Yield problem with soil..

[secondtry]

would you guys agree that the key to yielding with organics is plenty of soil and a healthy microherd.

Yes and no in terms of the microherd. One can use bottled organic bottled ferts with little regard for the microherd and still get good yields; or one can use little organic bottled ferts with full regard for the micoherd and get good yields; or one can go halfway between the former and latter and get good yields. Please see the thread starting post in my tomato thread in the stickies section, the researchers found EarthJuice to offer statistically the same growth, development and yield of tomato plants and tomatoes vs. chemical ferts made just for growing tomatoes.

HTH

 

[mad librettist]

2ndtry,

I think you missed my point earlier. The genetics do have a phenotype and genotype, and yes that means environment plays a role. But where did you get this 50% idea? That's no science I've ever heard of. Does environment affect whether or not cannabis is a dicot? Has cell walls? Chloroplasts? The answer, of course, is no.

90/10 seems generous even, given the number of genes in a plant and how many actually are expressed or not as a result of environment.

When we inflate our own role, we wind up with statements like these:

I'd say at least 60% of my sweetness is from EWC, if not more.

wtf? really? are you sure it's not 40% maybe? or 39%? Guys if we are talking sugars here, 100% of your sweetness comes from CO2 and light, not worm castings. Worm castings provide organisms to your soil. Ok, they do give off CO2 as well. But really, you got enough CO2. So what's left is... light!

My broader point relates to gardening as an art. Stop patting yourself on the back for the work your plant is doing. Your role as gardener is to take away as few opportunities for growth as you can by maintaing a healthy balance. Nothing you can do will send a plant beyond its potential, or make it do things not programmed in its genes. Even spraying colloidal silver is merely asking the plant to express a gene. You can take away from a plant until it dies, but you can't go as far in the other direction

 

[VerdantGreen]

i would agree on the 'plenty of soil' bit. the pic i posted on the previous page was of a plant in a 4 gallon pot which is as big as i can fit 4 of in the cabinet - i even sawed the lip of the pots off so as i could go from 3 gallon to 4 gallons.

i see it time and time again in gardening - pot size is directly related to plant size. thats not to say you cant grow a big plant in a small pot - just that you are pushing against the flow in order to do so.

V.

 

[VerdantGreen]

....

My broader point relates to gardening as an art. Stop patting yourself on the back for the work your plant is doing. Your role as gardener is to take away as few opportunities for growth as you can by maintaing a healthy balance. Nothing you can do will send a plant beyond its potential, or make it do things not programmed in its genes. Even spraying colloidal silver is merely asking the plant to express a gene. You can take away from a plant until it dies, but you can't go as far in the other direction

interesting post.

i wonder, if you are training a plant, then perhaps you are forcing it to do something that is not expressed in it's genes? you are changing it's natural growth habit im sure.

just a thought

V.

 

[mad librettist]

interesting post.

i wonder, if you are training a plant, then perhaps you are forcing it to do something that is not expressed in it's genes? you are changing it's natural growth habit im sure.

just a thought

V.

plants have the genes that allow them to be trained. Think of how important that is in the real world, where plants compete for light, and objects sometimes fall on plants.

It's about survival, and every quality your plant has helped some plant sometime to survive and pass on its genes.

 

[ixnay007]

A plant that can't survive competitors, or predators (like a deer eating a growing top) or natural occurrences isn't going to go far, that's for sure..

Although ml there are genes cannabis expresses which are directly related to human selection, but saying whether man is part of natural selection or not is something we'd be better off not getting into.

 

[mad librettist]

ixnay - yeah, this is a time to bring up michael pollan and "the botany of desire".

everybody should see that documentary (netflix has it on instant view). You will enjoy the major budshot porn at the very least. We are talking master photography, not high times or mad librettist photography.

 

[secondtry]

2ndtry,

I think you missed my point earlier. The genetics do have a phenotype and genotype, and yes that means environment plays a role. But where did you get this 50% idea? That's no science I've ever heard of.

