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"!

Are Massive Roots a Good Thing?

PetFlora

PetFlora

Well-known member
ICMag Donor
Veteran
According to a college course book "Hydroponics, A Practical Guide for the Soilless Grower" NO.

Long before getting this book I was amazed at how small my root mass to harvested plant size was

Another point they make is roots should not be fat and coarse (like spaghetti strings) Plants want tons of root hairs, which is where the actual nutrient uptake happens

I have posted pics of 2 plants that I harvested today with root pics from the one of them; the other was similar

That's a 3" net pot

View attachment 424917 View attachment 424918

View attachment 424919 View attachment 424920 View attachment 424921

 
Z

zoo

Active member
RDWC says differently. Good luck growing 1-2 pound plants with a small root system lol
 
ChaosCatalunya

ChaosCatalunya

5.2 club is now 8.1 club...
Veteran
With many crops indoors with NFT we noticed that sometimes root growth was not brilliant, but yields were fine... Other times, 2" /5cm thick root mat, but no mad increasesi n yield.

We guessed that it simply pointed to them not being root restricted by that point
 
J

Junk

Member
PetFlora said:
According to a college course book "Hydroponics, A Practical Guide for the Soilless Grower" NO.

Long before getting this book I was amazed at how small my root mass to harvested plant size was

Another point they make is roots should not be fat and coarse (like spaghetti strings) Plants want tons of root hairs, which is where the actual nutrient uptake happens

I have posted pics of 2 plants that I harvested today with root pics from the one of them; the other was similar

That's a 3" net pot

View attachment 424917 View attachment 424918

View attachment 424919 View attachment 424920 View attachment 424921

Click to expand...

They don't talk about growth above = growth below? A plants growth above ground will be relatively proportioned to growth below ground no?

Your pic and reasoning, I would point something out. How much space did that plant take up (above ground) vs the actual yield? I could grow a plant that was 2' wide, in an 8" net pot in a DWC and it would yield much heavier than the above pic. And a difference would be, much larger roots. If your growing a 2' wide plant....why are you using a 3" net pot? Or was it an experiment? Bc one thing I would say is, if you want an even bigger plant, use a bigger net pot. If you go up in pot size, you go up in plant size.

I'm not being a jerk, I'm genuinely curious what the book says about that basic principle, growth above = growth below? I find you can alter it slightly with different grow methods, but as a whole, it seems an inescapable law of nature...no?
 
P

PdxFarms

Member
I've always noticed my comparable bigger yielding ladies have bigger roots upon after harvest inspection (soil)
Vise verse... Ones that don't yield as well have much smaller root mass. With similar sized canopies.
 
PetFlora

PetFlora

Well-known member
ICMag Donor
Veteran
Junk said:
They don't talk about growth above = growth below? A plants growth above ground will be relatively proportioned to growth below ground no?

Your pic and reasoning, I would point something out. How much space did that plant take up (above ground) vs the actual yield? I could grow a plant that was 2' wide, in an 8" net pot in a DWC and it would yield much heavier than the above pic. And a difference would be, much larger roots. If your growing a 2' wide plant....why are you using a 3" net pot? Or was it an experiment? Bc one thing I would say is, if you want an even bigger plant, use a bigger net pot. If you go up in pot size, you go up in plant size.

I'm not being a jerk, I'm genuinely curious what the book says about that basic principle, growth above = growth below? I find you can alter it slightly with different grow methods, but as a whole, it seems an inescapable law of nature...no?
Click to expand...

I have contemplated using bigger net pots. My reason for not doing it is convenience. I run 6 @ 3" in a bubble tote to veg/clone, then transfer the keepers to my f & d totes with lids that have 3" hole to accept the 3" net pot. This virtually eliminates transplant shock. Of course I could get a new starter tote cut to 4", but lose 2 spots (or get a bigger tote). I have been thinking about it though

I don't see you being a 'jerk', just trying to make sense of it. Simple answer, hydro is a much more efficient system. Roots do not need to hunt for food

hth
 
PetFlora

PetFlora

Well-known member
ICMag Donor
Veteran
PdxFarms said:
I've always noticed my comparable bigger yielding ladies have bigger roots upon after harvest inspection (soil)
Vise verse... Ones that don't yield as well have much smaller root mass. With similar sized canopies.
Click to expand...

The plant I took pics of is a small pheno, and should not be considered for your argument. Here's a single plant grown in the exact same system. Though I didn't take a root pic, it wasn't that much bigger

View attachment 424984 View attachment 424985
 
J

Junk

Member
PetFlora said:
I have contemplated using bigger net pots. My reason for not doing it is convenience. I run 6 @ 3" in a bubble tote to veg/clone, then transfer the keepers to my f & d totes with lids that have 3" hole to accept the 3" net pot. This virtually eliminates transplant shock. Of course I could get a new starter tote cut to 4", but lose 2 spots (or get a bigger tote). I have been thinking about it though

I don't see you being a 'jerk', just trying to make sense of it. Simple answer, hydro is a much more efficient system. Roots do not need to hunt for food

hth
Click to expand...

I understand what you are saying now.

Would that tote system be considered DWC? I don't see why it wouldn't...

For my DWC setup which is just RDWC and 5 gallon buckets, I have 4" net pots, 6", 8" and 10" and I have used them all.

The 4" will grow a very tall plant, but not super wide. Deceptively large though, and the root system is not large, not like an 8" anyway. I find the 4" consistently gives me a tall, relatively narrow plant. The 6" will essentially get a lil taller, but much wider. The 8" again a little taller but much wider. And the 10" I find just to be a waste of hydraton. It doesn't seem to do anything more than the 8" in a 5 gal bucket. Also, once the plants are top heavy, they seem to tip over easier in the 10". More than once I've had to catch a falling plant.

