have you visited my endless humus building thread?
same recycled soil for said amount of years grows both delicate nute sensitive heirloom sativa's like this & finish darc purple colored hybrids like so
to larger lighter colored strains like this
-
Happy Birthday ICMag! Been 20 years since Gypsy Nirvana created the forum! We are celebrating with a 4/20 Giveaway and by launching a new Patreon tier called "420club". You can read more here.
-
Important notice: ICMag's T.O.U. has been updated. Please review it here. For your convenience, it is also available in the main forum menu, under 'Quick Links"!
same recycled soil for said amount of years grows both delicate nute sensitive heirloom sativa's like this & finish darc purple colored hybrids like so
to larger lighter colored strains like this
Spicey I said absorb not uptake. My bad too because I was meaning absorb as use. Yes they uptake it but they don't use it. The NH4+ molecule is broken down into single components for use by the plants. The only reason that plants take up NH4+ or NH3 rather than just N2 by itself is because they are much more readily available to plants than atomic nitrogen. Plants don't use ammonium. They consume the nitrogen and don't use the hydrogen.
Plus the Nitrosomonas bacteria that convert NH3 into NO2- will get to the NH3 before the plants do.
I will readily admit that I am not smart enough to explain or understand all the chemistry involved. I stand by this though.....
If you have a plant and use all organic stuff. Manures, compost whatever and I have a clone of the same plant that I used chemical ferts only they would both be living off the same basic atomic elements.
You can't water a plant with grape soda and make it taste like grapes.
thanks DARC they look very nice! i was actually talking more about indoor growing where most of the environmental triggers to senescence are not present - especially when running sensi
VG
i dont get it?
you have some method where you run an organic mix w/o giving it any time to sit {although MM & cootz both had no-cook mixes} then throw it away and start over each cycle & that is somehow less expensive and superior to your imagined perception of what ROLS is?
i am an advocate of living soil and do recycle ~both no-till and re-mix/re-use and pretty much none of your post makes any sense from my perspective
SpicySativa
Member
My plants always end with yellow leaves (or purple/red/burgundy/crimson, as the strain dictates). It's as simple as not overdoing the amendments. I usually end up needing to supplement a little nitrogen (top dress, alfalfa tea, or fish hydrolysate). Still end up with a nice colorful fade to beautiful "fall colors", and many cannibalized fan leaves.
V
vonforne
Damn great post here^^
I have always grown soil......except that one ebb and flow table I built.......and have been cycling it for years before any catchie term was applied and so have many of the posters in the OFC.
And about the difficulty sourcing ingredients is bull......I have done it in 3 different states and 2 countries without a problem at all. It is all in what you are able to do with what you have.
And once the initial soil is mixed it is just pennies on the dollar after that.
And I will not mention the poster but to revert to name calling is not cutting it here. Go to the Tokers Den with that crap.
V
SpicySativa
Member
I see where you're coming from. Not trying to start any pissing match or anything, just sayin' it like it is. Cheers!
While hydroponic nutrients and organic soil will both provide a plant with the 15 elements it needs to survive, organic soil provides a plethora of additional elements which are sometimes used by plants (kelp, for example, contains up to 92 elements).
I can vouch for the sun being the best light as I think Ickis said. Nothing like it. I do still refer to my indoor version as organic or natural growing (my preferred term).
I began growing cannabis in around 1984 (with any seriousness) and have gone the full gambit. First was peat based using soluble (chem) fertilizers which we mixed ourselves then hydroponics (massive units) in constant flow through vertical arrangements at 3000 watts per unit X 3. The hydro was experimental. The chemical based ones definitely produced the highest yields but also the highest rate of disease/pathogens. We attempted organic hydro with little success.
We tried buying prepared liquid fertilizers and the various bamboozals with no noticeable difference to mixing our own.
We tried reammending soil (peat based) in between crops which I guess is ROLS using organic ingredients and noticed no difference in yield but what a lot of work. We were growing 8 to 10K plants in a year (3500 to 4500 outside)
We experimented with a notill vertically oriented (sorry to all who have heard this before) in bins stacked and surrounding 3000 watts of light, copying the hydro system we used. This was by far the easiest low labor, low cost system. When one is operating under a non-profit and paying employees, this is important. The yield per harvest may have gone down a bit (average 4.3 lbs per 3000 watts; sometimes 5) but the turn around was so much faster. From planting to harvest was an average 8.5 weeks. Our inputs were only ACT, fish hydrolysate and topdressed vermicompost. Our initial mix consisted of some topsoil so we brought in natural predators which we augmented with some purchsed ones. The pests were pretty much controlled. Most plants achieved senescence unaided, just like in nature (how about that?) This became our chosen method. We used it ongoing for just over 5 years (the experiment 7 years) until forced to stop by contractual complications.
