Hey Frank,
it will be like the wine industry... but also the Home brew Market...
You wait and see it will be like the who's who of the Cannabis world, who's smoking What.
Peace
-
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"!
Soil or Hydroponics?
- Thread starter leaffan
- Start date
Hey Frank,
it will be like the wine industry... but also the Home brew Market...
You wait and see it will be like the who's who of the Cannabis world, who's smoking What.
Peace
My last post leads directly into the next issue you brought up:
I think we are all aware that what we see visibly expressed by the plant...is referred to as the phenotype.
Now, phenotype, is controlled by two factors: genome + environment.
Environment consists of two separate parts - the area surrounding the foliage and the area surrounding the root zone.
You have to understand - we do not grow the plant. This is a key concept. The plant, contains genetic information that tells it to do one primary function - to survive. Because phenotype is altered by environmental factors, we know that whatever we see, is merely the result of the plant allowing whatever genetic coding that exists within it's genome to surface and be manifest, which will best ensure it's survival....
The plant is nothing more than a reflection of the environmental stimuli we present it with...
When you alter the ability of the plant to self-regulate it's feeding habits, you automatically alter the environment surrounding the root zone - and by default you automatically alter the phenotypical expression...
When force feeding a plant...you NEVER see the TRUE genetic expression - you only see the expression you have brought forth based on what you have decided the plant needs...or what ever a specific nutrient company tells you the plant should be.
IF however, you run a truly organic soil, where you only add water through out the plants entire life cycle - the plant is able to self regulate, and you are able to see how the plant, ACTUALLY is - presenting then, the plants TRUEST possible phenotype...
So again...this isn't my opinion....it's just the way stuff works. It's science.
By utilizing this knowledge and methodology...you are able to select from seed stocks not what plant appears to be the best...but what plant actually IS the best...as the strongest phenotype will surface on it's own accord, not because it has been force feed to produce in a particular manner, but rather because that is it's natural expression and it is a superior sibling...
http://www.sciencegroup.org.uk/ifgene/breed3.htm
Want me to keep going? I used to teach classes about this stuff. I can do this all day...
dank.Frank
I think we are all aware that what we see visibly expressed by the plant...is referred to as the phenotype.
Now, phenotype, is controlled by two factors: genome + environment.
Environment consists of two separate parts - the area surrounding the foliage and the area surrounding the root zone.
You have to understand - we do not grow the plant. This is a key concept. The plant, contains genetic information that tells it to do one primary function - to survive. Because phenotype is altered by environmental factors, we know that whatever we see, is merely the result of the plant allowing whatever genetic coding that exists within it's genome to surface and be manifest, which will best ensure it's survival....
The plant is nothing more than a reflection of the environmental stimuli we present it with...
When you alter the ability of the plant to self-regulate it's feeding habits, you automatically alter the environment surrounding the root zone - and by default you automatically alter the phenotypical expression...
When force feeding a plant...you NEVER see the TRUE genetic expression - you only see the expression you have brought forth based on what you have decided the plant needs...or what ever a specific nutrient company tells you the plant should be.
IF however, you run a truly organic soil, where you only add water through out the plants entire life cycle - the plant is able to self regulate, and you are able to see how the plant, ACTUALLY is - presenting then, the plants TRUEST possible phenotype...
So again...this isn't my opinion....it's just the way stuff works. It's science.
By utilizing this knowledge and methodology...you are able to select from seed stocks not what plant appears to be the best...but what plant actually IS the best...as the strongest phenotype will surface on it's own accord, not because it has been force feed to produce in a particular manner, but rather because that is it's natural expression and it is a superior sibling...
http://www.sciencegroup.org.uk/ifgene/breed3.htm
Want me to keep going? I used to teach classes about this stuff. I can do this all day...
dank.Frank
leaffan
Member
A couple things...
Presently under the MMPR there are no approved pesticides.
Every "batch" of produced marijuana must be tested, thc/cbd, mould, bacteria, pesticide, and heavy metals. These tests are very expensive. The testing alone could very well eliminate some growing techniques.
Presently under the MMPR there are no approved pesticides.
Every "batch" of produced marijuana must be tested, thc/cbd, mould, bacteria, pesticide, and heavy metals. These tests are very expensive. The testing alone could very well eliminate some growing techniques.
Your call. ...but you've almost got me convinced.
Whats the Elephant in the room
I love learning and I could read dank.franks posts all day about this stuff. Im thinking I will have to give the whole organics a whirl. Ive always used promix and GH 3 part with some additives. Ive gotten by just fine but I think its time I take it to the next level.
Thanks for the knowledge frank.
Thanks for the knowledge frank.
