Hi, guys. Over the years, I've done a LOT of experimenting with soils, including side by side tests of soils made with CHCs and coir in the stead of pine bark and peat respectively. In all cases, the plants grown in the CHCs and coir did NOT fare well in comparison, so I wouldn't be too quick to conclude that coir and CHCs are suitable substitutes for peat and pine bark, respectively, on a volume:volume basis.
Coir and peat are approximately equal in their structural stability and their water release/retention curves, but there is little comparison between the longevity of CHCs vs pine bark, with pine bark getting the nod by a considerable margin when it comes to structural stability.
Commercial growers generally limit their inclusion of both CHCs and coir to 10% or less of the medium. The reasons are, both are often processed in salt water and can have high levels of soluble salts, as well as being extremely high in K (potassium).
While it's true that pine bark that has been composted under anaerobic (airless) conditions can be quite low in pH, it's probably not any cause for concern. I've been using pine bark in my soils for at least 25 years, and I can say I've never had a bad batch. I wouldn't even guess at the number of different packagers of the product there might have been, but it's a considerable number ..... probably at least 50, and no problems.
In the end (or the beginning), ;-) your soil is the foundation your plantings are built on, and the most significant factor that determines how strong that foundation is is aeration/drainage. Inextricably included in that consideration is how much perched water soils hold; and what determines the amount of perched water held by a soil is particle size. The finer the particles, the more perched water the soil holds ..... and perched water kills.
The fine roots that do all the work die very quickly when subjected to anaerobic conditions. As the dead root tissue decays, it also generates sulfurous gas compounds, methane, and CO2, none of which are desirable in the rhizosphere (root zone). The more you can reduce the amount of perched water a soil holds, the greater will be the opportunity for a healthy and efficiently functioning root system. Even if the soggy conditions are alleviated before serious root rot sets in, root function is impaired as long as they lack sufficient oxygen in the rhizosphere.
Even if there is no visible indications that plants grown in soils that support significant amounts of perched water, there is lost potential. When the fine roots that are the plant's work horses are killed by airless conditions, or their function is impaired, the plant has to not only expend the extra energy it might have put into growth/fruit/other energy sinks to regrow the lost roots, it also is deprived of the current energy/growth/production it might have been able to realize if root function wasn't impaired.
Building aeration and drainage into soils, and reducing the ht of the PWT, hinges on particle size, and you aren't going to be able to achieve the goal when your soil has significant fractions of small particulates, like peat, coir, compost, topsoil, .....
Consider a jar filled with fine sand as representative of a soil based on fine particulates, then ask yourself what volume of BBs would be needed to turn that sand into something you would consider to be well aerated?? In your mind's eye, you can 'see' that 30-40-50-60% BBs will still leave you with a soil whose interparticulate (potential) air space is clogged with sand. Until the BBs are about 80% of the BB/sand mix, you don't see any increase in aeration/drainage (flow-thru rate) or the ht of the PWT. This example clearly illustrates why you can't start with a large fraction of fine particulates, like most commercially prepared soils, and amend them with 10-20% pine bark or perlite and hope to get much benefit. All the perlite does, until it's a very large fraction of the soil, is take up space that might otherwise be occupied by water. It doesn't increase aeration, drainage, or reduce the ht of the PWT UNLESS, in combination with other larger particles, it makes up a very large fraction of the soil.
In the end, you can almost say that as long as you don't go too far and you use a little reason in interpreting what I'm saying now, the more aeration you can build into your soils, the greater the likelihood your plants will be able to grow to their genetic potential. From the plant's perspective, the more aeration the better. The grower might view from the perspective of convenience though, rather than plant health. The grower may say, "I don't want to be saddled with watering every second or third day - even every day if it comes down to that." That's fine, we all order our priorities, but using soils that extend watering intervals comes with a price; that, in lost potential.
I often have people say, "I can only water weekly but I want to use the gritty mix. How can I adapt it to work for me. The answer is, "You can't." The gritty mix, and to some degree, the 5:1:1 mix are made with plant health in mind - not grower convenience. You would apply the concept behind each of those soils in the same way. Do I want to maximize plant vitality/growth, or do I want to minimize the effort I expend maintaining my plants. What's important isn't what compromise you end up making; rather, it's knowing there is a compromise in play. I never care what choices people make, only that they get the information to make informed choices.
I hope everyone has had a good weekend. It's been in the 20s at night here, so I've been running carts of trees in and out from under cover as temps allow.
Al