What's new
  • 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"!

~Cannafornia Style~◆Area51~Kiddie Pool PPK◆VERT~Evolution~

DamnUglyDogE

DamnUglyDogE

Learning the rules well,so as to break them effect
ICMag Donor
Veteran
:laughing: But it looks SOOooo Kewl....Hahaha....
I was going to line my walls with fans facing away and right before harvest...
Flip the switch...
Bam... Trimmed and ready...
No? :bashhead:

Thanks for the Vibes,bro...
I have 8 ladies lock and loaded just waiting to launch...
I need them about a foot taller to flower...


Got a way late start on the day...
This hash is really slowing me down... Nice!!!
Anyways...

Trimming and organizing the plants...
Have a few that will get chopped as the competition looks tight.
Found my 1st possible mutant... Oh my....

picture.php

View image in gallery​


The others look normal...


Looks like It's growing out of it though and may well have been due to the stress early on.... I for one love the way this plant looks and though, I would not use if for anything. I would dig watching it flower.


Ok back to work...
 
DamnUglyDogE

DamnUglyDogE

Learning the rules well,so as to break them effect
ICMag Donor
Veteran
LyryC said:
WAtched that trim video for 30 seconds - talk about the ugliest trim ever!? plus that looked like schwag lol - and anyone with tatoos knows you don't put them up online.... ANYWAYS

YOU ARE BAD ASS AS FUCK!!!! Love all the work man! Your pools are sexy AF!

Now You need to get yourself some big ole ladies n put em to work!

See you say you were going to move hte plants in the morning - well its afternoon!

Just kidding :tiphat:

:wave:
Click to expand...

 
Mister_D

Mister_D

Active member
Veteran
SRGB said:

Alien Dawg:

2 minutes gets me perfect floods...
Sticking with every 90 minutes~for now...

--

SRGB:

Hi, Alien Dawg.

Have you considered watering only once per day? Especially with calcined clay, which might hold a substantial amount of moisture?

--

Alien Dawg:

Truth be told. I have not. .lol.
I've been trying to follow a recipe that seems to work well.
Only... Mine is bigger. ..haha. .

--


My limited understanding of the multiple floods rolls are:
Make nutrients more available to the roots
Adds more air to the root zone,allowing for more air roots.
Keeps the res circulated,which does all kinds of good stuff.. lol

Could be interesting comparing once a day floods VS multi floods a day.
Hummm...

? For ya. .

Did you find multiple floods causing damage or otherwise negative effects or simply unneeded ?


Happy Holiday's SRGB Crew...
By sharing your findings and knowledge.
Y'all make this a better place to learn and to me.
That's a true gift that keeps giving.



Hi, Alien Dawg.

Thank you. Happy Holidays to you and yours as well!

--




Perhaps, beginning with clear and concise definitions of the terms used to convey concepts might be beneficial towards effective communication, in virtually any forum of exchange of concepts, particularly scientific concepts.

For example, the practice of flooding to

`Make nutrients more available to roots`.

we would first begin by defining `more`. `More` compared to what base or control? How is `more`, as an example, compared to `less` calculated and confirmed?

Would flooding multiple occasions per 24 hour period provide the conditions to

`make nutrients more available to roots`

than, as a constructive comparison, hand watering only once per day?

That question could be answered accurately, with numbers to support the results. There might be a fair amount of variables involved in evaluating such a question, including replication of the test across different gardens, environments, cultivar, etc.

We will not attempt to delve into that particular question presently; we mention it only to point to the potential enormity of the value or validity of such a verified conclusion following repetitive tests relevant to

`Make nutrients more available to roots`

While multiple floods per day may work well for gardeners, the separate question of whether multiple floods are `needed` might best be examined by the gardener themselves, if interested in such an experiment.

During experiments with SRBGB`s, we actually did perform tests using a large trough similar to the `pools` that you employ, though the troughs were somewhat larger (the attempt was to cover the entire garden area with the trough).