In regards to the concepts of pest control and prevention:
Like all predators in nature - pests of a plant, that seek to feed off it, DO NOT, WILL NOT, select the strongest amongst the group. Pests, will naturally, choose to devour the plant that is most susceptible to attack...the weakest link.
This concept is very well know and understood by all type of agriculture, even when crops are sprayed with pesticide. Leaving a segment of acreage in the corner of the field untreated, to draw pests to that area and away from the main crop, which is treated, is common integrated pest management strategy.
Since we do not want to spray our medicine with ANYTHING...the goal should be, to growth the healthiest, most robust plants possible.
This brings about the discussion of high brix...which is still not exactly proven in terms of scientific studies, but there is a great deal of anecdotal evidence to suggest it is an effective tool for which to measure plant health. Brix deals with the amount of sugar content in a plant, and higher sugar production requires a specific balance of the proper nutrients and minerals.
What science does note is that when isolated, certain individual elements can / do reduce or increase a plants resistance to diseases or pests. A commonly understood example of this is excessively high nitrogen levels increase a plants susceptibility to pests...where as a plant with proper nitrogen levels remains less attractive. Same as excessive potassium can contribute to powdery mildew...
In regards to brix levels and what has prompted further research of such by scientists, is the recommend nutrient formulations to achieve high brix, coincidentally fits remarkably well with what is already known about the importance of proper nutrient levels. What isn't fully understood / explained, is how maintaining a perfect balance of all nutrients works in a synergistic manner to prevent pest attack.
And again, when the plant is the one dictating it's needs, it will self regulate and grow as healthy as possible, as long as you build your soil with all the necessary inputs for exceptional plant health.
http://www.certifiedorganic.bc.ca/programs/osdp/I-101%20Brix%20Final%20Report.pdf
The important thing to remember is that plants that are HEALTHY are not attractive to pests to begin with.
Given a constant, proper environment around the foliage, ie proper temperatures, humidity, circulation, etc - you shouldn't be seeing diseases in your garden in the first place. Proper soil moisture is also a key factor in keeping pests / disease from ever getting a foothold in any garden using a media.
When you do happen to bring something into the garden from outside, there are always natural methods by using predatory insects that will devour larval stages, interrupting reproduction cycles and eliminating the pest before it can ever gain a food hold in your garden.
However, it seems you will basically be working in a clean room type setting - and these types of contaminations should never be an issue to begin with when following such strict guidelines, regardless of your growing method.
Organic Insect and Disease Management via Cornell, which list many biological controls...which are NOT pesticides.
http://web.pppmb.cals.cornell.edu/resourceguide/
dank.Frank
df,
good info fer sure!
but if you are saying that hydro cannot compete, (yield, taste and quality wise), with soil as a medium, ok…if you say so.
the information you provide regarding rhizosphere is pretty spot on. However, I'm not fully convinced that I cannot replicate a near ideal rhizosphere environment hydroponically utilizing an EWC bio filter in a DWC recirculating system. I was just looking at the reservoir of my system and it has a beautiful froth to it that is being sprayed onto the rockwool medium, which is itself is a very friendly environment for beneficial bacteria to populate. If I'm not mistaken, those beneficial microbes will break down my chemical nutes into a more readily absorbable form. And yes, soil mediums are obviously very good at that process. The only soil grown cannabis I have tasted has been northern cali outdoor, and that stuff is shite! Probably all the fukin poisons they use though! One never truly knows unless one grows one's own.
good info fer sure!
but if you are saying that hydro cannot compete, (yield, taste and quality wise), with soil as a medium, ok…if you say so.
the information you provide regarding rhizosphere is pretty spot on. However, I'm not fully convinced that I cannot replicate a near ideal rhizosphere environment hydroponically utilizing an EWC bio filter in a DWC recirculating system. I was just looking at the reservoir of my system and it has a beautiful froth to it that is being sprayed onto the rockwool medium, which is itself is a very friendly environment for beneficial bacteria to populate. If I'm not mistaken, those beneficial microbes will break down my chemical nutes into a more readily absorbable form. And yes, soil mediums are obviously very good at that process. The only soil grown cannabis I have tasted has been northern cali outdoor, and that stuff is shite! Probably all the fukin poisons they use though! One never truly knows unless one grows one's own.
Put myself through college workin on a mink ranch. In the summer we would ptichfork the minkshit into a spreader and spread it on a local farmer's alfalfa field. He loved it. Mink shit has the added benefit of not passing on seeds. It's pretty hot though, a little goes along way. Loading it sucked, but it was beautiful in that valley...riding the tractor along spreading mink shit on the fields watchin the hawks in the air! Good memories right there!
