Development and Harvest Yields of Greenhouse Tomatoes in Six Orgnaic Growing Systems

[secondtry]

Here is a good study:
(read: tomatoes = cannabis)


------------------------

Janet F.M. Rippy, Mary M. Peet, Frank J. Louws, Paul V. Nelson, David B. Orr, and Kenneth A. Sorensen. 2004.

Plant Development and Harvest Yields of Greenhouse Tomatoes in Six Orgnaic Growing Systems
North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC
​

Here is a link to the full paper I uploaded to ICmag; right-click > open in new tab (or in new window)
https://www.icmag.com/ic/attachment.php?attachmentid=44131&d=1265557035


People may want to download it and read the paper, it's very interesting. The workers used the full line of Earth Juice products (grow, bloom, catalyst) verses another bottle organic verses chemical ferts in a few different soillless mixes. This is relevant to all of us. The researchers discussed CT, etc.

The researchers describe media pH and it's effects upon the nutrient uptake of plant. They discuss adding dolomite lime and the issue of ammonium verses nitrate and nitrite forms of N. The nutrient content of leaf in organic vs. chemical is discussed as is a bunch of other questions which are often asked here. The level of media EC is discussed as is it's effects upon plants.

Two critiques:

1) I would have liked to have read bio-assays of the soil food web. For example as plate counts and soil/media respiration split into two fractions: roots/rhizoshpere respiration and gas (Co2) from decomposition by soil food web.

2) The EC of the organic media mixes using Earth Juice had the highest EC for the first 4 weeks, even higher than chemical ferts**. I assume this is because the soil food web was not fully functional, or even present at that point, and that EJ has a considerable amount of bio-available ions which plants and microbes could use right away. The researchers discussed letting the media sit for 4 weeks after initial watering with EJ, but the researchers apparently neglect to take the plants' role in the soil food web into consideration: without a plant in the media I would assume the EC would have dropped at a different point (later?).

**Calculated using the "PourThru" technique for pH and EC of media. See NCSU for more info, I can upload some great papers which offer a step-by-step how to. However, calculating pHw (from dried media) should be more accurate than calculating the pH from the PourThru method.

A quote from the "Results and Discussion" section of the paper:

Since organic and conventional growing systems are inherently different it was impossible to control experiments for all but one variable. Nevertheless, when the growing systems are considered as a whole, our experience suggests that greenhouse tomatoes produced organically are comparable to those produced conventionally in regards to nutritional status, plant development, and harvest yields.

------------------------



My current (untested) soil-less mix:

I have been working on designing and understanding an ideal soilless mix for roots/plants like cannabis and the soil food web. I have updated my soilless mix and it is below (in it's current un-assayed state; NCSU "porometer" here I come). I have been writing a white paper combining relevant issues of soil chemistry, soil physics and soil microbiology (I won't finish the paper for a few weeks I think; and I have TONS of references if anyone is interested).

My current mix which should offer ideal properties of media and my mix should outperform other mixes and the ones listed in the study of this thread.


Here is an edited excerpt from a (working) paper I have been writing for some time:
(to all: this is info is copy-written by me, do not re-distribute this info in a non-free platform (e.g., a book, magazine, etc))

I also supply fertilizer when drench watering with hydrolyzed fish, kelp extract, guano, etc. This media is not supposed to supply all the fertilizers for plant growth, but to provide a base of food for plants and microbes (e.g., to jump-start the N-cycle from guano). To supply extra Ca I foliar spay NOA/OMRI certificated Ca as amino acid chelate.

My current (untested) soil-less mix:

In containers at least 12 inches tall, and no "drainage layer", the following soil-less mix should provide ideal properties to plants and microbes.

(vol/vol)

• 7 parts APBF; screen from 4 mm to 2 mm; pre-moisten with hydrolyzed fish, humic acid, H20 and polysorbate 80 as surfactant

• 1.5 part peat; screen over 2 mm; add polysorbate 80 as surfactant to initial drench water only

• 0.5 part high quality compost; screen under 4 mm; humus rich and mature

• 0.5 part high quality vermicast (aka vermicompost and EWC); screen under 4 mm

• 0.5 part biochar (pyrolyzed) rice hulls; screen under 4 mm; pre-moisten with hydrolyzed fish, humic acid, H20 and polysorbate 80 as surfactant

