Kozmo's World
- Thread starter Kozmo
- Start date
BigBozat
Member
Did we annoy the natives to the point of them just wanting to go
? Tell me to
if I need to be less... loquacious?
BigBozat
Member
Is the speckling the AgSil?
Looks like some of 'em [esp early pic] were still wet from being sprayed?
What's the height of your lamp?
What r u using for a lamp for these at this stage, anyway? The LED? Or ???
How many questions do I have left?
The AgSil is just mixed in with the water I moisten the soil with. This picture was taken after a foliar. Sorry about that. I was in a hurry.
The height of the four T5's is about 4 inches away. BUT I also have a CFL very close to her as well. This CFL brings the temp to around 76-78 degrees.
The height of the four T5's is about 4 inches away. BUT I also have a CFL very close to her as well. This CFL brings the temp to around 76-78 degrees.
BigBozat
Member
So, wondering if you have consumed some of Astera's book and revisited, e.g., the composition of your local compost?
One obvious thing that now jumps out at me: shitty Cal:Mag ratio (and very low amounts)...
Your mineral & organic matter amendments need to add lots of Cal. Per Astera (and Albrecht, Reams and all the others who espouse the Cation Balancing theory of soil remineralization), the Cal:Mag ratio should be something like 4:1 ~ 6:1, where it's not even 2.5:1 in the Purp Cow.
We don't know the CEC of the compost (or, more importantly, the CEC of the final mix after all components are added), but given it's fairly high C:N ratio and ingredients list, we can probably fairly safely assume something pretty typical of composted organic matter, let's say, 200 ~ 300 CEC.
From that, and the guidelines in Astera's book, we could calculate how much more Cal (and maybe Mag) your amendments really need to add to get your cations balanced...
BigBozat
Member
Well, it's not just the [seemingly] low %, but also the balance vis-a-vis other cations. I suspect as we walk thru the rest of the Purp Cow numbers, the other cations (and anions!) are likely out-of-balance, too...
Got a soil pH meter? Take readings...
I know, I know, normally in org soil you shouldn't have to be dicking with pH and whatnot... but I'm curious... could be, if the stuff is *really* out of balance, that the severity of the imbalance shows up in the pH...
What other data points would help diagnose?
Soil temp? Canopy temp? Logging data, as tedious and un-fun as that can be, is the plant scientist's best friend...
BigBozat
Member
Re-Threaded Perched Water Table Reply
Re-Threaded Perched Water Table Reply
Over on TM's thread you said:
First thing to recognize: containers are different than beds are different than...
In containers, with a soil mix with an average particle size of 0.25mm (or less), a perched water table will form at the bottom of the container due to the forces of capillary action, adhesion and cohesion attracting water particles together to resist the action of gravity.
In beds, the forces of adhesion (fewer container sides) and cohesion (broader surface area to saturate) are very different...
All of this discussion/debate is really about whether adding something like hydroton - i.e., something with vastly different physical, chemical & structural properties than your base growing mix - as a bottom 'aeration' layer promotes better drainage/aeration... in containers. It applies, but somewhat differently, and to a lesser extent, in beds.
As long as your bed height accommodates both the hydroton layer and the needed depth of the growing substrate, you should be fine.
Just don't expect/believe that the hydroton layer is improving drainage... it is not. It is, rather, doing whatever else it is that you want the hydroton to be doing... in the case of the bed, presumably to mitigate risk of clogging exit lines?
What it's telling you is that your soil wasn't fully saturated and that some of the initial run-off was simply being poured down the sides of the containers (adhesion, cohesion) instead of spreading out to saturate your growing media/substrate.
I guess to sum up from my end:
I am not quite so sanguine as you about the frequency with which an 'aeration layer' in containers is ever really appropriate.
Notwithstanding the claimed side-by-side experimental results by [I can't remember who I was discussing with?], I remain very dubious that even an orchid bark layer (which, really isn't considered an 'aeration' amendment, and its properties are likely so close to his base mix that it's effectively the same thing) can really 'improve' drainage/aeration in the container, in the sense of somehow making the water saturate & drain faster/better than the base substrate allows... unless orchid bark mix has some magical physico-chemical properties that I'm not aware of that magically 'suctions' down the water from the above layer, it's just not possible (it would upturn 50+ years of established soil science, and my ex-brother-in-law would be out of a career)...
I don't quite understand/can't quite visualize what the issues are that you're talking about in re: collecting the initial run-off back up from the bed? But, I don't think it matters, from my perspective. All I'm saying is that the hydroton won't improve drainage in containers with typical potting soils...
Re-Threaded Perched Water Table Reply
Over on TM's thread you said:
Kozmo said:
First thing to recognize: containers are different than beds are different than...
In containers, with a soil mix with an average particle size of 0.25mm (or less), a perched water table will form at the bottom of the container due to the forces of capillary action, adhesion and cohesion attracting water particles together to resist the action of gravity.
In beds, the forces of adhesion (fewer container sides) and cohesion (broader surface area to saturate) are very different...