We found the simplest approach with an `automated` or `active` system was to simply place the 20 gallon SRBGB`s either on top of 1 inch pumice, or even directly onto the floor of the trough. We then placed a single pump into the trough, with the intake at approximately 1 or 1 1/2 inches above the floor of the trough. We then filled the trough itself with nutrient solution or water. The amount of water or nutrient solution required to rise to a 1 - 2 inch level (for the pump intake to be submerged, especially while running) was approximately 20 or so gallons. We then placed a 1 foot manifold at the pump output, and ran individual feed lines to each 20 gal. SRBGB. The top-feed essentially drained out of the SRBGB`s back in to the pool basin, maintaining a 1 - 2 inch level of approximtely 20 - 25 gallons for approximately 1 - 3 days, depending on the specimen and other environmental factors. We would make at least 1, but preferably 2 exact replications of the entire feed system (pump, manifold, feed lines) and swap them out approximately every 7 - 10 days, to prevent excessive build up of nutrient salts or other organic matter.
The pump was on 24 / 7. Roots grew out of the 20 gallon SRBGB`s into a fairly large trough - unrestricted - and able to continue growing into the 1 - 2 inches of `recirculating` nutrient solution in the trough. The approach worked for an `active` system.

However, we also experimented with the exact opposite. That is, for example, watering only once per day - or less, only until a minimal run-off accrued in an external trough.

Comparing the results of the above, that is, constantly top-fed and fed at once per day, the gardener might find similarities with regard to the root health and growth of the specimen.

We did the tests at multiple occasions, at both extremes, and found that constant watering did not necessarily increase root or growth rates of the specimen. Though, it might be rewarding for the experimental gardener to perform there own tests with extremes of watering and draw their own conclusions.

--

The second point that you present, that is multiple fllods per day

`Adds more air to the root zone,allowing for more air roots.`

might be an interesting proposition to examine.

Again, we would probably seek to first define `more air`. How is that measurement calculated? Compared to which practice? How much `more air`?

From our experiments with SRBGB`s, water did not provide as much direct access to air as air itself. That is, what we found was that providing oxygen channels, or access to environmental air permitted roots that were seeking that element to grow into that environment. While water does contain oxygen, air does not require the splitting of hydrogen away to access the air - it is just air (actually there is almost 21% nitrogen and other elements also in the atmosphere, or `air`, from what we can accurately recollect).

In any event, a brief example might be a container filled with water next to a container filled with nothing. The container containing nothing might have greater volume of accessible `air`, or oxygen, by volume. An interesting experiment to evaluate, perhaps.

Similarly as to the above points, we would first have to define what

`air roots`

are - and also what they are not. How they might differ from `non-air roots`, and the conditions which might encourage their growth and overall health.

Perhaps, for some gardeners, the definition might include references to `air roots` in various at large articles or publications or documentations; there might be a defnitive method to visually observe differences between `air roots` and `non-air roots`, yet those observations might be primarily defined within the frameworks of certain publications or `techniques` to achieve a specific result.

Another way to put the question might be, can any gardener observe any given root mass and accurately distinguish between `air roots` and `non-air roots`?

For that matter, what are `non-air roots`? What is their proper biological reference? How are they properly distinguished from `water roots`?

It might be advantageous for gardeners themselves to to thoroughly define what `air roots` are and which roots are not `air roots`. Based on available publications, corroborated with the capacity to actually distinguish between the two, or other specialized root mass portions - by their own (preferably replicatable) observations.

--

SRBGB`s were specifically developed to encourage root growth, not `root pruning`, within whichever technique the gardener may select to employ (scalable to DWC, SWC, NFT, other novbel methods), or by employing the methods that we developed to refine the technique of watering as little as possible and wasting as little as possible (preferably, wasting zero/no) resources.

During experiments with SRBGB`s we did find that given certain conditions, certain portions of a given root mass might indeed grow into `thin air`.

The conditions which generally encouraged such diverse root growth and development were those which permitted a greater volume of air both into the given SRBGB and outside of the SRBGB.

We would, perhaps premilimarily consider these portions of root mass as `air roots`, though we are not necessarily certain if that is the appropriate physiological term to describe such root structures. Unfortunately, for various reasons, this area of root development research might include terms which may have taken on more of a reference with an emphasis on `root pruning` `techniques` or `methods` than simple definitions between actual physiologically differentiated root structures.

With SRBGB`s, we were, at least to the best of our limited experimental data sets, able to tentatively distinguish portions of root systems that tended to grow directly into air; and further to replicate the process which we considered positive encouragment of such root growth, at other experiments.

