Marijuana and Milk

I was reading up on industrial hemp and I read that the American Hemp Historic Association says that if hemp is nourished with milk (or any high calcium fluids) it will grow stronger and faster.

im guessing it would be dilluted with water and fed to the plants like normal. i dont know if this milk thing really works, has anyone tried doing this with their plants ever?

heres my source, down where it talks about ecological benefits


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_hemp

does anyone have any insights on this???

wikipedia? lol...

A lot of professors and real experts all pronounce wikipedia is a shameful site. Just anyone can make up that crap. Ask any professional and they will tell you that sight is full of misleading information. If something that rediable made that much of a difference we would all know by now.

yea.. I listen to my profs denounce wikipedia all day long but personally I think there is some good info there.. just take it with a grain of salt.

While I think they are more talking about industrial uses (i.e. large scale) I believe if you want to get calcium to your plants then tap water will do the trick. If you really want to get fancy then use RO water with Cal-Mag plus.

diluted milk works great as a spray for powdery mildew

That is true! according to my good pal zandor.

thanks for the tips tirs. how many parts milks to water? i deal with pm outdoors

i believe he meant FOR not AGAINST...but i could be mistaking...
oldsterone-OG said what he uses against pm in the "Indian Swamp Gungi Grow Method - From OG"

Pasteurized?

Pasteurized?

Pasteurized milk = Dead milk

Raw Milk = Millions of live beneficial Bacteria

Do you think there is a difference? I believe pasteurized milk is useless in these applications...

On another note, I've seen farmers spread unused milk as fertilizer on fields when something impeded them from selling it to humans. (ecoli etc.)

thats what i was thinking as well, the raw milk might be very beneficial to the plant. i use cal mag plus often and in jorge cervantes medical growers bible he says that calcium ensures proper flow of nitrogen and sugars and it helps build strong cell and root walls.

raw milk is way cheaper then cal mag and can be bought at certain healthfood stores i believe

wikipedia has alot of useful information on it. they have a rather large page on marijuana cultivation as well which provides alot of useful information to novice growers

hey sorry I was away. this might be useful to some.

http://www.thefrugallife.com/mildew.html

interesting.......

I do know from personal experience that watering tomato plants with milk will stop blossom end rot, a tomato disease contributed to by calcium deficiencies.

As far as cannabis goes, in an organic setting gypsum would be as benifical as pasturized milk for upping available Ca in the soil. I am unaware of what all types of benificial microbes may live in 'raw' milk.

"Hey... why does this bud taste like sour milk curds?"



re: Wikipedia - Jaron Lanier, one of the pioneers of V.R. research, nailed it pretty well: be calls it 'Digital Maoism'.

It's better to take a tiny bit of possible inaccuracy to ensure your 'truth' isn't being dictated by publishing companies and overzealous editors.

What people who feel wikipedia is not accurate enough fail to realize is that there is no TRUTH oversight organization. In other words the encyclopedias you read aren't accurate either. The learning institutions you go to have no claim for accuracy either. Your prof is just dictating ideas he was taught, he doesn't KNOW they are true or not.

If we let ONE entity control the truth we are doomed to learn whatever truths that entity wants us to learn. Places like wikipedia might be tainted by a few overzealous posters from time to time, but whatever damage they do is usually very limited and reversable and minor compared to the service that wikipedia provides.
All in all wiki is a great resource and anyone dissing it hasn't really used it much because it's actually quite useful and just as accurate as anything else. I'd rather consider a source with multiple contributors the truth than a source with one or two main contributors who consider themselves experts.
College teachers are considered experts also, but you know they have to come up with orginal ideas for PH'D and such. Sometimes you just gotta wing the truth you know. A PH'D thesis might seem like a good place to get accurate info from, but really it's not because the person has the intent of gaining a PH'D as their goal, not propogating the truth.

Your living in a time where intelligent design is probably covered in Britanica and you think wikipedia is not accurate enough.. cmon. Don't dis user driven website, they are the shit.. What the hell do you think ICMAG is ?

Why don't you just go around telling people not to use ICMag since anyone can post making it inaccurate.

