AN CarboLoad, is it really that good?

[EclipseFour20]

dododododododododo twilight zone dododododododododo

Papaduck is nuts!

Help...someone save us from PapaDuche!

 

[glow]

Quack quack hack hack. Stop hijacking the thread and attempting to derail it. I am sort of wondering though what any of this has to do with Carboload.

 

[papaduc]

It's a thread about carboload mate... I don't think anyone's that bothered.

Pictures of ducks are well better

And you get to watch eclipse melt down again in the bargain

 

[glow]

Yes you have a PR issue

 

[papaduc]

 

[milkyjoe]

Do you think by crook I mean you're not the owner of a website?

What I mean is you take other people's work, add your twist to it, and pass it off as your own. Forget trying to blind me about who came up with the concept of electroneutrality in hydroponic solutions to avoid what I said before, your words in that post I quoted are clearly structured to make people believe they are your own.

They were copied and pasted, lifted directly from another source with your own twist added.

It's easy to decipher when you're speaking your own mind, because some of the diatribe you come out with, the people whose papers you cite in your crude references would never write.

"organic is a load of wank"...

How many academic journals do you think it would take to wash away the ignorance of a statement like that?

Let's just analyse that statement for a minute, and your comments about plants so far.

The only pictures you've posted appear to be outdoors.

Did you grow those hydroponically outdoors?
If so, for what purpose?

Your whole point is that organically grown weed is sub par low yielding shit... but those plants don't look like they yield any more than anything else stuck in the ground and left to grow. In fact there are organic growers on this site and others whose crops dwarf what you've shown us there.

If we focus instead on your application of the study of beneficial bacteria in hydroponics, what you're saying is contradictory to what has been found and researched in studies of the subject over the years and conveys a fundamental lack of understanding of the subject in application.

You talk about air filters in order to prevent airborne pathogens from entering into your reservoir water, but at the same time you're talking about beneficial bacteria being used as an effective preventative mechanism in place of more common methods of sterilisation such as sodium/calcium hypochlorite; methods which would not require the meticulous attention to control of such comparatively weak inoculum sources.

If what you're asserting is true, and the number of pythium spores contained just in the air brought in by your pump is enough alone to colonise the system, then it fundamentally weakens the argument for the efficacy of the practice.

Allied to this, it completely disregards the small and incomplete studies which show the potential effect of bacterial inoculation in the control over preexisting microbial populations.

In other words, you seem to have no clear grasp whatsoever on what you're talking about in regards to the results it's application yields in a practical setting.

But that's understandable, because nobody else does either. Not as of Oct 2014. Nothing clear and conclusive anyway. Maybe you could write a paper of your own to conclude your findings, and then maybe the world of science can learn something from you.

Cannabis is a simple herb, and my advice to people on this website is structured as such. I can say for sure that everyone who has followed my advice has had very good results. There are people who have never grown before who achieve results they are proud and happy with, who have thanked me for my input at the end, and that is why I'm here.

You spoke to someone just recently and told them 1.1ec was a low strength for full bloom. It's comments like those, as well as your ignorance in regards to organic gardening and seeming lack of knowledge of what healthy plants look like, which makes a mockery of your claims to be a knowledge on the subject.

1.0ec is the level of nutrient solution Heath Robinson used to break 2gpw.

1.0ec is also the level of nutrients I and many other growers use to grow my plants from beginning to end and break 1gpw consistently on many strains.

1.0-1.2ec of a properly balanced nutrient profile is all many growers will need to use to keep their plants in perfect health from the beginning to the end of their life.

You also talked about GH 3 part giving you more control over your nutrient profile than adjusting a one part because of it's three piece structure, omitting the fact that you are bound by the individual formula of each bottle when adjusting your basic ratios of NPK. In that sense they give you less control than two basic one part nutrients such as maxigrow & bloom, or some others on the market which allow you to adjust your NPK ratio, in the case of MB removing nitrogen almost entirely from the solution, while more easily maintaining the same/similar balance of all other secondary macros and micros.

In the end your results are the proof of your methods. Nothing else. Copy all the research papers in the world, but in the end if all you've got to show for it is some bang average plants in a garden, all you've proved is that cannabis is a simple herb complicated by idiots.

And if my plants look battered and abused, starved and neglected, you're in a minority of one on that. Or maybe there are other people who don't mind sacrificing some credibility in order to have a dig.