If I were to begin commercially growing medicinal grade cannabis again, there is no doubt this is the method I'd choose.
As for using chemical inputs and bud hardeners etc. If that is your chosen way to grow for other people please carefully research studies concerning the potential health effects.
Pay attention to studies outlining accumulation of chemical residues in plants having glandular trichomes (eg. tobacco)
On pyrothrins, be aware it is easy to cause a population explosion in mites using this.
I began growing cannabis in around 1984 (with any seriousness) and have gone the full gambit. First was peat based using soluble (chem) fertilizers which we mixed ourselves then hydroponics (massive units) in constant flow through vertical arrangements at 3000 watts per unit X 3. The hydro was experimental. The chemical based ones definitely produced the highest yields but also the highest rate of disease/pathogens. We attempted organic hydro with little success.
We tried buying prepared liquid fertilizers and the various bamboozals with no noticeable difference to mixing our own.
We tried reammending soil (peat based) in between crops which I guess is ROLS using organic ingredients and noticed no difference in yield but what a lot of work. We were growing 8 to 10K plants in a year (3500 to 4500 outside)
We experimented with a notill vertically oriented (sorry to all who have heard this before) in bins stacked and surrounding 3000 watts of light, copying the hydro system we used. This was by far the easiest low labor, low cost system. When one is operating under a non-profit and paying employees, this is important. The yield per harvest may have gone down a bit (average 4.3 lbs per 3000 watts; sometimes 5) but the turn around was so much faster. From planting to harvest was an average 8.5 weeks. Our inputs were only ACT, fish hydrolysate and topdressed vermicompost. Our initial mix consisted of some topsoil so we brought in natural predators which we augmented with some purchsed ones. The pests were pretty much controlled. Most plants achieved senescence unaided, just like in nature (how about that?) This became our chosen method. We used it ongoing for just over 5 years (the experiment 7 years) until forced to stop by contractual complications.
If I were to begin commercially growing medicinal grade cannabis again, there is no doubt this is the method I'd choose.
As for using chemical inputs and bud hardeners etc. If that is your chosen way to grow for other people please carefully research studies concerning the potential health effects.
Pay attention to studies outlining accumulation of chemical residues in plants having glandular trichomes (eg. tobacco)
On pyrothrins, be aware it is easy to cause a population explosion in mites using this.
It don't mean a damn thing but i am one who is moving from gung fucking ho hydro grower, including mixing my own salts, to something resembling ROLS...although I refuse to call it that. From my point of view it is more about Albrecht ratios/some Reams concepts and some very tricky Tainio ideas.
Yield was my number one reason for fighting it so long. But then I discovered the Reams concept of ergs and the puzzle fell together and favored ROLS type stuff.
A bed, two lights and some OG...over two pounds a light. Water about every 6th day.
I ain't looking back and I don't give one fuck about people that don't want to listen. They are the competition and I frankly love weak competition.
Now I will gladly help someone that wants to change. But I ain't going out of my way to convince anyone.
For the record...Cootz basic formula plus some extra P and Ca (based on the humus part of my mix...would not work for anyone using different humus) to achieve Albrect ratios with Reams recommended ergs levels.
edit...Tainio ideas about sap pH for disease control. And Hugh Lovel on the reading list although I have not yet incorporated his ideas.
Yield was my number one reason for fighting it so long. But then I discovered the Reams concept of ergs and the puzzle fell together and favored ROLS type stuff.
A bed, two lights and some OG...over two pounds a light. Water about every 6th day.
I ain't looking back and I don't give one fuck about people that don't want to listen. They are the competition and I frankly love weak competition.
Now I will gladly help someone that wants to change. But I ain't going out of my way to convince anyone.
For the record...Cootz basic formula plus some extra P and Ca (based on the humus part of my mix...would not work for anyone using different humus) to achieve Albrect ratios with Reams recommended ergs levels.
edit...Tainio ideas about sap pH for disease control. And Hugh Lovel on the reading list although I have not yet incorporated his ideas.
@VG
right on,i just wanted to emphasis that no tinkering of specific elements were increased or depleted threw out the grow of many varieties of cannabis & they seem to fade out naturally in a fully amended recycled organic living soil or what ever you call it.
but yes, outdoors
this is not in any way me trying to claim that nitrogen or other methods, cant be used to trigger or delay senescence
right on,i just wanted to emphasis that no tinkering of specific elements were increased or depleted threw out the grow of many varieties of cannabis & they seem to fade out naturally in a fully amended recycled organic living soil or what ever you call it.
but yes, outdoors
this is not in any way me trying to claim that nitrogen or other methods, cant be used to trigger or delay senescence
yeah, sourcing your amendments etc is an investment of a little time to make easy growing in the future.
interesting input there ....milkyjoe...
