainable resources and it works great for these plants, considering how they live in the same habitats and grow in much the same way as epiphytic orchids do. If I were to use the orchid mix, I'd mix it up at around 50% orchid bark mix & 50% fast draining soil. Though, as I mentioned earlier, I just use soil on its own and it works just fine. As you can see in my photo, the roots are pretty much in the process of filling up the entire pot all over again. One thing that I have noticed, is that once the roots have filled up the pot it's in, they tend to stop growing for the most part. They don't just keep growing and growing, until they're ready to bust out of the pot. Although, the aerial roots do seem to grow longer and longer. At least until they come into contact with the soil. When I bring mine indoors for the winter, I keep it on a plant stand and just let the aerial roots hang over the sides.

Thanks so much Photo! Super great to know all that. Wow those roots are crazy!!

Thanks everyone for the input, I really appreciate it! So, I've been hunting but I was having trouble finding some of the things I needed to make up a good mix. Yesterday, a bunch of mould popped up on the soil on my plant too, and the gnats seemed at all all time high! I've never even watered the guy since buying him, they must've reeeeeally overwatered at the nursery before sending him over. I figured enough was enough and I mixed up my cactus soil with a ton of perlite, figuring if things don't go too well it will at least buy me some more time to buy stuff for 5:1:1.

I'm so glad I changed the soil when I did, because that thing was CRAWLING with bugs and gnats, super gross, super muddy. Luckily once I got rid of all that mess I could see the roots are in amazing condition. I repotted and gave him a good watering, and a couple of those new leaves have already begun opening! So far so good.

Thanks all again, I'll be referring back to this post forever!

A new photo just for fun!

I meant to add a photo of the foliage to my previous post. To show you what it looked like. It didn't lose any leaves after my hacking away the majority of potted roots. It just kept on growing like usual. Very tough plants.

I bought mine over two years ago, when it looked just like yours. It had just started to grow leaves with splits in them, and I knew that it was a monster in the making.

Al: thank you:)

Old thread, I know!! Hoping for a response :)

Would a philodendron monstera do better in a 5:1:1 or a gritty mix soil??

I’ve searched everywhere and finally sourced out and bought the materials for both the gritty and 5:1:1 soils. I remember reading Al comment somewhere that he prefers the gritty mix for his houseplants over the 5:1:1. Would this be one of those cases??

Rebecca

If I was currently growing PM, it would be in the 5:1:1 mix. While I do prefer nearly all the plants I grow to be in the gritty mix, those that need biennial repotting as a minimum get put in the 5:1:1 mix. Brugmansia, hibiscus, datura, PM, lantana, ......, anything with aggressive root systems that more than fill the pot biennially goes into the 5:1:1 mix for the simple reason that root congestion demands a repot well before structural collapse of the soil becomes an issue. It doesn't make sense to pot in a more expensive soil that will remain structurally sound indefinitely when all you need in the way of structural stability is no more than 2 years.

Al

Al: thank you! This makes perfect sense. I actually have noticed the roots on this beauty are crazy - they’re growing right out of the top of the soil!! I’ll pot up to the 5:1:1.

I wonder if you could also direct me to the soil preferences for my other plants:

- sansevieria

- ficus lyrata

- aglaonema

- corn plant

Thanks so much :)

Rebecca

Grace- your monstera is gorgeous! Good luck finding a pot!!!

Given the wherewithal to choose, I'm thinking I'd have the Chinese evergreen in the 5:1:1 and the rest would surely reside in the gritty mix.

Al

is this thread still active? What I understand is it is ok to pot monstera or philodendron in cacti & succulent soil? TQ

Of course, we're all free to do as we wish insofar as what we choose as a medium for our plants, but all media are not created equal; and unfortunately, what's on the outside of a bag of soil has little to do with what's on the inside. Many times I've seen "cactus/succulent soil" too water retentive even for plants that don't mind wet feet, so caveate emptor.

Getting to the point where you can water to beyond the point of saturation, so you're flushing accumulating salts from the soil as you water, without need to worry that the soil will remain soggy for and extended period and thereby limit root function is an extremely worthy goal. To get there, the soil should be based on a predominant fraction of coarse material; this, because the amount of water a medium retains is largely a function of particle size.