Mojave - you gotta read more carefully...and then read the links, as they are much more in depth than the simple break down I provide. But none of that is opinion and it's really not up for debate. It's called scientific fact. I'm sorry it doesn't fit well in you paradigm, but it just is what it is. I had to learn too...and when I did, I changed my methods to produce a higher quality, cleaner, more unique flower...
Hydro = faster growth rate, larger yields per plant size - perfect for commercial applications. Not everyone wants a commercial product...some people are satisfied with that...and that's the way the world works. Some people like Budweiser...some people like microbrews. World keeps spinning.
However, there is NO WAY you can replicate the beneficial bacterial diversity of a soil in hydro - not possible. Sorry. First of all, there really is no need for a micro herd in chemical nutrients as they are already in the ionic forms and they are essentially injected right into the roots...'roid me up maaaaannnnn...
Chemical salts drastically reduce microbial populations...not raise. It is counter productive to continually add bacteria when all you are doing is stunting it's growth and development by allowing the bacteria to become lazy, stagnant and eventually die from lack of activity and function - it is not sustainable. Organic soils foster a habitat where the bacteria can consume, reproduce, thrive and functional naturally, which IS sustainable and ultimately results in superior media and plant health...and therefore by default, a superior product.
Microbeman states this very well: "I compare this to a patient receiving intravenous feeding for a period of time and then needing to slowly adjust to real food again when the IV is discontinued."
But to take this back to the scientific:
------
From NCSU - Plant Pathology:
Organic and synthetic fertility amendments influence soil microbial, physical and chemical properties on organic and conventional farms:
Abstract:
"Field experiments were conducted to examine the effects of organic and synthetic soil fertility amendments on soil microbial communities and soil physical and chemical properties at three organic and three conventional vegetable farms in Virginia and Maryland in 1996 and 1997. Two treatments, including either an alternative organic soil amendment (composted cotton-gin trash, composted yard waste, or cattle manure) or synthetic soil amendment (fertilizer) were applied to three replicated plots at each grower field location. Production history and time affected propagule densities of Trichoderma species which remained higher in soils from organic farms. Propagule densities of Trichoderma species, thermophilic microorganisms, and enteric bacteria were also detected in greater numbers in soils amended with alternative than synthetic amendments, whereas propagule densities of Phytophthora and Pythium species were lower in soils amended with alternative than synthetic fertility amendments. Concentrations of Ca, K, Mg, and Mn were higher in soils amended with alternative than synthetic fertility amendments. Canonical correlations and principle component analyses indicated significant correlation between these soil chemical factors and the biological communities. First-order canonical correlations were more negative in fields with a conventional history, and use of synthetic fertilizers, whereas canonical correlations were more positive in fields with a history of organic production and alternative soil amendments. In the first year, yields of corn or melon were not different in soil amended with either synthetic or organic amendments at four of six farms. In the second year, when all growers planted tomatoes, yields were higher on farms with a history of organic production, regardless of soil amendment type. Alternative fertility amendments, enhanced beneficial soil microorganisms reduced pathogen populations, increased soil organic matter, total carbon, and cation exchange capacity (CEC), and lowered bulk density thus improving soil quality."
Full article 14 pg. article: http://projects.cals.ncsu.edu/ristaino/cmsperception/sites/default/files/ApplSoilEcol_article.pdf
------
Please, if you don't mind, show me your roots - show me their fine feeder hairs that give indications of microbial life and activity - I'd love to see such a picture!
Here's some roots from rooted clone which was planted in recycled soil after 2 weeks in a 9oz party cup -
Do your hydro roots display such large microbial activity?
I'd love to see you support your opinion with factual evidence as I have - I'm not being subjective - I'm presenting FACTS.
------
Here are some facts from Australia:
"Chemical fertilizers which ushered the ‘green revolution’ in the 1950 - 60’s came as a ‘mixed blessing’ for mankind. It boosted food productivity, but at the cost of environment & society. It dramatically increased the ‘quantity’ of the food produced but decreased its ‘nutritional quality’ and also the ‘soil fertility’ over the years. It killed the beneficial soil organisms which help in renewing natural fertility. It also impaired the power of ‘biological resistance’ in crops making them more susceptible to pests & diseases. Over the years it has worked like a ‘slow poison’ for the soil with a serious ‘withdrawal symptoms’. The excessive use of ‘nitrogenous fertilizer’ (urea) has also led to increase in the level of ‘inorganic nitrogen’ content in groundwater (through leaching effects) and in the human food with grave consequences for the human health. Chemically grown foods have adversely affected human health."