The illustration at

SRBGB - Roots (at #6)

were 1 liter SRBGB`s which were part of an `extremes` experimental set, in which the specimen were only `watered`, at most, once per 24 hour period.

Some waterings were approximately 2 - 4 ounces (or less) per delivery, or only enough solution to produce a minimal run-off - a run-off that accumulated to only dampness (see basin floor).

At other occasions, the delivery was even less than 2 - 4 ounces of solution, that is, the experimental SRBGB units were only top misted from a single 1 liter spray bottle, until only the top of the media was damp - without enough being applied to drain through the SRBGB and accumulate run-off.

The media mixes varied between calcined clay, perlite, pumice, and combined mixes of each. The SRBGB depicted to the right, if we could recollect accurately, had media consisting of 1/2 - 1 inch pumice; rather `large` inert rocks, at least when compared to calcined clay particulate. That type of media might drain `more` thoroughly than a more compacted media such as calcined clay, or fine perlite or pumice.

Our estimation being that larger, irregular rocks might provide greater actual physical channels for oxygen within the SRBGB (as larger rocks compact less and form gaps between the irregular shapes of the rocks), and conversely might possess less actual water holding capacity on the collidial surfaces than a finer medium.

Again, the SRBGB`s were only provided water roughly once per 24 hours, until the approximate accumulation of dampness depicted in the illustration accrued.

--

Relevant to your (very good) question regarding multiple floods; our short answer would be that we are not certain about whether or not multiple floods might cause `damage` or other `negative effects`. As to whether multiple floodings are `simply unneeded`, we would refer to the above described experiments relevant to the limited amount of water or solution that we provided during what we might refer to as `extremes` testing.

Note that the moisture level at basin floor level was only `damp`, not `wet`; at occasions, it was `dry`, at least as perceptible to the experimenters, in addition to having not provided any moisture for 48 hours, or more (to determine if in fact the specimens` roots would stop growing into only `air`). The illustration that reference might depict the results better than we could accurately describe, though we would still do our best to remain within the restriction of accurate scientific communication, even if an illustration from an experiment was not available.

Towards that, we would describe a particular root tip growing out of the side wall of a 1 liter SRBGB, at approximately 1 inch (+/- 1/8) above the floor of a basin. The root tip increased in length and diameter as it grew into `thin air`, not having constant direct contact with a water supply. The root eventually grew to a length exceeding 3 inches (7.5cm), having a diameter of between approximately 1/16 to 1/8 of 1 inch (.15cm - .3cm). The specimen were irrigated at the rate of approximately 2 to 4 ounces (.06 - .12 liters) per 24 hour period, alternatively, some specimen were only lightly misted (1 ounce), in either instance the accumulated drainage (run-off) accumulated to no more than 1/16 to 1/8 of 1 inch (.15cm - .3cm). Root growth continued employing the same approach as described. Container: SRBGB 1 liter. Media: Calcined clay, perlite, pumice, combination of the individual inert rocks. Nutrient solution: Primarily synthetic, provided once or twice per week. Water: provided every 24 to 48 hours.

(See, in general, Square Root® Brand Garden Bag - Drain-To-No-Waste [Methods]).

--

The gardener themselves might experiment with different extremes to find any preliminary or definitive conclusions to the present question relevant to the advantages, benefits, or potential adverse (not necessarily as to the specimen) of mulitple waterings.

We would only present that clean water is perhaps the most `valuable` resource on this planet. If `less` could be used to accomplish the given task, perhaps alternatives to excessive use might be explored; by the farmer, soilless gardener, agrarian, industry at large, person. We might seek to hope that at least some considerations might be, perhaps, examined, relevant to the general usage of clean water.

From a purely experimental soilless gardening perspective, we would probably attempt to use as less water, and, indeed any resource (natural or synthetic, mechanical or static) as possible; in pursuit of potential maximum efficiency, and also simply to see if it (whatever the question of the experiment might be) is actually possible - and most importantly, is replicatable within the framework of the scientific method. To that end we posted the article Drain-To-No-Waste [Methods] (see above) which explored, in greater detail, the steps that we took during some of the above experiments.

Kind regards,
/SRGB/
Click to expand...