This discussion might be helpful.

Al

Thank you. I'll most likely get a 'good' cacti succulent soil for my Monstera and philodendron :)

Trudy I would sure agree with Al that often what's inside of a bag labeled cactus mix is nothing like what you would expect for a cactus, so I'll second his warning about those.

For Monstera (and most Philodendron) soil, they actually grow best in a soil opposite from what a cactus likes. They really like more water. Most plant authors include the "free draining" tag for Monstera soil, but that means free draining soil including humus just like almost all tropical houseplants prefer, not "free draining" like a cactus. So they mean a quality, humus-rich, loose, friable, tropical plant soil, not a cheap one that drains poorly, packs tightly, or robs nitrogen.

Thank you very much for the advice.

Tom H, what is your formula for a quality, humus-rich, loose, friable, tropical plant soil? Thanks so much!

Hi Naimia. You can see examples of these type of mixes with good drainage but also good water retention at your local hydroponics store. My personal mix for these is 1 part each of blonde peat, coco fiber, pumice, perlite; and 2 parts very-long-aged compost. It also has alfalfa meal, kelp meal, a very little of 3 kinds of lime (slow, medium, and fast-acting), and a slow-release nitrogen fertilizer. The goal with Monstera is to have lots of available water & nutrients for these thirsty & hungry plants, but also to have adequate air to the roots. Many, many types of mixes will work well for these, as long as you stay away from the cheap home center mixes that pack a pot like mud, and only give air to the roots for a tiny window of time if you carefully withhold water down to the last possible day.

Thanks, Tom. I didn’t even know hydroponics stores existed, lol. I found one just a few miles from me. I’ll check it out.

Tom, what brands at a hydroponics store will have good drainage and good water retention? Thanks!

@tapla (mid-Michigan, USDA z5b-6a),

From what I can tell, you are the one that created the 5:1:1 mix and gritty mix that everyone refers to in these forums. however, I can’t seem to find any posts that actually explain what they are and how to make them. Could you tell me where to find the post(s)?

Thanks!

Click me to get to the most recent posting of the info.

Al

@niamia, sorry I missed your question before! For the future, if you want a premium mix at a hydroponics store with both excellent drainage and water retention, there should be several with the words "high porosity" or "HP" in name. These will have the highest measured growth rates of any packaged plant soil. They have been heavily tested and the plant growth measured and compared for decades with these type of mixes.

If it is for houseplants, choose the versions made mostly of peat or coir with perlite or pumice for drainage. Many successful indoor growers get very high yields and fast growth with these. They allow for many more and finer feeder roots. There is another version of these, the super-soil style mixes with heavy organics like bat guano and fish meal, and many other smelly ingredients. They're unbeatable outdoors, but avoid them for indoors. :)

Sorry, but I disagree with most of the offering immediately above. If only we could believe what we read. Advertising hype ON the package is more often than not an inaccurate and misleading representation of what's IN the package. Has anyone ever seen a package of soil with labeling that states, "This is a mediocre substrate, at best?" Too, soils comprised of large fractions of fine ingredients like peat moss, coir, compost, composted forest product, sand, topsoil ..... are usually difficult to grow in because soil particle size is primarily what drives water retention. Also, media made with significant fractions of coir (>10%) require work-arounds relative to both physical and chemical properties of coir which aren't necessary when using media formulated with a very large primary fraction of pine bark and much smaller fractions of peat moss and perlite.

Water-retentive media produce far fewer fine roots, limit root colonization of the soil column, and levy a heavy tax on a plant's ability to realize as much of its genetic potential as possible, which is why most experienced growers attempt to amend media like you describe, often unsuccessfully, by adding a measure of coarse material (perlite/ pine bark/ pumice) in hope of increasing aeration and drainage.

Al

"Difficult to grow in" is a bold claim for something you've never tried, not even a single bag with "High Porosity" printed on it. Would you please admit that? It's wrong to pretend such authority about them. It sounds like you've never even been inside a hydroponics store, let alone followed the last 30 years of leading-edge soil developments the hydro community has driven.