• 3 – 10 lb of powdered lime (50/50 mix of calcidic/dolomitic) per yd3 of media; ideal pHw is 5.5 to 6.5 (too much Mg can make media crusty)

• Tween80 (as surfactant mix only with peat, APBF and rice hulls)

(weight/weight)

• 4 – 6% azomite powder

• 4 – 6% zeolite powder

• 1% high N bat or seabird guano or preferably add high quality hydrolyzed fish to drench H2o

• 1 – 2% kelp extract powder or preferably add high quality kelp extract

• 1 – 2% un-refined dark molasses crystals or preferably add unsulfured black strap molasses (ideally ≥ 80 brix) to drench H2o

• 1 – 2% humic acid powder or add humic acid liquid extract to drench H2o

• 1 – 2% colloidal phosphate powder or soft-rock phosphate, etc

-------------------------------------------------------

Below is a soilless media that is very similar to the mix used in work of Rippy, et al, (2004) if mixed with 10-15% vermicast (vol/vol). The media properties are far better than that of any peat or coir based mix I have read porometer assays of, that includes peat-light mixes such as Pro-Mix, Sunshine mix and also coir mixes, 100% coir, etc.

FOF 30:
http://www.fafard.com/index.php?p=158

This mix is a good choice and has pretty ideal properties but it has less than ideal amendments like perlite. FOF 30 can be found all over the US AFAIK.

Contents:

• Canadian sphagnum peat moss (55% vol/vol)
• Aged pine bark
• Perlite
• Vermiculite
• Dolomitic limestone
• pH range = 5.5-6.5
• Gypsum
• Perdue-AgriRecycle MicroStart60 (3-2-3)

Properties:

• TP = 81-90%
• CC = 65-70%
• AP = 16-20%
• BD = 0.24-0.29 g/cm^3
• Pore Tortuosity = med-high (lower is better)
• with yucca based surfactant (?)

-----------------------------


Here is a list of common acronyms you will read in this thread:

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Acronyms taken from:[/FONT]

• [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]William C. Fonteno[/FONT]
  “[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Problems & Considerations in Determining Physical Properties of Horticultural Substrates”[/FONT]
  ​

• [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Fonteno, et al.[/FONT]
  “[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Procedures for Determining Physical Properties of Horticultural Substrates Using the NCSU Porometer”[/FONT]
  ​

• [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Drzal, et al.[/FONT]
  “[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Pore Fraction Analysis: A New Tool for Substrate Testing” [/FONT]
  ​

• [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Gojo, a.k.a, Ganja Din, a.ka., Secondtry[/FONT]
  “[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Soil Science Multi-Disciplinary Integration: Review, Identification and Development of an Ideal Substrate for Higher Plants and SFW”[/FONT]
  ​

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]MC = “Moisture Content”, reported as a wet weight gravimetric unit, not volumetric, defined as WFP and used for CC, PWP, etc.[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]


[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]TP = “Total Porosity”, the sum of water filled and air filled porosity, dependent upon bulk density.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]

[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]CC = “Container Capacity”, reported as moisture content by % wet weight (gravimetric basis). Known as “field capacity” for soil, that is, the MC of media after saturation and natural drainage of water from large pores.[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]


[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]AS = “Air Space” (aka AP, “Air Porosity”) , the pores filled with air. According to Cornell U. if a media has less than 12% AS the plant will be hindered. For example, with TP at 50% the CC which will anaerobically hinder plants (calculated from 12% AS) is 38%. Both coco-coir and peat mixes have AS at or below 12%. Other reserachers (cite anmes) find 10% AS to be the the lowest limit. Pores lager than 416 microns are “macropores” and hold mostly air. AP is found as TP – CC.

[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]
[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]BD = “Bulk Destiny”, as g/cm^3 and is dependent upon TP.[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]


[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]WS = “Water Space” (aka WFP, “Water Filled Porosity” and WHC, “Water Holding Capacity”), pores filled with water are known as “capillary” pores and range from ≈ 416 to < 0.1 micron and have a water tension of 1 to > 1,500 kPa.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]

[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]AW = “Available Water” (aka, AWC, “AW Content”), water the plant can easily use and is less in quantity than AW for microbes. Pore range is ≈ 416 to 10 microns and water tension is 1-30 kPa. These pores are termed “mesopores” and hold water easily available to the roots. Traditionally AW is defined as 1-1,500 kPa and is found as so: CC - PWP; however, I propose we define AW as 1-30 kPa and calculate said AW as I describe below.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]