All this has me wondering if you guys might have done similar experiments with a denser media like coco or soil? My curiosity lies in weather or not a media with much greater water holding capacity gains any advantage (faster growth, more roots, etc) with multiple feeds/waterings per day over once per day watering. In my own garden I have seen a noticable improvement in both yield and growth rates since switching to multiple feeds per day (over once per day). Same amount of water/nutes given to each plant in both cases, just given in smaller increments with multiple feeds. Plenty of anecdotal evidence of this here and elsewhere, but I don't know of anyone that has done a true side by side comparison. Seems logical that a media (coco for example) with less air retention after a flood cycle (compared to say pumice) would benefit from having it's air replenished more often via flood cycle than say pumice that maintains a much higher air water ratio in the first place. However to truly understand that, you'd need to know the rate at which a particular plant is utilizing available air in the media, and determine at which point (% of total air capacity used) the air is insufficient enough to negatively effect growth.
 
Last edited:
DamnUglyDogE

DamnUglyDogE

Learning the rules well,so as to break them effect
ICMag Donor
Veteran
Mister_D said:
All this has me wondering if you guys might have done similar experiments with a denser media like coco or soil? My curiosity lies in weather or not a media with much greater water holding capacity gains any advantage (faster growth, more roots, etc) with multiple feeds/waterings per day over once per day watering. In my own garden I have seen a noticable improvement in both yield and growth rates since switching to multiple feeds per day (over once per day). Same amount of water/nutes given to each plant in both cases, just given in smaller increments with multiple feeds. Plenty of anecdotal evidence of this here and elsewhere, but I don't know of anyone that has done a true side by side comparison. Seems logical that a media (coco for example) with less air retention after a flood cycle (compared to say pumice) would benefit from having it's air replenished more often via flood cycle than say pumice that maintains a much higher air water ratio in the first place. However to truly understand that, you'd need to know the rate at which a particular plant is utilizing available air in the media, and determine at which point (% of total air capacity used) the air is insufficient enough to negatively effect growth.
Click to expand...

Solid.... I would surmise the point of negative impact might be once the roots epidermis starts to thicken due to lack of moisture or humidity... Seems like humidity level around the roots might be key to maximum vigor between saturation's...

In other words.... Will the plants use energy protecting its roots from the air or gain energy by feeding from the moisture in the air...




hummm.....


Remember this little survivor ?
A seed left in the dark for a couple weeks with no fresh air.
Only moist media...
#900




 
Last edited:
DamnUglyDogE

DamnUglyDogE

Learning the rules well,so as to break them effect
ICMag Donor
Veteran
So I now know it take 150-200 pounds of calcined clay to fill a Kiddie pool.
Only having 350 ish lbs and 3 pools... Means its time to recycle ...

Having saved the mix from last season turns out to have been a good idea. .
Haha. . I don't throw shit away. Still have my soil (300+ lbs)from season 1 baking in a mound out back.. lol

Pisses me off that I dumped the Border haze pool mix.
Could have used the cleaner CC, but....

BM suck balls. No bueno!

Anyway. ..lol

Been busy, staying busy. .


I got a plan. .:beat-dead



 
DamnUglyDogE

DamnUglyDogE

Learning the rules well,so as to break them effect
ICMag Donor
Veteran
Going to start plucking leaves from pool one over the next few days... Taking it slow this time...
Figure pool 2 will need 7 days or so...We shall see...

Pool 1 is really taking off though and could get out of control...
I suppose I could flip anytime after 4 days...

So that's 10 plants in pool 2 and 8 plants in pool 1...

Hoping I can get away with the high numbers by keeping them short.





Changed the fan out for a lower profile fan and lowered the bulb a couple inches...


Yeah.. This is how I roll 2014...

Happy New Years One and ALL!!!

Here's to bigger and better for everyone....

Puff,puff,pass....AD....



​
 
DamnUglyDogE

DamnUglyDogE

Learning the rules well,so as to break them effect
ICMag Donor
Veteran
I got a new toy...


All lights on and exhaust going and its still a pain keeping the RH up.
I got 3 Humidifiers going...lol Oh well....


So the plan has change for this season due to things beyond my control and the uncertainties going into 2014 abound...