No one else is having trouble growing in premium high-porosity mixes like you claim, so please stop saying that. It’s just not true. Also please stop equating them with low-budget Miracle-Grow-type ingredients like forest products, sand, and topsoil. You have to be grossly incompetent to fail with these, especially since they can move, balance, & evaporate water so much faster than your type of fine bark, because of their superior capillary wicking.

Fine-vs-coarse is not a great comparison of soil ingredients. Water retention and air balance in a mix are NOT proportional merely on particle size. They have unique structures. Peat for instance can hold much more air in a mix than bark if you balance the water holding capacity of both, which is why it has been the gold standard for nursery potting soils for a half century. Also, peat is not peat: there are grades you haven’t tried yet in these mixes with even more air-holding power.

“Water-retentive media produce far fewer fine roots”. You’ve got it almost right. It’s true over-watered plants get anaerobic, which stunts roots, but conversely, without an overwatering crash, finer media always produce better roots, faster growth, and higher yields. Since you’ve never used premium HP mixes, you aren’t aware of how easy it is to avoid overwatering them. Using a too-airy bark mix to avoid an overwatering crash gets you ok roots, but it is nearly the opposite of the max “genetic potential” you claim. This question of potential for bark vs. peat was settled 20 years ago by thousands of serious small-scale indoor farmers who understand their soil science. Not just mindless dupes blindly believing marketing hype on a bag as you imagine, but measured trial and error for years to precisely maximize square-foot profit from container gardening.

There is an old adage to ‘grow the roots, not the leaves’. With newer knowledge the saying should be ‘grow the fungus, not just the roots’. If we really want genetic potential, mycorrhizal fungal associations with roots make huge portions of most plants’ total nutrient uptake (some > 50%). Mycorrhizae can be great in outdoor dirt, in premium HP mixes, and surprisingly good in straight hydro; but rather poorly in half-hydro bark-type mixes because they struggle with either having too much air or too much perched water if you go finer. These fungi work like they are extending the roots much finer, more extensive, and more able to absorb nutrients, so we need to focus on them. This explains why finer media have consistently shown higher yields. How do you grow beneficial fungi? Keep the soil mix as fine and wet as you can while still maintaining a minimum amount of air space with a safety margin against an over-watering crash. That’s genetic potential! 😊

I disagree with nearly all you said, except for a couple of facts: 1) that highly aerated fast draining soils are far easier to grow in and offer plants significantly better opportunity to realize as much of their genetic potential as possible, and 2) roots are the heart of the plant, and w/o a healthy root system, a healthy plant is only a dream.

I disagree because the basic premise upon which your claims rest are faulty ..... and I'm sure we can agree you needn't be a bus driver to know what makes the wheels go 'round and 'round.

I didn't say that anyone is having trouble growing in high porosity substrates, so please refrain from putting words in my mouth. What I said, basically, was what it says on a bag/bale of potting substrate has little to do with what's in the bag. Every packager of retail grow media seriously pushes the limits of veracity in order to capture the unsuspecting buyer, and this extends to fertilizers and hundreds and hundreds of other products which target hobby growers.

In my considerable experience, I've come to recognize it's not possible to build a highly aerated medium based on large fractions of fine ingredients. Example - start with a pint of peat in a quart jar, then add a pint of perlite. One would think the o/a air porosity would increase significantly ...... but it doesn't. Perlite is not internally porous. IOW, it is a glass foam which has solidified and trapped air inside internal cells, and the internal cells are not gas or water permeable. A ping pong ball is full of air. Add a dozen to a pint of peat - see if the o/a air porosity increases or decreases. A PP ball cannot ADD porosity because the cell at its center is closed. Let's say the dozen PP balls filled the half jar of peat, so you now have a quart of soil, but the volume of air porosity in the new mix created by the combination of the 2 ingredients is limited to the volume of air space between the original volume of peat particles.

When you double the volume of a medium w/o increasing air porosity, you reduce o/a air porosity by 50%. To be fair, perlite has an uneven surface, which would add some air porosity, but the small fraction of air porosity added due to perlites irregular surface can never be even close the the volume displaced by the particle because of its closed cell nature.