Sounds more like your 'experts' disagreed with a wiki post and so they attack the credibility of wiki. I use wiki ALL the time and it's great from tutorials to political news wiki hold information that you can't even find easily anywhere else. I bet the latest britanica collection doesn't have awesome Blender tutorials or the latest news of Iran's nuclear capability.

Go look through your encycolpedia for references to the USA giving Iran nuclear secrets from 1950-1970. Have you ever heard of Operation Condor? I bet you won't find that in your standard references easily. The US is a the king of disinformation. We may as well have invented the art having taken it to the next levels. This means we need things like wikipedia to record events that publishers refuse to print. Events like the controversial Gore vs Bush election and the broken Diebold systems. Beside a few newspaper articles that kind of shit just gets swept under the rug in a couple decades because it's all wealthy elite assholes who own media organizations. Just look at the recent OJ book deal for a sign of the integrity of the written word. GO REAGAN BOOKS and NEW Corp *The parent company of Fox News*

At least wiki has feedback you know. People can voice their opinion when something is wrong. In paper formet there is little to no feedback and if you read only one source your doomed to the inaccuracies of that one source.

So no matter how you spin it wiki is quite useful, even if occasionally users bend the truth, because things are really no different from any other source of info except wiki allows immediate feedback.

Your experts might find out they are simply supporters of the wrong side of the truth hence your bias against wikipedia. A format like wikipedia would be a great upgrade to something like the grow FAQ. Ultimately something like wikipedia will get you closer to the truth than static sources because the truth is pretty much dynamic also. It's better to know your sources aren't right from god than it is to assume that everything you read is true. Your better off doubting your sources no matter where they are from AND it's human nature to do so, hence the wikipedia skeptics.

The fact is that there is no such thing as truly reliable source and fact that the common truth of today could easily become the lies of yesterday pretty much invalidate any claim that wikipedia is not reliable enough. If you dont like the info then post your own you know. I've learned a lot through wikipedia that is not commonly available from other source or is simply so scattered that the info is useless to me. Tutorials are especially useful from wikipedia because they can easily be made to link together in step by step form and you can just keep linking more and more info together.

You could proabably take all the good info from ICmag and throw it together in a much more readable format in wiki PLUS it wouldn't get taken down for being part of a seed company. One of the beauties of WIKI that you fail to realize is that they have no real interest in shaping the opinion of the readers. Most of these FREE services on the internet have hidden motives such as ICmag or OG. These sites are no here just for the community. These places are all business and they are selling products. Wikipedia is selling nothing but rather provided a needed service. I would beleive info on wikipedia long before I'd beleive it on ICmag for instance because ICmag has censorship and behind the scenes motives going on. Wikipedia just has a bunch of people argueing over the truth, which to me is the ideal situation since I beleive the truth is never static. We as humans are simply too stupid to come upon any complete truth. Even the theories of relativity and quantum dynamics (some of the best work of humans) is full of logic problems and flaws that we slowly compensate for and add in new detals as we discover them. Hence an example of how truth is best left to a dynamic community rather than written in stone because humans just aren't smart enough to ultimately declare anything to be 100% true. Some people would even argue there is no such thing as absolute truth.
I've used wiki a lot and it's plenty accurate and it's ultimately far more useful than any static reference and much more reasonable to use than doing all your own research and probably more accuarte also since as we know to error is human. What issues on wikipedia do you actually have beef with? Keeping in mind that wikipedia isn't just for facts you know. I mean they articles on bigfoot and other such mythology or legend but the articles usually point out that most scientists do not support the idea of bigfoot, but there you have your problem with truth.

While most people certainly don't believe in Bigfoot and most scientists do not making it a highly skeptical idea, there are a significant amount of people and real scientists who beleive enough in Bigfoot that they want to find proof of his existence. You see this is another example of why wikipedia is better. It's clearly allowing everyone to have a say, not just the mainstream. This is important because.. well Bigfoot really could exist. It wouldn't be the first time the masses and science were wrong you know.