Full 19 pg article: http://www98.griffith.edu.au/dspace...d=150F6FD7811E5E2100ADC8ED946911F3?sequence=1
-------
More facts from India:
Rhizosphere Microbial Populations and Physico Chemical Properties as Affected by Organic and Inorganic Farming Practices:
Abstract:
"The present study was undertaken May-September (2007) to investigate the effect of organic viz, plant compost (PC), vermicompost (VC), integrated plant compost (IPC) and farmyard manure (FYM) and inorganic (NPK) fertilisers on the rhizosphere microbial population and soil physico chemical properties of soybean variety JS80-21. Control (CON) plot was also maintained without any fertilisers. Results showed that application of organic fertilisers had enhanced the microbial population compared to NPK and CON. The highest fungal and bacterial population was recorded in VC and the least in CON plot. Application of organic fertilisers also showed increase in rhizosphere soil physicochemical properties compared to NPK and CON plots. The above finding revealed that organic fertilisers would be able to sustain the soil fertility for a longer period by meeting the demand of present and future generation."
Full 11 pg article: http://www.idosi.org/aejaes/jaes10%282%29/2.pdf
-----
What does the rest of the world seem to know that some cannabis farmers simply REFUSE to recognize???
dank.Frank
Hydro = faster growth rate, larger yields per plant size - perfect for commercial applications. Not everyone wants a commercial product...some people are satisfied with that...and that's the way the world works. Some people like Budweiser...some people like microbrews. World keeps spinning.
However, there is NO WAY you can replicate the beneficial bacterial diversity of a soil in hydro - not possible. Sorry. First of all, there really is no need for a micro herd in chemical nutrients as they are already in the ionic forms and they are essentially injected right into the roots...'roid me up maaaaannnnn...
Chemical salts drastically reduce microbial populations...not raise. It is counter productive to continually add bacteria when all you are doing is stunting it's growth and development by allowing the bacteria to become lazy, stagnant and eventually die from lack of activity and function - it is not sustainable. Organic soils foster a habitat where the bacteria can consume, reproduce, thrive and functional naturally, which IS sustainable and ultimately results in superior media and plant health...and therefore by default, a superior product.
Microbeman states this very well: "I compare this to a patient receiving intravenous feeding for a period of time and then needing to slowly adjust to real food again when the IV is discontinued."
But to take this back to the scientific:
------
From NCSU - Plant Pathology:
Organic and synthetic fertility amendments influence soil microbial, physical and chemical properties on organic and conventional farms:
Abstract:
"Field experiments were conducted to examine the effects of organic and synthetic soil fertility amendments on soil microbial communities and soil physical and chemical properties at three organic and three conventional vegetable farms in Virginia and Maryland in 1996 and 1997. Two treatments, including either an alternative organic soil amendment (composted cotton-gin trash, composted yard waste, or cattle manure) or synthetic soil amendment (fertilizer) were applied to three replicated plots at each grower field location. Production history and time affected propagule densities of Trichoderma species which remained higher in soils from organic farms. Propagule densities of Trichoderma species, thermophilic microorganisms, and enteric bacteria were also detected in greater numbers in soils amended with alternative than synthetic amendments, whereas propagule densities of Phytophthora and Pythium species were lower in soils amended with alternative than synthetic fertility amendments. Concentrations of Ca, K, Mg, and Mn were higher in soils amended with alternative than synthetic fertility amendments. Canonical correlations and principle component analyses indicated significant correlation between these soil chemical factors and the biological communities. First-order canonical correlations were more negative in fields with a conventional history, and use of synthetic fertilizers, whereas canonical correlations were more positive in fields with a history of organic production and alternative soil amendments. In the first year, yields of corn or melon were not different in soil amended with either synthetic or organic amendments at four of six farms. In the second year, when all growers planted tomatoes, yields were higher on farms with a history of organic production, regardless of soil amendment type. Alternative fertility amendments, enhanced beneficial soil microorganisms reduced pathogen populations, increased soil organic matter, total carbon, and cation exchange capacity (CEC), and lowered bulk density thus improving soil quality."
Full article 14 pg. article: http://projects.cals.ncsu.edu/ristaino/cmsperception/sites/default/files/ApplSoilEcol_article.pdf
------
Please, if you don't mind, show me your roots - show me their fine feeder hairs that give indications of microbial life and activity - I'd love to see such a picture!
Here's some roots from rooted clone which was planted in recycled soil after 2 weeks in a 9oz party cup -
Do your hydro roots display such large microbial activity?
I'd love to see you support your opinion with factual evidence as I have - I'm not being subjective - I'm presenting FACTS.