I actually agree with you regarding AN and what you say about certain aspects of feeding. It's a shame you invalidate it with the other garbage you come out with.

At an ec of 1 do you know what ppm N you are at? Definitely looks like the gg4 guys have come around to your thinking on ec.

 

[glow]

At an ec of 1 do you know what ppm N you are at? Definitely looks like the gg4 guys have come around to your thinking on ec.

Wow, you actually read that? He makes a huge mistake in that he omits to mention the difference between RTW/DTW and recycling nutrient requirements and luxury nutrient ranges and irrigation frequency etc.

Here's another paper for you Mr Duck re oxidants. I doubt you'll understand it but give it a shot (sorry I couldn't find anything with pictures to help you out). Keep in mind that coco is high in lignin, cellulose etc as you read. And then come back and say I have it wrong again which of course you will. I should perhaps thank you as you've now got me running the stoichiometry on some chems and their reactions with various organic materials in coir pith. Seems I better go into great detail on this in my next edition because people (chemtards) like you are out their feeding growers bad info. One hopes to god you don't work in a hydro store (although given the bullshit spread by this industry you possibly do - prob with having unqualified minimum wage workers teaching agricultural science to unqualified growers ----- the blind leading the blind). Actually can't upload it because apparently its too large for forum limits so here's the link to the PDF ==== http://etd.lsu.edu/docs/available/etd-11042005-161219/unrestricted/Lee_thesis.pdf

PS, while the question is sort of like asking how long is a piece of string, if you had 1EC and you used the US 500ppm = 1EC standard (which is a tad out because most scientists express what is essentially an imperfect measurement at 550ppm = 1EC) and a nutrient working solution that was 5%w/v NPK in solution you would have 25ppm of N in solution which is not nearly enough. This, however, needn't be accurate because all chemicals have different electrical charges and this is what EC measures and you'd need to know all the elemental values of the nutrient to get it right. By the way, in a recycling system 25 - 50ppm of N could be taken from the system in as little as 1 day (or less - dependent on variables such as plant size and numbers). Other than this are we talking RO or mains tap water?? - where the mains water alone may have an EC of 0.8 - I.0. Basically, though you'd need to know a bunch of variables and then you could run a few simple equations. However, to pinch someone else's lab analysis from IC Mag of Canna Coco at 1.1EC you have total N at 115 ppm in the working solution. Canna Coco has a high N to K ratio so I would guess that the average nutrient (bloom) would have about 80ppm N in 1EC while a grow nute you could roughly say would have about 100 - 120ppm in 1EC. What you can do is use some online calculators that work out ppm in solution. You'll find one at http://www.manicbotanix.com/calculators/ppm-in-solution-calc.php - use your nutrient labels %w/v or %w/w go for roughly 1.5 - 2ml/L and equate 500ppm = 1EC. This way you can work out how much N you have using your nutrient at 1EC.

 

[milkyjoe]

What one bottle nute do you prefer? I can do the reverse engineering.

 

[acridlab]

If it's only sugar water,, I wanna c somebody drink a liter of the shit,, I got 5 on it..

 

[NEGT1]

It depends on the nutrient and the background ec to begin with. It's no surprise that people will find it works well because on all strains right across the board it works well. There are adjustments to be made for certain strains obviously, but that is a good baseline to work from.



Yes, he actually read it, because even though it might hurt you to know, the advice I give on here is solid, easy to understand, and validated by the results it achieves for whoever follows it.



Right, before you bullshit another person, let's just get some clarity on this

The post I was referring to was this



So, who is omitting variables?

You made a sweeping statement which is fundamentally wrong, and now you're trying to evade the point by throwing in variability and other factors which YOU omitted in the first place in giving out bad advice to someone who was NOT growing with a recycling nutrient solution.

Yes you must take into account tap water ec, and obviously the ratio of the nutrients, but most growers know these basics and do not need you to condescend to them with your pseudo scientific waffle.

You won't challenge the fundamental facts of what I say because ultimately you can't. So move on.



It's you who doesn't understand it.

Again

This is getting really boring for me now, but I will continue to do it so people can see who you really are.

This thread is following a theme: You're challenged by someone who can understand the citation of research papers and see your crude manipulation of facts.

You go away and find a new, different research paper.

Repeat...

It is absolutely tedious.

All you are proving is that you are not a scholar and you are not qualified to talk about these subjects as you do.



I bet that made life hard



Of course I will. Read above. You're predictable. Boring.