[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]BW = “Buffer Water”, plants can use water within this water tension range although it requires them to work harder for it and they do so under water stress. Pore range is 10-0.2 microns and water tension is about 30-1,500 kPa. These pores are termed “micropores” and hold water easily available to microbes, but not to plants. Traditionally there is no quantitation of BW, only AW as 1-1,500 kPa, thus I propose we define BW as 30-1,500 kPa and calculate said BW as I describe below.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]

[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]tABW = “Total Available and Buffer Water”, the sum of AW and BW and can be found by CC – PWP; traditionally defined as AW (1-1,500 kPa)[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]

[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]UW = “Unavailable Water”, that which is not available to the plant. Pore range is < 0.2 microns and the water tension of > 1,500 kPa. These pores are termed “ultramicropores”.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]

[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]HI = “Hydration Index”, the value given to media that reflects the wettability of media. A higher figure means easier wettability. HI compares initial wettability with CC. An HI value of ≥ 0.80 means that the soil-less media should (re)hydrate sufficiently. Media with surfactant generally have high HI of > 0.90.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]

[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]MW = “Mass Wetness”, the weight of water per weight of media on a gravimetric dry-weight basis (g/g)[/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]PAP[FONT=Times New Roman, serif] = “Persistent [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]A[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]nhydrobiotic Point”, the point at which activity of most bacteria, protozoa and nematodes ceases and the microbes enter a state of anhydrobiosis due to excessive water tension. It is defined as media at 1,500 kPa (e.g. 1.5 MPa).[/FONT][/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]FPAP = “Fungi Persistent Anhydrobiotic Point”, the point at which activity of most fungi ceases and the microbes enter a state of anhydrobiosis due to excessive water tension. It is defined as media at 6,000 to 8,000 kPa (e.g. 6 – 8 MPa).[/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]PWP = “Persistent Wilting Point”, the MC at which plant growth is not supported, when the plant will always wilt. It is defined as MC at 1,500 kPa.[/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]MCmin = The MC at which plant and most soil food web functions being to be hindered, along with reducing the rewettability of some medias such as APBF and peat.[/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]MOM = “Media Organic Matter”, the fraction of soil-less media that is organic matter (OM).[/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]EC = “Electrical Conductivity”, the relative amount of ions in a solution or slurry.[/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]pHw = The pH score for media.[/FONT]

 

[mad librettist]

where are you getting pyrolyzed rice hulls?

That sounds like a great thing to have.


like high silica biochar

 

[Trichgnomes]

I would like to cease my perlite usage and move towards something like rice hulls. I have heard it mentioned on the threads a few times.

 

[secondtry]

Yes! Perlite is crap! See my next post, you will likesi

 

[secondtry]

Making and using carbonized (as pyrolyzed) rice hulls :

One can make them at home! They are the ultimate biochar (terra pretta) IMO, easy to make, easy to find/buy, great soil/media amendment and environmentally sound too!




Here is how to make pyrolyzed bio-char on a DIY basis with a "retrot stove":
By Folke Günther
http://www.holon.se/folke/carbon/simplechar/simplechar.shtml




Folke Günther's Biochar blog:
http://folkegunther.blogspot.com/



See this study abstract about PRH (pyrolyzed rich hulls):

Pyrolyzed rich hulls are as good/better than amendments like pumic, Axis, Turface, etc. Pyroylzed rice hulls have high C:N ratio its wise to pre-soak the pyrolyzed rich hulls (or most any high carbon bio-char) in a solution of water and hydrolyzed fish (to lower C:N and C ratio) and humic acid (to increase CEC of PRH).

Kämpf, A.N. and Jung, M. 1991.

THE USE OF CARBONIZED RICE HULLS AS AN HORTICULTURAL SUBSTRATE. Acta Hort. (ISHS) 294:271-284
http://www.actahort.org/books/294/294_29.htm​

Abstract:

Rice hulls are mentioned in the technical literature as an ingredient for potting media (POOLE & WATERS, 1977) or as an alternative substrate for soilless culture (NAMIOKA, 1977), Carbonized rice hulls have been used for several years by some commercial flower growers in Brazil as a substrate for rooting cuttings of roses and chrysanthemuns stocks. Due its good drainage and high permeability this material is specially adequated to be used as rooting medium under intermitent mist.