------
Here are some facts from Australia:
"Chemical fertilizers which ushered the ‘green revolution’ in the 1950 - 60’s came as a ‘mixed blessing’ for mankind. It boosted food productivity, but at the cost of environment & society. It dramatically increased the ‘quantity’ of the food produced but decreased its ‘nutritional quality’ and also the ‘soil fertility’ over the years. It killed the beneficial soil organisms which help in renewing natural fertility. It also impaired the power of ‘biological resistance’ in crops making them more susceptible to pests & diseases. Over the years it has worked like a ‘slow poison’ for the soil with a serious ‘withdrawal symptoms’. The excessive use of ‘nitrogenous fertilizer’ (urea) has also led to increase in the level of ‘inorganic nitrogen’ content in groundwater (through leaching effects) and in the human food with grave consequences for the human health. Chemically grown foods have adversely affected human health."
Full 19 pg article: http://www98.griffith.edu.au/dspace...d=150F6FD7811E5E2100ADC8ED946911F3?sequence=1
-------
More facts from India:
Rhizosphere Microbial Populations and Physico Chemical Properties as Affected by Organic and Inorganic Farming Practices:
Abstract:
"The present study was undertaken May-September (2007) to investigate the effect of organic viz, plant compost (PC), vermicompost (VC), integrated plant compost (IPC) and farmyard manure (FYM) and inorganic (NPK) fertilisers on the rhizosphere microbial population and soil physico chemical properties of soybean variety JS80-21. Control (CON) plot was also maintained without any fertilisers. Results showed that application of organic fertilisers had enhanced the microbial population compared to NPK and CON. The highest fungal and bacterial population was recorded in VC and the least in CON plot. Application of organic fertilisers also showed increase in rhizosphere soil physicochemical properties compared to NPK and CON plots. The above finding revealed that organic fertilisers would be able to sustain the soil fertility for a longer period by meeting the demand of present and future generation."
Full 11 pg article: http://www.idosi.org/aejaes/jaes10%282%29/2.pdf
-----
What does the rest of the world seem to know that some cannabis farmers simply REFUSE to recognize???
dank.Frank
Last edited:
if we were competing frank, i'm sure you would win. we are not. you prefer soil, i prefer hydro. what i got going on works well for me, especially with my ocd. dirt in my grow room???
i'd be sterile if i could but that is just too damn difficult. i feed my microbes sugar to keep em happy. plants love it, product is heavenly. never tasted dirt as good. apparently you prefer it. no problems here. lots o good info! happy trails partner!
i'd be sterile if i could but that is just too damn difficult. i feed my microbes sugar to keep em happy. plants love it, product is heavenly. never tasted dirt as good. apparently you prefer it. no problems here. lots o good info! happy trails partner!
If nothing else, this thread has served this purpose:
Leaffan can clearly see the difference between those who utilize methods based on opinion and preference vs those who utilize methods based on scientific research.
I think my job here is done! (for now)
--edit--
ROFL - guess some people REALLY dislike truth and facts...carry on my wayward son - ROFL
dank.Frank
Leaffan can clearly see the difference between those who utilize methods based on opinion and preference vs those who utilize methods based on scientific research.
I think my job here is done! (for now)
--edit--
ROFL - guess some people REALLY dislike truth and facts...carry on my wayward son - ROFL
dank.Frank
Last edited:
johnnybravo
Member
Read this from another forum and found it interesting.
I've said many times hydroponics systems are highly productive - all that address is yield. Also worthy of note, the Aztecs weren't using chemicals...throw chemicals into that equation and the rhizobia colonies would have been decimated and their agricultural production would have declined.
What were the floating mats made of?
dank.Frank
What were the floating mats made of?
dank.Frank
Last edited:
Dr. Buddington
Member
Turtle shells stuffed with down feathers could float, tie them together and enjoy your floating pad, lol
Edit: I've grown clones of the same plant side by side in rockwool and soil. Yield was slightly less in soil, but the flavor of the flowers was by far superior in the soil grown plants.
Edit: I've grown clones of the same plant side by side in rockwool and soil. Yield was slightly less in soil, but the flavor of the flowers was by far superior in the soil grown plants.
Over 100 trillion microbes in a small soil bed used to produce a pound of herbs!
Love ya Dank.Frank, great posts!
Even though your educating my competition, this is one aspect I would like to see shared by all commercial growers for the benefit of all patients, consumers and growers!
Love ya Dank.Frank, great posts!
Even though your educating my competition, this is one aspect I would like to see shared by all commercial growers for the benefit of all patients, consumers and growers!
BKGK Bx1 from seed - water only, fully amended organic soil -
Nature at it's finest.
dank.Frank
Nature at it's finest.
dank.Frank