So in a setup like yours, a 3" - 4" is probably the best bang for the buck bc it will grow pretty large and you can fit a lot more in the tote. They will also stay narrower.

A couple unrelated q's..

How much light are you hitting those with? (and what kind of light is that? Never seen that before)

Where do you keep the water level relative to the bottom of the net pot? Those roots look like they haven't had to stretch down much, which I think helps you get the radial roots. <--I don't know the real name for them, but a root will hang vertically, the "radials" are the finer ones that branch off horizontally. What is the real term for them lol?

And the firs pics you posted, how long did you veg those for?
 
PetFlora

PetFlora

Well-known member
ICMag Donor
Veteran
Junk said:
I understand what you are saying now.

Would that tote system be considered DWC? I don't see why it wouldn't...

For my DWC setup which is just RDWC and 5 gallon buckets, I have 4" net pots, 6", 8" and 10" and I have used them all.

The 4" will grow a very tall plant, but not super wide. Deceptively large though, and the root system is not large, not like an 8" anyway. I find the 4" consistently gives me a tall, relatively narrow plant. The 6" will essentially get a lil taller, but much wider. The 8" again a little taller but much wider. And the 10" I find just to be a waste of hydraton. It doesn't seem to do anything more than the 8" in a 5 gal bucket. Also, once the plants are top heavy, they seem to tip over easier in the 10". More than once I've had to catch a falling plant.

So in a setup like yours, a 3" - 4" is probably the best bang for the buck bc it will grow pretty large and you can fit a lot more in the tote. They will also stay narrower.

A couple unrelated q's..

How much light are you hitting those with? (and what kind of light is that? Never seen that before)

Where do you keep the water level relative to the bottom of the net pot? Those roots look like they haven't had to stretch down much, which I think helps you get the radial roots. <--I don't know the real name for them, but a root will hang vertically, the "radials" are the finer ones that branch off horizontally. What is the real term for them lol?

And the firs pics you posted, how long did you veg those for?
Click to expand...

The veg/clone tote could be considered DWC, but depth is only 5-6". I am planning to go with lpa this veg.

In the starter tote water line is slightly above the net pot bottom, which allows for lateral root development. In F & D the roots get fed periodically, again reaching ~ half way up the net pot, also allows for more lateral root development. I go ~ 2-4 hours between floods, Since the majority of the root system is below the net pot, I am not convinced net pot diameter plays a major role

I veg only long enough for roots to get long enough so they will get a proper drink when in the F & D totes.

I solved tipping plants with the Cube (see pic), but on the 2 I just harvested, I used a couple paver bricks

The light is a BML SPYDR 600 (~ 360w), which spreads light evenly across the canopy (max of 4 x 4). It can be adjusted from 2 to 4ft. The closer the bars, the greater the umoles. Since that plant was wide, I had to spread the bars

Pic of 3 plants. 2 in the cubes are same F1 seed stock, obviously, widely different phenos, and one in my bubbler. She's been in there longer than I wanted due to slow finishing of the 2 that I just harvested. Will be moving her to F & D today

hth

View attachment 424995

View attachment 424996 View attachment 424997 View attachment 424998


 
Rabbi

Rabbi

Member
PetFlora said:
According to a college course book "Hydroponics, A Practical Guide for the Soilless Grower" NO.

Long before getting this book I was amazed at how small my root mass to harvested plant size was

Another point they make is roots should not be fat and coarse (like spaghetti strings) Plants want tons of root hairs, which is where the actual nutrient uptake happens

I have posted pics of 2 plants that I harvested today with root pics from the one of them; the other was similar

That's a 3" net pot

View attachment 424917 View attachment 424918

View attachment 424919 View attachment 424920 View attachment 424921

Click to expand...

Yikes dude, you have a super bad pythium issue. Dealing with the same thing myself right now. Sucks.
 
Rabbi

Rabbi

Member
Just realized this thread is a couple years old. My bad. Hopefully you got the pythium issues worked out. Still working on mine.
 
B

Big Nasty

Active member
rezzinater said:
Would it be fair to assume cannopy growth and root growth are connected?
Click to expand...
Yes indeed,what you want is a massive and healthy root mass that means bigger plant and bigger harvest;btw you don't have to do anything special,just keep water temp in the right range and use fresh solution once every 2 week,roots will grow just fine.
Then the final weight is not related to the biggest rootmass you can grow in general but is related to the biggest rootmass for that single plant you're growing.
 
Weird

Weird

3rd-Eye Jedi
Veteran
fwiw according to Cornell the method I use won't work over the term but it does so I would take all of that with a grain of salt



it is easy enough to do trials in your local environment and gauge results based on reality not white paper information
 
OneHitDone

OneHitDone

Member
PetFlora said:
According to a college course book "Hydroponics, A Practical Guide for the Soilless Grower" NO.

Long before getting this book I was amazed at how small my root mass to harvested plant size was

Another point they make is roots should not be fat and coarse (like spaghetti strings) Plants want tons of root hairs, which is where the actual nutrient uptake happens

I have posted pics of 2 plants that I harvested today with root pics from the one of them; the other was similar

That's a 3" net pot

View attachment 424917 View attachment 424918

View attachment 424919 View attachment 424920 View attachment 424921

Click to expand...

Ideally you want your whole container files with a fibrous root mass.
Nice to see you over here too bro - damn you've been a member here for a few
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Latest posts

Top