It's genetic science of plants, read up on genotype and phenotype and it should make sense. Read up on HortaPharm BV breeding methods, although I have huge problems with their breeding methods the info on genotype and phenotype is accurate.

Does environment affect whether or not cannabis is a dicot? Has cell walls? Chloroplasts? The answer, of course, is no.

No but those are not phenotype traits, and yield is a phenotype trait, not a genotype trait.

MadL wrote:

90/10 seems generous even, given the number of genes in a plant and how many actually are expressed or not as a result of environment.

It may seem generous but it's not. Like I wrote, around 50/50 is more accurate for a phenotype trait like yield.

When we inflate our own role, we wind up with statements like these:

I am inflating nothing, I am simply stating accepted science.

Mad L,

My broader point relates to gardening as an art. Stop patting yourself on the back for the work your plant is doing. Your role as gardener is to take away as few opportunities for growth as you can by maintaing a healthy balance. Nothing you can do will send a plant beyond its potential,

I agree, but understating how plants work will allow the plant to REACH it's potential, and yield is not a genetically fixed trait (like chemotype is), that is a fact, I am sorry you don't like it, but it's the way it is...

 

[mad librettist]

It's genetic science of plants, read up on genotype and phenotype and it should make sense. Read up on HortaPharm BV breeding methods, although I have huge problems with their breeding methods the info on genotype and phenotype is accurate.

now don't get pedantic on me 2nd, or I'll start pulling out experience growing actual plants of all kind. This 50% mark is arbitrary, and in the real world does not bear out. I'm asking for a shift in perception vis à vis the relationship you have with your plants. Including emotional.

potential yield is a trait 100% controlled by genetics. It's genotype, not phenotype. And it is a high water mark, beyond which nothing more is possible. Some varieties of some plants seem to respond to improved conditions more than others, because the relationship between potential yield and actual yield given the same conditions is not the same across species, varieties, or even individual plants. This is life. It defies these silly metrics. And it surprises you in the field all the time.

In your tomato experiments, do you think every plant produced the same as the others in its group? They just *don't*.

If you picture every grow as tabula rasa (clean slate), with a potential yield of x, and your job is to subtract as little from x as possible, you will stop beating yourself up over failure and worshipping yourself over success. The plant did it. Not you.

It must seem to you as if I just dense, and missing your point completely. But I have understood. And rejected.

 

[ixnay007]

Only in the organic soil forum do questions about yield end up as semi philosophical debates.

 

[whodair]

if soil is kept too wet, the buds will be smaller. allowing the soil to dry before watering, and repeating this, gets me much bigger buds.!!

try running some drier than others, you may see...

 

[secondtry]

mad, I think we are getting off topic...but I will post on this topic one last time in this thread:

now don't get pedantic on me 2nd, or I'll start pulling out experience growing actual plants of all kind. This 50% mark is arbitrary, and in the real world does not bear out.

Yes it does. Please don't claim something as arbitrary unless you understand the science behind the claim. Please, do as I suggested and read upon genotype and phenotype and read up on the HortaPharm breeding method (they don't breed by phenotype traits, they breed by chemotype trains).

Mad L wrote;

I'm asking for a shift in perception vis à vis the relationship you have with your plants. Including emotional.

Please don't bring the into this thread, we have no way to quantitate that so it's best left to personal beliefs, and just like religion, this topic has no place in this thread (IMO).

potential yield

is a trait 100% controlled by genetics. It's genotype, not phenotype.

Sure. But actual yield is a phenotype trait, hence what I wrote is accurate.

In your tomato experiments, do you think every plant produced the same as the others in its group? They just *don't*.

No but the difference was statistically insignificant. And that is a great example of why phenotype is the controlling factor of yield. All tomato plants were clones, so they had the same genes, the difference was the environment of each plant...

It must seem to you as if I just dense, and missing your point completely. But I have understood. And rejected.