When you cite these papers, and they take 20 seconds to download, and the scroll bar is minute.... do you think that I'll be overwhelmed by it? Scared away?

It took me seconds to see which part of the text would be relevant to our "discussion" and two minutes of reading to see which parts, again, prove you wrong.

Another waste of my time. All 5 minutes of it.

The lignin structure of coco is not depleted in any way by the amounts of h2o2 or chlorine present in a nutrient feed.

This research paper again, clearly proves that you cannot find evidence on the whole internet and calls into question - as if it wasn't already - how you have been studying this subject for what? 20 years? And still in the very immediate day have to run around scouring research papers you clearly have not taken the time to read, to assert points and theory which are fundamentally incorrect.



I know.



Chemtards. Very scientific




You don't need to upload it. 99% of it is non pertinent. Every single piece of it is referring to situations which are completely and utterly abstract from what we're talking about in regard to growing in coir as a substrate.

One bit I did find interesting is this:

"the brown rot basidiomycetes are
able to depolymerize wood cellulosic structure without removing the lignin portions"

I could easily take this wildly out of context and make the assertion that bacteria should not be used in coco, because they break it down.

I wouldn't, obviously, because it would be a gross misinterpretation of what's being said.



Do you think you need to condescend to the people of this website about the simple matter of conversion factor?

Maybe you need to find another place to flex your internet ego, because a lot of people round can see through this bullshit, as evidenced by milkyjoe's reply to you.



Well the question is, why didn't you ask these questions yourself in the post I initially referenced which started all this?

Every single thing you say at this point is contradictory and hypocritical because you never did that. Your blanket statement was "1.1ec is a low strength for full bloom"

People know about tap water and that is the only variable which myself and everyone else should include when talking about final EC value.



I keep my advice simple and sweet for a reason: Because we're growing cannabis.

The only variables you need are the tap water ec and the nutrient profile of the base feed you're using.

I work around that to give advice to everyone and there is no need whatsoever to go into the bullshit you are talking. Cannabis is a broad range feeder and you do not know what mineral elements it is taking at which time, beyond that it is or is not feeding, and the majority of the time in a dtw setup you will not even monitor that, and you do not need to.

Cannabis is not a difficult plant to keep happy right until the day it is chopped. To nutrient burn it as badly as whoever maintained those in your pictures suggests to me that whoever was in charge of the feeding got something basic quite wrong at some point.

And that is the proof of your methods. Nothing else.

Either they are your pictures and you messed up, or they're not and you're lying. You can take either one of those.



The addition, even according to Canna themselves - who would have a reason for selling an extra bottle - of your basic tap water, back to your RO water, to bring it to 0.2, is all you need to set your base water level correctly.

That you're advising people they need calmag to do this makes a mockery of what you're saying about the hydro industry. It's exactly because of the perpetuation of lies like this that people have 100 nutrients they don't even need.



This is absolute rubbish.

Canna themselves, in fact most nutrient manufacturers will tell you if you contact them that their nutrients are complete from the floor up. Meaning that on a background ec of zero they will contain every mineral element in solution to promote the growth of perfect plants provided they're fed at the right levels.

Cannabis nutrients are a boutique profile of nutrition for any plant you will ever grow.

You will rarely find a tomato food which contains the profile of elements which cannabis foods do, yet even those can be used to grow fantastic plants. That should tell you everything you need to know about how we go above and beyond what we need due largely to the misinterpretation of facts by people such as yourself.



Waffle. That's all that is. I don't know how I have the patience.

You need to lift nothing. In 2014 your base nutrient should have everything in a perfect profile and if it doesn't get another one.

Fiddling with your Mg ppm or the ppm of any other individual element is something that has got to be validated by results, and your results are not here to see. And that is no surprise to me whatsoever, because if I could do one thing now which would put into perspective everything you say, it would be to show everyone your plants.

People suggesting these things need to provide evidence of the incremental increases in yield and quality that these methods return. And in all my time on the internet I have never seen a single person who can. You are no different.



It is obvious, to everyone.

It should have been even more obvious to him, seeing as how it was his post I was quoting.




Based on this:


and this


I think you're absolutely right.

Do you have pics of your garden anywhere?

 

[milkyjoe]

You stateside mate?



Can we nominate people?

I've got 2 in mind

Yes. But if there is a better one somewhere else that works to. Gonna copy it not ship water

 

[papaduc]

Do you have pics of your garden anywhere?