Rice hulls are an easy available industrial residue (about 1,01 thousand tons/year) in Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. After the carbonization process rice hulls have a near neutral pH (7,5 in H2O), in low bulk density (about 220 g/l), more than 50% dry matter, a high total porosity, with a air: water ratio near 3:1 at container capacity and a low volume of water in micropores (9% water held at 100 cm water tension).

The purpose of this study was to test mixtures of carbonized rice hulls and peat ("Aguas Claras", Viamão/RS-Brazil) as potting media.

More references:

1. Simone E. Kolb, Kevin J. Fermanich and Mathew E. Dornbush. 2009

Effect of Charcoal Quantity on Microbial Biomass and Activity in Temperate Soils. Soil Sci Soc Am J.2009; 73: 1173-1181
http://soil.scijournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/73/4/1173​

2. Warnock, D.D., Lehmann, J., Kuyper, T.W. and Rillig, M.C. 2007.

Mycorrhizal responses to biochar in soil – concepts and mechanisms. Plant and Soil 300, 9-20.​

3. Nichols, K. 2002.

Glomalin: Hiding Place for a Third of the World's Stored Soil Carbon. Agricultural Research: 50(9): 4-7​

4. Nichols, K.A. 2008.

Indirect Contributions of AM Fungi and Soil Aggregation to Plant Growth and Protection. IN: Siddiqui, Z.A., Akhtar, M.S., Futai, K. (eds.) Mycorrhizae: Sustainable Agriculture and Forestry. Spinger Science. pp. 177-194.​

5. Nichols, K.A. 2008.

Microbial engineering to enhance your bottom line. Meeting Proceedings for the 12th Annual No-Till on the Plains Winter Workshop, Salina, KS, Jan. 29-30. pp. 138-139.​

6. Liang, B. , Lehmann, J., Solomon, D., Kinyangi, J., Grossman, J., O'Neill, B., Skjemstad, J.O., Thies, J., Luizão, F.J., Petersen, J. and Neves, E.G. 2006.

Black carbon increases cation exchange capacity in soils. Soil Science Society of America Journal 70: 1719-1730​

7. Steiner, C., Teixeira, W. G., Lehmann J., Nehls, T., Vasconcelos de Macêdo, J. L.V., Blum, W. E. H. and Zech, W. 2007.

Long term effects of manure, charcoal and mineral fertilization on crop production and fertility on a highly weathered Central Amazonian upland soil. Plant and Soil. 291, 275-290.​

8. Steiner, Christoph, K.C. Das, M. Garcia, B Forster, and Wolfgang Zech, 2007.

Charcoal and smoke extract stimulate the soil microbial community in a highly weathered Xanthic Ferralsol. Pedobiologia In press.​

9. Woods, William I., Newton P. S. Falcão, and Wenceslau G. Teixeira. 2006.

Biochar Trials aim to enrich soil for smallholders. Nature 443:144.​

10. Woolf, Dominic, 2008

Biochar as a Soil Amendment - A review of the Environmental Implications. Swansea University.​

11. Yaman, S, 2004.

Pyrolysis of biomass to produce fuels and chemical feedstocks. Energy Conversion and Management 45, 651-671.​

 

[secondtry]

P.S., That paper on CRH uses a term "micropore", I define what that means below:

"Micropores" are pores between media particles and pores comprising media particles which are the size of < 10-0.2 microns, the water tension is 30-1,500 kPa. This is termed "buffer water" (BW) and can be used by plants but it's harder for roots to use BW than AW (see below). Protozoa prefer micropore sized pores to graze and feed upon bacteria; protozoa prefer about 9.7-2 micron pore sizes. Bacteria tends to prefer pores from 2-0.75 microns, those pores are termed "protection pores" because protozoa can't eat bacteria colonizing in pores less than 2 microns.

"Mesopores" hold water plants can use water (i.e. "available water"; AW) from pore size of 416-10 microns and water pressure of 1-30 kPa. Plants and soil food webs can use the water held in these pores.

"Ultramicopores" are smaller than 0.2 microns and are considered to hold "unavailable water" (UW) which roots, bacteria, microfauna (protozoa) and mesofauna (nematodes) can not use; only microfungi (microbes which are fungi) can use water in pores < 0.2 micron AFAIK. Ultramicropores have a water tension of greater than 1,500 kPa (1.5 MPa) which is also known as the "Persistent Wilting Point" of plants. In one good study on arid/desert soils fungi are dominant in soil food web even with water tension as high as 6,000-8,000 kPa!!! (Wow!)