There is something called a "threshold proportion" that needs to be considered. Lets start with a pint of peat again and start adding pine bark with a 1/8- 3/8" size gradient. When we reach a 50/50 mixture of peat/bark, there is still more than enough peat to fill every all space between bark particles with peat. Where is the advantage in adding the bark. Like the perlite, it simply decreased o/a air porosity, but to a lesser degree than perlite would because barks internal pores are open and gas/water permeable to some degree. Even at 75% bark and 25% peat, the roots will essentially be growing only in the peat, and the air porosity of the usable fraction of medium available for root colonization provides the air porosity of peat alone. In rteality it will be less because the weight of the bark diminishes the loft of the peat, but we needn't rely on that fact to complete the thought.

At some point, by continually adding more bark, we'll arrive at the threshold proportion, where there is exactly the volume of peat needed to fill all air spaces between the bark particles. From that point forward, increasing the ratio between the bark and peat rapidly increases air porosity; so, if you really want to take advantage of media which are ACTUALLY highly aerated and fast draining, you'll always be working with media that have a very large fraction of ingredients larger than about .100". which is the particle size gradient at which it is not possible for a medium to hold water in the spaces between particles. Since this is only true when particles are uniform in size/shape, the actual size at which perched water disappears in practical applications will be closer to .125".

Perched water is a thief that always flies below the radar until you learn how water behaves in grow media. Substrates based on large fractions of fine products like peat, coir, compost, composted forest products, sand, topsoil, are going to support lots of perched water. An experienced grower can look at the soil, feel the texture, and predict within 1/2" how tall will be the PWT (perched water table) the substrate will support at container capacity. Most bagged media supports in the range of 3-6", with 4-6" being the norm. I can't say how tall the PWT will be in the medium you discuss, but I can say with a good deal of certainty, if the medium is indeed comprised of large fractions of peat/coir, it will be too much for you to make the claims you made.

How about we compare. You show me what your healthy root systems look like, and I'll show you what mine look like. Seem fair/reasonable?

Al

Al, I’m sorry but you said these soils (which you have never even seen) are “hard to grow in”, “hype”, “levy a heavy tax on …potential”, etc. All that is bunk. So when I asked you to stop saying people were having trouble growing in them, I was not at all putting words in your mouth. You said it.

“In my considerable experience…” You must be joking here. You’ve never even seen the whole class of soils you are deriding. You’ve never grown plants in them. You’ve never watered them. You’ve never compared yields of crops in these soils. Earlier in this thread you were confused about what was even in them. You’ve also never seen the other premium grades of peat I mentioned which hold more air, so you don’t even know what peat is. You think peat is just that stuff you tried one time at Home Depot. There is a whole industry & hobby that is bigger than your bonsai hobby, and they know from a combined effort of decades of trial and error that these HP soils definitely work for maximum yields. The decades of results make your theories about why they can’t work just silly prattle.

Another thing you misunderstand about peat is that even though it does (initially) get perched water, it doesn’t last so it’s not a problem like in bark. I’ve shown you before about how peat’s superior wicking evaporates water from a pot 2.5x faster than your type of bark, and lifts up perched water, but you ignored it and are now back to pretending like only particle size matters. This is one key explanation for why you are so wrong about the ideal amount of drainage in a soil: you incorrectly think all these materials have similar properties. They don’t. Soil component drying rates are NOT proportional to particle size. Faster-drying, high-capillary ingredients get great results despite holding more water, slower drying ingredients need more air, less water, and faster drainage to be successful. It’s a balance like an equation. You need to be aware of this balance and stop simplistically focusing on just particle size.

If you really feel the need to compare, you could use what we all want as our final goal here, actual houseplants. You can see some of mine by clicking on my name to the left.

You relied on a long list of assertions about me, and about soil science that aren't supported by fact or science, especially the parts about what I have and haven't done and what I'm aware of; and, you misrepresented almost everything I said to bolster an untenable position. The fact is, folks flock to fora searching for resolution of issues directly related to excess water retention in soils primarily comprised of peat, coir, and other fine ingredients, it's undeniable. The remedial information I provide in order to help others avoid limitations imposed by poor soils and excess water retention has made a significant difference in the growing experience of thousands of people, and the positive feedback I get publicly and privately serves as validation of that fact.