Look on the other hand at something like Global Warming which while orginally was laughed at and disbeleived by the masses. Now Global warming has the support of most people and scientists. It's funny how the accepted truth can change to quickly. Just imagine if tomorrow someone finds are new more supported cause for global warming. The truth will have to be completely re-written... again.

The dinosaurs... WTF is the truth there? Did meteor hit them or was it a super volcano or just sudden climate change. What does your encylopedia say ? Probably not as much up to date info as wikipedia huh.

I'm just showing you how the truth is not set in stone and the supposed 'experts' disagreeing with wikipedia is pretty much a given and pretty much doesn't matter. It's true wiki is not a scientific white paper or anything, but to diss it probably shows your just biased and haven't even given the resource the proper chance. Even if it's not 100% true I mean what references are? My 1960's world book is certainly less accurate than wikipedia on most anything, but of course I have no intent of upgrading since we have the internet. Wiki and user driven news and other sites are the wave of the future.

Yea milk likely adjust PH also, but I would certainly not use it compared to more practical sources of calcium. The additive Cal Mag by Botainicare is a good quick acting source.

Most dried fertilizers are slow acting so if you need immediate relief your better off with a liquid fert or one that activated quickly like guano, but of course high in calcium.

They also make this stuff Mineral Matrix to help even out deficiencies. I've never used it but heard about it.

If OG were still up you'd probably find a thread or two were people had used milk to feed their plants. People use everything from fruit juice to piss as additives so I'm sure it was there. I'd almost be surprised if you couldn't find it on google.

Plus your looking at information thats decades old.. When were farmers feeding their hemp milk and how much did milk cost then. Sure as hell they didn't cover their fields with milk. It does sound more like a wives tale than agricultural history because even if you watered your plant with milk... they were growing fields of hemp and probably without any modern irrigation advances. How the hell do you water a field with milk?

Just but some Cal Mag or other calcium suppliment. OR better yet follow a masters fert schedule like 3LB and use a tried and true full range fert like Earth Juice in conjunction with tea.

I'll tell you one thing if your doing hydro I would highly recommend NOT putting milk in the rez. Earth juice or Pure Blend Pro are great bets to give you plant everything it needs. Then instead of buying those expensive bloom booster you could just boost the P and K with tea because that's mostly all they do anyway.

Just depends on where you get your supplies from I guess. Doesn't like baking soda have calcium? I think that would likely also do it, though I don't know for sure. adding anything with calcium in it is going to raise your PH also I think. Bakling soda is a alternative PH UP with an equlibirum around 8.2

^ My thoughts EXACTLY. I actually typed a rather long post that made most all of the same arguments you just made. I decided that I didnt really care to explain my view to some random talkingheads. However, I am glade that you did make that very good stand.

Your taking it too far... there is a word for that on the tip of my tougue....

All I am saying is as long as the source is credible...the advice is solid. If someone here at ICmag said to do 'this' and gave proof of experience and credientials I would take the advice.

Wik is different because ANYONE can write for it, it is a bunch of good and bas information all mixed into one, so we can't really retrieve any of the specific creditials.

Sometimes we never can, as you stated, but there are levels of accuracy which is supported by credentials we know or we may not. I will stick with ones I know.

Wow way too much info backing up Wikipedia however I do agree. Anyone who says Wikipedia has a lot of bs on is full of bs themselves. Wikipedia is a site that is solely written by the pubic and for that matter anyone who wants to write stuff is able to.

Yes there are some topics (mostly very obscure ones) that have inaccurate info in, but 99% of the stuff on Wikipedia is very accurate and since people can edit it anytime they want, inaccuracies will usually be corrected in short time.

If you think some info you find is bs, then check the sources and edit it if need be.

As for using milk for Ca, personally I would just buy some CalMag or CalMag+. I assume CalMag has a higher % of Ca but not sure how much Ca raw milk actually contains. From a simple search I found skim milk contains ~2% Ca.

Also you don't want to overdo the Ca, as it will easily lock out other micro nutes causing more bad than good.

what would it mater if it was pasturized or raw, it would still get Ca wouldnt it?