Im going to retry my goal for last season and do a free pollen seed run with pool 1 and 2 and hold pool 3 back about a month and run it as a for personal smoke pool with either a sog or scrog...

I will most likely set this up today/tomorrow and start topping everything into an even canopy later this week...

There are~
LTFB,SL,AT~kong,GSC~s1,F13 female #1 and BH in this pool.

I am chasing flavors here and for that I really want to get LBTF and GSTF together... But... I have already found a great looking F13 f2 male that I have to believe would do some wonderful things to the gsc line and the Lambsbread line so I am going with him unless the LTFB gives me something worthy to work with...

I know im taking a chance here but circumstances are what they are and I simply dont think 3-4 lbs of mixed smoke is going to do much for me but having this gene pool locked in will be golden for years to come.... Seems like the smarter long term play so im going with it..:biggrin:

Oh... I used 1/2 the CC in pool 3 to fill pool 2 so pool 2 is pure CC and pool 3 will and a 2" layer of CC and a good 4"-5" of CC/micro perlite and just a touch of coco...

The tote wash worked really well and for the most part I got everything separated...

 
DamnUglyDogE

DamnUglyDogE

Learning the rules well,so as to break them effect
ICMag Donor
Veteran
Score!!!!

Score!!!!

I sure do like me a good deal...

This would easily qualify...

Would you believe I walk out with all this for....

$60 bucks...

What!!!! lol



The 2 on top are brand new open boxes that are still in their plastic.
The lower is a :

Amcor plasma series PLM16000E - Portable air conditioner

Slightly used yet the filters all look new and clean.


16000 BTU...Nice!!!
Only missing the remote...
She runs yet I haven't really tested it out all the way...
looks good ...

:woohoo:


I already have a hole in the floor for and exhaust and the ducting will only need to be about 3'-4' long & I can add a drain pipe leading to the back yard through this hole as well... Solid!!!
My environment is about to get a little more stable...

Just in time for 1800w-2200w cranking out some goodness...

Got to love 1/2 off sales at the local Salvation army....



.
 

Attachments

  • PLM16000E.jpg
    PLM16000E.jpg
    20.7 KB · Views: 11
SRGB

SRGB

Member

Mister_D:

All this has me wondering if you guys might have done similar experiments with a denser media like coco or soil? My curiosity lies in weather or not a media with much greater water holding capacity gains any advantage (faster growth, more roots, etc) with multiple feeds/waterings per day over once per day watering. In my own garden I have seen a noticable improvement in both yield and growth rates since switching to multiple feeds per day (over once per day). Same amount of water/nutes given to each plant in both cases, just given in smaller increments with multiple feeds. Plenty of anecdotal evidence of this here and elsewhere, but I don't know of anyone that has done a true side by side comparison. Seems logical that a media (coco for example) with less air retention after a flood cycle (compared to say pumice) would benefit from having it's air replenished more often via flood cycle4 than say pumice that maintains a much higher air water ratio in the first place. However to truly understand that, you'd need to know the rate at which a particular plant is utilizing available air in the media, and determine at which point (% of total air capacity used) the air is insufficient enough to negatively effect growth.

Hi, Mister_D.

We would do our best to reply to your post in full, as soon as possible.

We would only, for the sake of brevity, repost an illustration from an experiment employing a drain to no waste method, watered approximately once per day (we do hope that it will be ok to post this here, thanks).

The root depicted grew 1 inch above the bottom of the SRBGB, where absolutely no water was present, only air.

Note that the root was approximately 3 to 4 inches in length from the 1 inch height coming out of the side wall of a 1 liter SRBGB, and the floor of the `damp` trough (note the level of moisture in the trough was only 1/16 - 1/8 of an inch).

srbgb-roots-12.jpg


Reserving the discussion, but the experimental gardner might form several questions, relevant to traditional or `standard`, or even `board` standard watering practices; after having experimented with the `extreme` of watering as little as possible, as infrequently as possible, to observe any responses within conceptually (to the gardener, at least) `extreme` or `draught conditions` yet still roots formed and grew from an inch above any water, and continued to grow well over four inches laterally into only air, until finally reaching only a moderately damp basin floor.

Best,
/SRGB/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Latest posts

Exquisite Marijuana Seeds Hemp & CBD | Cannoptikum.
Top