Soil component drying rates are NOT proportional to particle size. Really? Fill 2 identical pots, one with coarse sand the other with clay and see which dries first. Or, start with dry clay and dry sand and allow each to absorb an equal measure of water - see which dries first. Or, Fill a pot with hort-grade (prescreened) Turface and one with fines that pass through an insect screen. Wet both and see which dries faster. Faster-drying, high-capillary ingredients get great results despite holding more water, Really? What makes ingredients with high capillarity fast drying? Particle Crush Leca balls to a powder and fill a pot with it. Then fill a similar pot with the same amount (by weight) of uncrushed Leca balls. Saturate both, and see which dries first. It will be the larger size balls. ..... slower drying ingredients need more air, less water, and faster drainage to be successful. It’s a balance like an equation. You need to be aware of this balance and stop simplistically focusing on just particle size. Saying that water retention is primarily driven by particle size is not "simplistically focusing on just particle size", and you err in thinking I'm not aware of what you refer to as an equation, and in thinking "balance" is not an important consideration whenever I offer remedial advice.

I realize there are many grades of peat, and peat in a more advanced state of decomposition provides less loft. Less loft = more compaction = more water retention. Don't forget ht of the soil column significantly impacts loft of peat - the weight/ gravitational potential of media components (and the water they hold) near the top of the soil column pushing down on material nearer the bottom of the soil column. Peat grades that offer superb performance when when soil column hts approximate those found in flats and cell packs will not offer the same loft/air porosity, nor will they resist compaction in taller containers.

No matter what grade of peat you use, even if you use H2 blonde which is one step removed from living sphagnum moss, you cannot expect the structural stability you can rely on by using pine bark as the medium's primary fraction. The reason lower (on the VP scale) grades of peat have more loft is their ability to retain their natural structure, an ability that decreases with age and as the ht of the soil column increases.

A grower can start with 3 or 4 ingredients and combine them in a way that produces a superb grow medium, but the same ingredients can be combined to produce a medium which is inherently limiting. Some of your claims are correct, but, like soil ingredients, you combine them with the rest of your assertions in a fashion that defeats your purpose, assuming that is to shed light. The ad hominem charges do you no favors, either.

Al

Al, if I give reasons for disagreeing your experience level can be evidence to settle this issue, then naturally the reasons are going to be about your experience. "Ad hominem" only applies when the arguments are unrelated to the issue in question. You are the one who made your own experience an issue.

By comparing the drying rate of Leca to crushed Leca, or Turface to Turface fines, that is exactly the simplistic focus on just particle size I warned about. Instead, compare a high-capillary ingredient to a low: peat to bark fines. The peat will dry 2.5x faster than the bark, even though it holds more water, and even faster if you balance the water-holding capacity of both. You asked, “what makes ingredients with high capillarity fast drying?” Capillary action can move water up against gravity, as in the towel-lifting-water experiment we did as kids. It moves water from the perched table at the bottom up throughout the pot and to the top where it can evaporate quickly.

When you said “The reason lower (on the VP scale) grades of peat have more loft…”, you have that backwards. Lower on the scale = less loft. I am glad you acknowledged there are “peat grades that offer superb performance”. However, your claim this will go away in a taller pot is unfounded and makes it obvious you’ve never used “High Porosity” mixes with their high levels of structural/drainage material which prevent this. It just doesn’t work like you claim. In fact, using terms like “H2 blonde” and “VP scale” are not words growers use at all. Those are from someone who just looked up “grades of peat’ on Google after my last post to try to imply fake expertise without explicitly claiming it. Please quit trying to teach me about something you know nothing about. Al, I have no problem if you tell people how great your soils and methods are. Avoiding overwatering is how you have helped many and earned their thanks. But you cross the line when you think this qualifies you to claim other universally accepted methods won’t work well. You’ve been slandering great products and you’re just wrong. You really are not so much smarter than all those really intelligent pros around the world who earn their living with these products you’ve never even used.

TTTH

Al

@tapla

are there specific plants that the 5-1-1 is for and specific plants that the gritty mix is for? I think when I first started reading posts about it, I was looking at reporting an orchid or a fiddle leaf fig... now I’ve gotten into Monsteras and the pink princess philodendron but I’m curious if there are specific plants that do better in each.

Thanks!

Also, you’re from Michigan? Me too! Wheat area? I’m in SE Michigan, in Royal Oak.