No not dense at all, I know your very smart, but I do think you made a judgment before knowing the facts and without understanding completely, which is why I suggest you read up on genotype and phenotype.

All the best

 

[chef]

I'd think ol Madlib & Gajandin/Secondtry should fkin pwnt the 420 cup lol

See you mooks there Time to put up or shut up!

 

[mad librettist]

yeah well mine is 11 inches!

btw chef, if ganja is going to get mentioned, you could at least mention maryjohn.

you are making me feel small.

 

[mad librettist]

hey 2nd I got the study but don't see a summary of genotype vs phenotype (or chemotype).

little help?

Edit: what, you have a life now? lol I got impatient. So here is some WIKI for everyone. (2ndtry hates wiki)

interesting:

The interaction between genotype and phenotype has often been conceptualized by the following relationship:
genotype + environment → phenotype
A slightly more nuanced version of the relationships is:
genotype + environment + random-variation → phenotype

well damn 2nd, if the standard definition includes 3 inputs to make phenotype, it's definitely not 50/50. Maybe 50/50/50? I guess you can get a plant to produce 150%!

The idea of the phenotype has been generalized by Richard Dawkins in The Extended Phenotype to mean all the effects a gene has on the outside world that may influence its chances of being replicated. These can be effects on the organism in which the gene resides, the environment, or other organisms.
For instance, a beaver dam might be considered a phenotype of beaver genes, the same way beavers' powerful incisor teeth are phenotype expressions of their genes. Dawkins also cites the effect of an organism on the behaviour of another organism (such as the devoted nurturing of a cuckoo by a parent clearly of a different species) as an example of the extended phenotype.

Is it me, or does the scientific community seem to see shades of gray where you are telling me black and white?

I think a much more helpful analogy than your 50/50 is the idea that genotype is a deck of cards. Phenotype is sometimes determined by environment. When it is, the environment is simply choosing a card from the deck, or rather eliminating all the other cards.

that's a little more complex than 50/50.

 

[NUG-JUG]

i would agree on the 'plenty of soil' bit. the pic i posted on the previous page was of a plant in a 4 gallon pot which is as big as i can fit 4 of in the cabinet - i even sawed the lip of the pots off so as i could go from 3 gallon to 4 gallons.

i see it time and time again in gardening - pot size is directly related to plant size. thats not to say you cant grow a big plant in a small pot - just that you are pushing against the flow in order to do so.

V.

I agree with this and would add that plant shape is affected a lot by pot size aswell. I've grown out the same strain (grape fruit) in a 5 Gal Home Depot bucket and in 15 Gal. Nursury pots. The ones in the 5 gallon grew extra tall whereas the plants in the 15 gallon grew much wider with 8,10 tall, even colas.

 

[NUG-JUG]

Only in the organic soil forum do questions about yield end up as semi philosophical debates.

haha yea that's why it's the only forum I bother to read on the whole interweb. I think what madlib says about it being easier to "take away" from a plant's potential is a cool way of thinking about growing. Eliminate all the things that take away. While not worrying too much about extra add-ons and complications, genotype or phenotype or both will take over..

 

[chef]

The pot shape is a trip ain't it
I've posted before about them taking on a square silhouette from big square pots. The size & shape of the rootball can make a huge difference in the final outcome IME.

I think I met Verdant on my size matters thread?
Whatup man I spotted a killer layer of red soil last week on the way home from golfin. Time to take a hike...

 

[secondtry]

Red soil? Ie clay-loam? Why would you want that?

 

[VerdantGreen]

secondtry, red soil doesnt have to be clay loam - although that might be good as a part of a soil mix ( i use quality topsoil in my mix). it sould be alluvial delta soil which is sandy, or bauxite (aluminium) rich soil, or virtually anything really.

you add zeolite to your soil-less mix for the same reason as someone might add a little clay to their soil mix? or am i missing something?

V.