You can look in my album, but my old camera broke about 6 months ago and I haven't replaced it because I'm looking into getting a good one and not another cheapy. I'll have a new one soon. Some really sexy girls I took down last night which I would love to have pictures of. Soon enough though I'll be back on it.

It's one of the best things sharing your pictures and harvest time isn't the same without a camera. I don't know how people can not want to do it. I had my fears initially but after some good advice I got to it. Each to their own.

Yes.

Maxigrow & bloom are perfect then.

 

[milkyjoe]

Thanks man. And some of us do see what is going on. Fight the good fight brother. I got no energy for it anymore

 

[yortbogey]

Enough w/ the off topic crap... and personal shit storms... play nice, stay on the subject... and STOP the bullshitt, ranting, and trouble making.... ALL OF U....

next one to get out of line get a few days off too think about there actions....

final warning or suffer the BAN, and another closed thread due to outlandish childish behavior....

every one is grown here.... act like the adults U are and stop the flame war...NOW

PLZ~last warning folks....

 

[yortbogey]

ok...folks lets sty on the subject @ hand.... any more shit storms will reslut in another useful thread getting binned... and the offending member getting a week off to consider there actions....

plz play nice

 

[acridlab]

All in all,, I really like it,, I will use it hear and there, in veg, to feed some bennies, etc. Last me a loong time, so if I'm getting scammed, whatever..
I prefer bud candy in flower, but I cut it out
4 weeks before chop, on a ten week strain.. it definitely improves oil production, don't know exactly how it works it just does,, kinda like posi-trac....
Like most growers say,, most nutes will do well, it's all preference.. but I can say, it's awesome in promix, or similar peat n perlite mediums..
it does better than Aquaflakes in my setup, if that says anything.. plus I haven't had bugs n a long time, knock on wood..and I believe that molasses is huge on luring aphids into my grow,, another reason I go with Carboload in veg.. anyhow,, everyone's got they're thing. And I respect that... a.n flowers,, peace

 

[glow]

View Image View Image View Image View Image View Image All in all,, I really like it,, I will use it hear and there, in veg, to feed some bennies, etc. Last me a loong time, so if I'm getting scammed, whatever..
I prefer bud candy in flower, but I cut it out
4 weeks before chop, on a ten week strain.. it definitely improves oil production, don't know exactly how it works it just does,, kinda like posi-trac....
Like most growers say,, most nutes will do well, it's all preference.. but I can say, it's awesome in promix, or similar peat n perlite mediums..
it does better than Aquaflakes in my setup, if that says anything.. plus I haven't had bugs n a long time, knock on wood..and I believe that molasses is huge on luring aphids into my grow,, another reason I go with Carboload in veg.. anyhow,, everyone's got they're thing. And I respect that... a.n flowers,, peace

Actually mate, there definitely is a value to using Carboload as bennie food - particularly for fungi species (e.g. trichoderma). This said, it's a hell of an expensive way of going about it and you could do better with a potato dextrose broth concentrate. potato dextrose broths (or agars) are what they use in microbiology for breeding fungi in lab settings.

 

[glow]

If it's only sugar water,, I wanna c somebody drink a liter of the shit,, I got 5 on it..

Great way to rot your teeth and get a jelly belly. How much are you offering on this dare. You can't make a dare and not make an offer of money or something else in return.

 

[acridlab]

^^^ I said I had 5 on it
N good info on cheaper/better ways to feed the bennies. Much appreciated. Once I have more time to get serious, I will definitely look into stuff like that. But at the moment,, we are slammed,, have a baby due in a few weeks! So stuff like carboload is very convenient,, as is all advanced.. same amount for every part,,I rock 5ml/gal. On everything now. Works well andiI can literally mix, shake n pour.. vacuum run off, and jet.. that's why I stick with a.n now.. simplicity and speed.. peace

 

[glow]

^^^ I said I had 5 on it
N good info on cheaper/better ways to feed the bennies. Much appreciated. Once I have more time to get serious, I will definitely look into stuff like that. But at the moment,, we are slammed,, have a baby due in a few weeks! So stuff like carboload is very convenient,, as is all advanced.. same amount for every part,,I rock 5ml/gal. On everything now. Works well andiI can literally mix, shake n pour.. vacuum run off, and jet.. that's why I stick with a.n now.. simplicity and speed.. peace

Yep - see your point. If it aint broke don't fix it. I'll post some stuff soon about bennies and potato dextrose broth.