HTH, sorry to get so technical but these are important issues to understand when building an ideal soilless media for roots AND soil food web.

 

[Clackamas Coot]

secondtry

I am expecting the delivery of a new ceramic smoker (like the Big Green Egg brand) which are pretty much a Tandoori oven that has a lid to open the chamber.

I am planning to take the organic rice hulls we buy to use in place of perlite and 'char' them. Maybe take 50% to be used and char those and mix with the regular hulls?

We also use Oregon-mined pumice from the Klamath Falls basin in our worm bins, raised beds and container potting soils.

CC

 

[secondtry]

Hello CC,

Why do you use pumice and perlite in the same soilless potting mix? They are to serve the same purpose, but pumice is superior to perlite (in general).

I would use only pyrolyzed rice hulls and no 'fresh' rice hulls as the fresh rice hulls will have different physical properties and will breakdown fast(er) which isn't good for media physical properties.

What size is the pumice? It's good to add such amendments (like pumice or Axis regular) to a soilless mix based on peat or coir to increase the bulk density and also to soil as the amendment should increase the air porosity of all three substrate bases.

I don't use pumice, I used to use Axis regular, but with use of screened aged pine bark fines the pumice or Axis is unnecessary; the pyrolyzed rice hulls will be added for microbial benefits and for the befits to media physical properties. I still have to run many assays on my media, I am buying a "porometer" and "tensiometer" soon, but I am basing all my statements on solid, proven scientific theory and factual data...and I grew peppers and tomatoes last summer/fall in a few test mixes similar my mix above, I used to include Axis regular until I learned out "pore tortuosity", AW, BW, UW, pore sizes, etc., and the more defined properties of APBF (aged pine bark fines) from data gathered with a porometer by NCSU scientists.

HTH

P.S. Did you see my post about me moving out your way in a few weeks?

 

[Clackamas Coot]

Hello CC,

Why do you use pumice and perlite in the same soilless potting mix? They are to serve the same purpose, but pumice is superior to perlite (in general).

I would use only pyrolyzed rice hulls and no 'fresh' rice hulls as the fresh rice hulls will have different physical properties and will breakdown fast(er) which isn't good for media physical properties.

What size is the pumice? It's good to add such amendments (like pumice or Axis regular) to a soilless mix based on peat or coir to increase the bulk density and also to soil as the amendment should increase the air porosity of all three substrate bases.

I don't use pumice, I used to use Axis regular, but with use of screened aged pine bark fines the pumice or Axis is unnecessary; the pyrolyzed rice hulls will be added for microbial benefits and for the befits to media physical properties. I still have to run many assays on my media, I am buying a "porometer" and "tensiometer" soon, but I am basing all my statements on solid, proven scientific theory and factual data...and I grew peppers and tomatoes last summer/fall in a few test mixes similar my mix above, I used to include Axis regular until I learned out "pore tortuosity", AW, BW, UW, pore sizes, etc., and the more defined properties of APBF (aged pine bark fines) from data gathered with a porometer by NCSU scientists.

HTH

P.S. Did you see my post about me moving out your way in a few weeks?

I missed that - you'll love it here.

I don't believe that I wrote that I used perlite - I do not though a major manufacturer of perlite products is located up in Portland, Oregon (Superior Perlite - they pack the large perlite for Fox Farms).

I do use pumice which is mined down in Oregon's Klamath Basin and sold under a number of names up and down the Willamette Valley. It comes in 3 sizes and runs less than $5.00 per cubic foot.

HTH

CC

 

[secondtry]

Hey CC,

Cool, thanks. You should check out Axis regular, I think you might be interested in replace it for pumice. I can give you more info if your interested.

My, bad I thought that you used perlite from this sentence:

I am planning to take the organic rice hulls we buy to use in place of perlite and 'char' them

Im gonna send you a PM about OR. Thanks.

 

[Clackamas Coot]

Hey CC,

Cool, thanks. You should check out Axis regular, I think you might be interested in replace it for pumice. I can give you more info if your interested.

My, bad I thought that you used perlite from this sentence:


Im gonna send you a PM about OR. Thanks.

Yep - I sure did!