From an article:
William A. Albrecht was a giant in the field of biological agriculture. His impact on agriculture around the world can hardly be overstated. Dr. Albrecht had an early fascination with soil and studied it meticulously for 6 decades.
Albrecht worked in the university system as the head of the soils department at the University of Missouri. He stayed very focused to study nature and animal performance. These observations positively tied nutrition in the soil to profitability for the farmer and health to the consumers.
In this email I will be addressing the pros and cons of the Albrecht system. At the same time I highly encourage all serious students of soil to thoroughly study all 8 volumes of the Albrecht series. Volume 5, devoted to calcium, is particularly suggested just to drive home the importance of limestone and calcium.
Dr. Albrecht and Dr. Reams were contemporaries and friends. They enjoyed back and forth correspondence regarding soil and frequent visits by Dr. Reams to Missouri to visit Dr. Albrecht. In one of his recorded seminars Reams relates how one time Albrecht visited him in Florida and hired him for an entire week to teach him one on one about Reams Biological Theory of Ionization.
In one area Reams and Albrecht were very united. Both men held calcium in the soil of supreme importance. Albrecht looked at calcium as the king of nutrients. Reams looked at calcium as the primary growth energy element that all reproductive nutrients needed to react against in order to create energy for crop growth.
So what is the Albrecht system? Albrecht developed the concept of total exchange capacity. This really means how much holding capacity does the clay and humus fractions of soil have. When clay content is less, nutrient holding capacity is reduced. Holding capacity could be likened to "How big is your bucket." Albrecht also looked at how empty was the bucket. This represents hydrogen on the clay colloid instead minerals such as calcium, potassium, magnesium, and sodium. Hydrogen on the clay is acidic and indicates a deficiency of cations. A final concept is the idea of proportion of cations on the clay colloid. This is called base saturation.
The basic approach in the Albrecht system is to fill the empty part of the bucket to nearly full with additional nutrients and end up with soil colloids having the following percentage of nutrients.
Calcium 65-70%
Magnesium 15-20%
Potassium 5-10%
Sodium ½ - 3%
Hydrogen 5-10%
Other nutrients such as nitrogen, sulfates, phosphates and traces also need to be supplied. This is a useful concept and very quickly finds soils with extreme calcium deficiency. Many people have reported to me that following this approach has brought their yield and health of plants form very poor to acceptable. Some report good results.
The value of the Albrecht approach is that it is fairly easy to understand. Just create the ideal ratio of the cations on the clay colloid and supply the needed anions and now you have a balanced soil, plain and simple. The simplicity and logical approach has appealed to many people resulting in great popularity.
There are, however, several problems with the Albrecht approach;
There is no concept of using soil conductivity to measure soil energy.
Recommendations are based on soil holding capacity--and are not tailored to the crop being raised.
There is no concept of certain crops requiring growth energy dominance vs. reproductive energy dominance and the use of specific fertilizers to bring this about.
The Albrecht approach does not achieve the higher levels of brix and nutrient density. This is why contemporary followers of Albrecht avoid the topic.
It can be very expensive and requires an extreme amount of nutrients to balance the soil.
It is interesting to note that even though Dr. Reams and Dr. Albrecht were friends, Dr. Reams rejected the base saturation test. Instead, Dr. Reams chose to promote the original Morgan test that looked only at plant-available nutrients. Why? Because Dr. Reams discovered that you cannot calculate energy based on total nutrients on the soil colloid--instead energy must be calculated on plant available nutrients or fully soluble minerals.
In short, the base saturation test is good. And for many people it is good enough. On the other hand...
"Good is the greatest enemy excellent ever had."
The downside of the Reams approach is that the concepts are harder to grasp, the fertility recommendations are not linear, and the whole idea of growing plants with energy is not understood by many growers or consultants. It most certainly does not jive with the university approach. On the positive side, the energy concept takes plants higher in production and quality. The Reams approach looks at all 3 foundational sciences--not just soil agronomy. We also include soil microbiology and crop physiology. This means recommendations include microbial inoculants, sugars, and biostimulants for the microbiology and foliar sprays to nutritionally feed plants directly through the leaves.
This more comprehensive view of growing a crop and the use of foliar sprays to supply growth or reproductive energy puts the Reams approach on a much higher plateau.
Reams is better than Albrect?
Discuss
SpicySativa
Member
Am I the only one who actually ENJOYS mixing up soil? I guess it's more fun when you only have to do about 5 or 6 cubic feet at a time...