All of this discussion/debate is really about whether adding something like hydroton - i.e., something with vastly different physical, chemical & structural properties than your base growing mix - as a bottom 'aeration' layer promotes better drainage/aeration... in containers. It applies, but somewhat differently, and to a lesser extent, in beds.
As long as your bed height accommodates both the hydroton layer and the needed depth of the growing substrate, you should be fine.
Just don't expect/believe that the hydroton layer is improving drainage... it is not. It is, rather, doing whatever else it is that you want the hydroton to be doing... in the case of the bed, presumably to mitigate risk of clogging exit lines?
What it's telling you is that your soil wasn't fully saturated and that some of the initial run-off was simply being poured down the sides of the containers (adhesion, cohesion) instead of spreading out to saturate your growing media/substrate.
I guess to sum up from my end:
I am not quite so sanguine as you about the frequency with which an 'aeration layer' in containers is ever really appropriate.
Notwithstanding the claimed side-by-side experimental results by [I can't remember who I was discussing with?], I remain very dubious that even an orchid bark layer (which, really isn't considered an 'aeration' amendment, and its properties are likely so close to his base mix that it's effectively the same thing) can really 'improve' drainage/aeration in the container, in the sense of somehow making the water saturate & drain faster/better than the base substrate allows... unless orchid bark mix has some magical physico-chemical properties that I'm not aware of that magically 'suctions' down the water from the above layer, it's just not possible (it would upturn 50+ years of established soil science, and my ex-brother-in-law would be out of a career)...
I don't quite understand/can't quite visualize what the issues are that you're talking about in re: collecting the initial run-off back up from the bed? But, I don't think it matters, from my perspective. All I'm saying is that the hydroton won't improve drainage in containers with typical potting soils...
Thanks Bo. Your always looking out for me. First: I meant After the run off accumulates in the tray underneath the pot I just take that tray and dump the water back into the pot from which the plant that I just watered is in. Get it?
Second: My original use was not for drainage it was just to keep the soil from running through. All observations after that were just coincidental. To tell you the truth I don't think I will put anything down.
Last day out of town tomorrow, can't wait to get back with updates.
Second: My original use was not for drainage it was just to keep the soil from running through. All observations after that were just coincidental. To tell you the truth I don't think I will put anything down.
Last day out of town tomorrow, can't wait to get back with updates.
BigBozat
Member
I got that about rewetting your pots with collected initial runoff... I juz dinna understand it, Capn [<- my best Scotty imitation], in regards to the bed? Were you planning to collect runoff from saturating beds? Maybe I need to refocus on what your bed design is, cuz I must be missing sumpin? [lmao, who'd a thunk the ADD guy :me: had focus issues?] Dinna really matta, Capn...
I was looking to avoid a lot of argument about the PWT/aeration bottom layer stuff
It gets exhausting, I don't really have a dog in the fight ('tho I do tend to be unkind to falsehoods
), and I'm not hearing anything that's changing my mind [yet?]... so I just figured I'd go here and answer your Qs about bottom layers & perched water tables (if any), at least as best I understand it, one last time. TM's got his practice/routine... I think he honestly thought it was common knowledge/best practice, it just ain't, at least in most containers/most container soils.
Honestly, I dinna think it's really that big a deal... as long as you don't create such a high perched water table that you leave the main grow substrate constantly waterlogged (or not enough depth/bulk density to adequately anchor the plant), it's not like you're committing mortal sins {just be prepared for correction if you recommend your practice to others who don't know any better}
Another claims magic for orchid bark... which I use, too, I just use it thru out my mix & I don't claim that it represents a different layer w/ an interface to the main grow substrate... honestly, orchid bark isn't usually considered 'aeration', and using it as a base layer under the typical container soil is basically the same thing as having it all one mix - or close enough, in terms of the relevant physico-chemical properties, as to be moot.
You use it just to prevent erosion. Perfectly legit. No claim of superation 'aeration' drainage, or downward capillary action magic. There's nothin to weigh in on.
Different strokes, different folks, different reasons, different measures for success, different results.
There's gotta be an appropriate emoticon for that some where...
Yeah, they need one of a guy skinning a rabbit. Haha. There's more than one way. Who knows I might put something down. It's all going to hinge on these Geo-pots. Ill wait till it shows up. Assemble it and see what my options are and/or if I want to customize any particular aspect about it.
BigBozat
Member
Damn straight! Listen, learn, ask Qs, get answers, take it all in... then do what ya want, and find out how it goes... rinse & repeat... thus churns the dharma wheel..
LED addition
LED addition
Have a couple LED's added to the room. Blackstar by light house. These were donated for free. Much love for Farmer Tony! The HGL is around 175 watts at the wall(not sure how that pic got upside down.) and the Black star are 115w and 125w(a bulb or two are burnt out in them.).
LED addition
Have a couple LED's added to the room. Blackstar by light house. These were donated for free. Much love for Farmer Tony! The HGL is around 175 watts at the wall(not sure how that pic got upside down.) and the Black star are 115w and 125w(a bulb or two are burnt out in them.).