Thinking 'pumice' and typing 'perlite' - old age and all! LOL

I'd love the information on Axis products. And a source in Oregon would give me a good opportunity to try it.

Check out EarthFort.com in Corvallis. They have some interesting compost products you might be interested in looking at. The Alaska Humus product is sold under the Denali Gold name at retail operations. They also carry a compost made from wood products (fir specifically) as well out of Klamath Falls, Oregon.

HTH

CC

 

[Clackamas Coot]

secondtry

The rice hulls that I purchased are dried, organic rice hulls from Lundberg Farms in California. The microbreweries use rice hulls to filter the wort at some stage of the brewing process.

With Portland being a major 'microbrew' city, the hulls are very inexpensive. They're around $18.00 for 50 lbs. which is about 3.5 c.f. (maybe more).

Do NOT spill these hulls. You have no idea on how easily they're spread about by air movement and for no apparent reason.

LOL

CC

 

[secondtry]

Hey CC,

Thanks for the info! I will do as you suggest. That cracks me up about paying for spent hulls, here I use wet spent brewers grains as a major compost feedstock and I get more than I could ever use for free! I've been experiment with ensiling it (i.e., anaerobically fermenting it into silage) using fresh bokashi from LAB (not EM) and the traditional Western method of mixing oat ban and molasses when ensiling and allow indigenous LAB to dominate then ensil the wet spent brewers grains into silage. The hardest part for me is getting the moisture content correct because wet spent brewers grains are like => 75-80% moisture content. I tried to allow them to dry out but they got COVERED in black soldier fly larvae in like a day and were ruined. Many fungi just LOVE the brewers grains, my compost fungi go wild over it.

I'd be cool to meet up over there and chat over a coffee and intense high

 

[Clackamas Coot]

Hey CC,

Thanks for the info! I will do as you suggest. That cracks me up about paying for spent hulls, here I use wet spent brewers grains as a major compost feedstock and I get more than I could ever use for free! I've been experiment with ensiling it (i.e., anaerobically fermenting it into silage) using fresh bokashi from LAB (not EM) and the translational Western method of mixing rice ban and molasses when ensiling and allow indigenous LAB to dominate then ensil the wet spent brewers grains. The hardest part for me is getting the moisture content correct because wet spent brewers grains are like 75-80% moisture content. I tried to allow them to dry out but they got COVERED in black soldier fly larvae in like a day and were ruined. Many fungi just LOVE the brewers grains, my compost fungi go wild over it.

I'd be cool to meet up over there and chat over a coffee and intense high

I love to meet up for a coffee (in spite of my doctor's admission to avoid caffeine because of my diabetes - LOL).

I have used the spent hulls from the breweries in my worm bins as it appears that red worms love getting a buzz on!!!!

I actually use the rice hulls as a 'marker' for re-using my potting soil, i.e. when they break down (about 5 - 6 months) I know it's time to add my seed meal and mineral mix when refreshing the potting soil from my MMJ grow.

CC

 

[secondtry]

RE: Axis:

I'll offer info soon, you are/we are lucky in that OR is one of the few states will non-wholesale retailers, as is my current state but I have to drive 2 hours one way to get it.

 

[secondtry]

To anyone who hasn't read this study:

You may want to download it and read it, it's very interesting. The workers used the full line of Earth Juice products (grow, bloom, catalyst) verses another bottle organic verses chemical ferts in a few different soillless mixes. This is relevant to all of us. The researchers discussed CT, etc.

The researchers describe media pH and it's effects upon the nutrient uptake of plant. They discuss adding dolomite lime and the issue of ammonium verses nitrate and nitrite forms of N. The nutrient content of leaf in organic vs. chemical is discussed as is a bunch of other questions which are often asked here. The level of media EC is discussed as is it's effects upon plants.

Two critiques:

1) I would have liked to have read bio-assays of the soil food web. For example as plate counts and soil/media respiration split into two fractions: roots/soil food web respiration and gases from decomposition.

2) The EC of the organic media mixes using Earth Juice had the highest EC for the first 4 weeks, even higher than chemical ferts**. I assume this is because the soil food web was not fully functional, or even present at that point, and that EJ has a considerable amount of bio-available ions which plants and microbes could use right away. The researchers discussed letting the media sit for 4 weeks after initial watering with EJ, but the researchers apparently neglect to take the plants' role in the soil food web into consideration: without a plant in the media I would assume the EC would have dropped at a different point (later?).