V
vonforne
I find it very interesting and educating to hunt down different things to use in my gardens both inside and out. And yes I grow in amended holes with some of my cycled soil. And I build on that......soil building both indoors and out.
I knew you would understand this VG since you have to source materials like I did in Germany. Takes a little time, a little interpretation. Not just sitting in from´nt of the computer and ordering from Amazon. lol
Leg work as I call it.
V
V
vonforne
Cootz mix is nothing more than a revised version of a 1939 Cornell University mix which we have all been using for years. I have been using a version of this mix since I started growing.......
If you think about it most of the ingredients are interchangeable. After all calcium carbonate is calcium carbonate in any form.
So, you think the mix will not hold up then?
@yortbogey...I am definitely not saying Reams was better than Albrecht. To me Albrecht is the man...the one whose shoulders others stand on.
But...Albrecht did not explain everything...probably because he got sabotaged by those cocksuckers at the U of MO. But I digress.
What did he say about micros? What did he say about N or P for that matter? He got the base cation saturation part...but there was more work to do imo.
So Albrecht is my base. Reams is the piece of the puzzle that nailed the yield down for me. Look up ergs...and I still do not fully get it. I have an experiment going that proves I know fuckall about it. I thought the better the compost the lower ergs would go with the same amendments...wrong. I now suspect the C:N ratio is a major player. But I don't know enough to talk about it. I do know if your soil has an EC between 0.5 and 0.7 and you have Albrecht Ca:Mg ratios yield ain't an issue.
And then Tainio. Microbes vs amendments to unlock soil reserves of certain elements. And sap pH...he says 6.4 and you ain't gotta worry about insects or fungal disease. When I hit those numbers I have not seen one issue. Don't have enough data to say a single thing about it but sure as hell have not proven it wrong yet.
I personally took two plants that had root aphids this yr. No rescue chems used period. Corrected the sap pH. Plants have fully recovered and no sign of those evil little bastards.
Statistically does not prove a single thing...I admit that. But it is a theory I am willing to work with until I personally prove it wrong.
And Lovell...super interesting stuff about C:N
:SO4 ratios. And incredibly interesting stuff about Si and B controlling capillary flow of sap and how that affects amino acid uptake vs nitrate formation/uptake.
anyways...ROLS (or more properly Cootz) is my baseline...adjusted for these other guys theories. But there is more than one way to skin that first cat, I just like the quality of amendment thing that Cootz brought to the table.
But...Albrecht did not explain everything...probably because he got sabotaged by those cocksuckers at the U of MO. But I digress.
What did he say about micros? What did he say about N or P for that matter? He got the base cation saturation part...but there was more work to do imo.
So Albrecht is my base. Reams is the piece of the puzzle that nailed the yield down for me. Look up ergs...and I still do not fully get it. I have an experiment going that proves I know fuckall about it. I thought the better the compost the lower ergs would go with the same amendments...wrong. I now suspect the C:N ratio is a major player. But I don't know enough to talk about it. I do know if your soil has an EC between 0.5 and 0.7 and you have Albrecht Ca:Mg ratios yield ain't an issue.
And then Tainio. Microbes vs amendments to unlock soil reserves of certain elements. And sap pH...he says 6.4 and you ain't gotta worry about insects or fungal disease. When I hit those numbers I have not seen one issue. Don't have enough data to say a single thing about it but sure as hell have not proven it wrong yet.
I personally took two plants that had root aphids this yr. No rescue chems used period. Corrected the sap pH. Plants have fully recovered and no sign of those evil little bastards.
Statistically does not prove a single thing...I admit that. But it is a theory I am willing to work with until I personally prove it wrong.
And Lovell...super interesting stuff about C:N
:SO4 ratios. And incredibly interesting stuff about Si and B controlling capillary flow of sap and how that affects amino acid uptake vs nitrate formation/uptake. anyways...ROLS (or more properly Cootz) is my baseline...adjusted for these other guys theories. But there is more than one way to skin that first cat, I just like the quality of amendment thing that Cootz brought to the table.
Fair enough...I did not know that. My ignorance, obviously I now wish I would have been listening to you sooner.
I think the mix holds up fantastically as far as quality. I think you need to correct the Ca:Mg ratio for maximum yield is all. And unless you test your humus part how do you know exactly where you are. I find saying any single amendment mix is the best is questionable...so much depends on what is in your humus part and no two are going to be alike. But as a base to start from that mix is bomb in my mind.
I also now find myself wondering if you should be adjusting C:N ratios....but that is just one of thoughts kicking about in me brain...no clue as to where it will lead me at this point.