**Calculated using the "PourThru" technique for pH and EC of media. See NCSU for more info, I can upload some great papers which offer a step-by-step how to. However, calculating pHw (from dried media) should be more accurate than calculating the pH from the PourThru method.

A quote from the "Results and Discussion" section of the paper:

Since organic and conventional growing systems are inherently different it was impossible to control experiments for all but one variable. Nevertheless, when the growing systems are considered as a whole, our experience suggests that greenhouse tomatoes produced organically are comparable to those produced conventionally in regards to nutritional status, plant development, and harvest yields.

HTH

 

[Dave Coulier]

Secondtry, can you tell me what the Total Porosity, Air Porosity, and water holding capacity is of your soil mixture.

I too am a fond lover of Pine Bark fines. Ive tried Tapla's 5-1-1 mix, but it doesn't hold enough water for my ladies. Were talking drooping if I went over 24 hours between watering on small plants in veg(8 inches-10 inches). It definitely wouldn't work once I get into flowering, so I need something that retains a bit more moisture.

Im going to be picking up some Fafard Nursery Mix as the base of my next soil mixture. It has Aged Pine Bark and Sphagnum Peat Moss at a ratio of 3:1 in it, so Im hoping it will work well(plus I dont need to buy two diff products). There's only a couple of places around here I can buy Aged Pine Bark. Natures helper Soil Conditioner from Home Depot, but its full of fungus gnats, and a mulch/greenwaste recyling center across town, but Ive yet to inspect their APB.

The Fafard Nursery mix will comprise 80% of my soil mixture which would give me:

60% APB
20% SPM

Then add in:
10% Perlite(Ive got a huge bag of it to use up. Id rather have Axis Regular though, or the charred rice hulls you use.)
10% Compost(for some extra water retention, microbes, and nutrients)

Ive wanted to incorporate some bio-char in there, but Im not able to make my own, and there's only a couple of sellers of it on ebay. That's the only way I could get it. Have you ever looked into the bio-char on ebay?

Ill try and follow the directions here to get the TP, AP, WHC to see if its gonna work well. I was hoping for some input by you though.

Oh and, did you make your own soil sieve, or did you buy one? If you bought one, can you give me a link to it?

Thanks.

 

[secondtry]

Hello,

Secondtry, can you tell me what the Total Porosity, Air Porosity, and water holding capacity is of your soil mixture.

I have not tested my current mix, I plan to send samples to NCSU so they can assay with their porometer (I want to buy a porometer but it's like $800). I can list what the range should be below. But of import is to note the these figures change with the height of the container. A taller container means greater % AP with reduced % available water and greater % buffer water and % unavailable water (those last three water fractions comprise WHC; aka Water Filled Porosity).

My mix should have the following, but these are not the goals I have for each propriety (tho it's very close):

TP = 75-85%
AP = 15-25% (at CC)
WFP = 60-65% (at CC)
Bulk Density = 0.17-0.25 g/cm^3
Pore Tortuosity = Low (due to very similar particle sizes and use of bark)


Pore Tortuosity is basically the arrangement of pores in the media, the lower the torosity the easier it is for transport of water, solutes, and gases to move thru the media. This media property is more important the AP and harder to measure too.

I too am a fond lover of Pine Bark fines. Ive tried Tapla's 5-1-1 mix, but it doesn't hold enough water for my ladies.

Yea not at all. I like Al (tho he I didn't get along too well) but he tires to make AP reach 30-40% which is very high, and lowers WFP.

Were talking drooping if I went over 24 hours between watering on small plants in veg(8 inches-10 inches). It definitely wouldn't work once I get into flowering, so I need something that retains a bit more moisture.

Mix mix should work well for you then, but I want to have it assayed by NSCU first, and then run a few test grows with it.

Im going to be picking up some Fafard Nursery Mix as the base of my next soil mixture. It has Aged Pine Bark and Sphagnum Peat Moss at a ratio of 3:1 in it, so Im hoping it will work well(plus I dont need to buy two diff products).

Yea that a good idea. That is the mix suggested by Cornell U, well Cornell U., also adds 1 part sand but that's not wise, nor needed. Does it contain a surfactant? And does it have lime to raise pH?

There's only a couple of places around here I can buy Aged Pine Bark. Natures helper Soil Conditioner from Home Depot, but its full of fungus gnats

Yea I know what you mean, that has been my source in the past. It's pretty good quality around here.

and a mulch/greenwaste recyling center across town, but Ive yet to inspect their APB.

Make sure it's aged at least 6 months.

The Fafard Nursery mix will comprise 80% of my soil mixture which would give me:

60% APB
20% SPM

Then add in:
10% Perlite(Ive got a huge bag of it to use up. Id rather have Axis Regular though, or the charred rice hulls you use.)
10% Compost(for some extra water retention, microbes, and nutrients)

Yea that sounds good, but if you can avoid perlite do so, pumice is a better choice. Although, those types of amendments shouldn't really be necessary, those which increase AP and drainage because your already using APBF as the media base. I will add rice hulls for the AP properties but more so for microbial effects. If your mix doesn't include vermicast (EWC) than applying verimicast as a decanted slurry might be a good idea.

Ive wanted to incorporate some bio-char in there, but Im not able to make my own, and there's only a couple of sellers of it on ebay. That's the only way I could get it. Have you ever looked into the bio-char on ebay?

No. But someone here, maybe Mr.Fista has a source of biochar. Maybe shoot him a PM.

Ill try and follow the directions here to get the TP, AP, WHC to see if its gonna work well. I was hoping for some input by you though.

Yea that's a good method to use for field tests, I've used that same page for a while, but if you wish you can send a soilless sample to NCSU and have them test it with their porometer for about $100. The porometer is the data to use in a analytical sense, it's more accurate AFAIU.

Oh and, did you make your own soil sieve, or did you buy one? If you bought one, can you give me a link to it?

I ordered specific sized screen (2mm and 4mm) then made my own frame and sifted over a big wheel barrel.

Thanks.

NP. Here are some links you may wish to read, good stuff:


Media: Rooted in Success
Dept. of Floriculture and Ornamental Horticulture, Cornell University
(this is where Al (Talpa) got much info for his article)
http://web.archive.org/web/200805210...dia/index.html


Physical properties of container media
James Altland, Ph.D., North Willamette Research and Extension Center, Oregon State University
http://www.oregonstate.edu/dept/nurs...roperties.html


Horticulture Substrates Lab
North Caroline State University
(this is the home of the porometer; lots of info here)
http://www.ncsu.edu/project/hortsublab/pubs/index.html


Lab/Unit 7 - Soil Water
Regents of the University of Minnesota, 2006
http://www.soils.umn.edu/academics/c...c/slab8h20.htm

All the best

 

[secondtry]

Oh yea,

According to Cornell U., 15% AP is as low as will support strong plant growth (in general), while 30% AP is ideal it also means the % WFP will have to be much lower than idea at CC of 60-65%.

When preparing media the wetting, packing and handling methods have as much effect upon porosity values as does container height. I suggest following the methodologies of NCSU by fist packing container in place where it will be used to grow plant and then wet media to CC.

With APBF the internal porosity can hold water which roots can use once they penetrate into the APBF; I think that is why Cornell U., claims APBF hold more available water (AW; water plants can use with little effort) then peat even tho peat also hold water in internal pores. The claim that APBF hold more AW than peat is not supported by Agro, circa 1999 (from NCSU); tho Agro was not referring to aged bark IIRC. Another point is evapotranspiration of peat and coir, with peat around 20-30% of AW can be lost to evapotranspiration. APBF have low evapotranspiration which means if APBF has lower AW than peat once one considers how much AW of peat is lost to evapotranspiration it's clear that APBF and peat would have almost the same amount of AW (IIRC according to Agro, et al., 1999).

It's good idea according to Cornell, U., (and it makes sense) to prewet APBF so the internal porosity is filled. They suggest under a sprinkler but I use a big horse water trough setup filled with water. I soak them and them lay them out to dry for a little while. Then I mix with other dry amendments, pack container and wet.

One of scientists from NSCU (his name escapes me right now) suggests not allow the moisture content of media based upon APBF to drop below 45%. The rewettabailty of APBF is good above 45% and peaks at about 50% moisture content by wet weight gravimetric basis. This means if you let moisture content drop below 45% it will take longer for the APBF to soak up water and it will cause other less than ideal reactions/conditions. Check out the link in my sig for my method to water by moisture content.

HTH

 

[secondtry]

P.S. Do you know what size the APB is in the soilless mix?