"Black market" experience on a resume

[Ca++]

Have a think about what jobs there are, and the scale you expect to be growing on. Talk of NPK is for science background people. Data acquisition revolving around tissue samples. Cataloging photo's of good crops and problems, vs the results that run. Beside the lab analysis, which you should really be doing yourself on a serious scale, but can be farmed out to fast turn-around local labs. There is never a point where you look at a plant and do something to the tank. As most of us here do.
If you have work in a data led environment and have plant science qualifications, then you might get that leading role.
Other are warehouse operatives. Office workers. Transport. Supplies. Logistical stuff.
The job most forum guys might go after, is learning to recognise problems. Feed and waste movement problems that can loose a plant. Healthy leaves vs ones to report. Bugs and mold. Most people moving through the greenhouses are doing these spotting jobs.
Production line work can prove an ability to do repetitive work and your dexterity. Which could have you taking cuts and potting up.
I think you could apply yourself to being a spotter, and learn what it is you are spotting over time. Teach yourself all the bugs and fungus problems that come up regularly. Invent a job that used them. An uncle had an orchard and you spent many a long summer there just walking about looking for problems. You liked walking and examining the fruit trees. Be the guy that can do it, has done it, and would like to learn again on this new and interesting plant. The guy interviewing may enjoy the same, but certainly wants peoplethat can do it. Also that you can do the labour stuff when it's called for. Remember it's all hands on deck some days, while others are quiet. Depending on crop rotation and style.

I wouldn't talk of NPK, but an appreciation of it is a must. If you have walked with your uncle for long summers, he has taught you what he thinks he is looking at. You must understand the job of feed correction, but not show an interest in doing it, as you understand that is the job of a lab testing, not somebodies guess. If you show that understanding, then they might show more interest in putting you in that role.

 

[Redrum92]

Have a think about what jobs there are, and the scale you expect to be growing on. Talk of NPK is for science background people. Data acquisition revolving around tissue samples. Cataloging photo's of good crops and problems, vs the results that run. Beside the lab analysis, which you should really be doing yourself on a serious scale, but can be farmed out to fast turn-around local labs. There is never a point where you look at a plant and do something to the tank. As most of us here do.
If you have work in a data led environment and have plant science qualifications, then you might get that leading role.
Other are warehouse operatives. Office workers. Transport. Supplies. Logistical stuff.
The job most forum guys might go after, is learning to recognise problems. Feed and waste movement problems that can loose a plant. Healthy leaves vs ones to report. Bugs and mold. Most people moving through the greenhouses are doing these spotting jobs.
Production line work can prove an ability to do repetitive work and your dexterity. Which could have you taking cuts and potting up.
I think you could apply yourself to being a spotter, and learn what it is you are spotting over time. Teach yourself all the bugs and fungus problems that come up regularly. Invent a job that used them. An uncle had an orchard and you spent many a long summer there just walking about looking for problems. You liked walking and examining the fruit trees. Be the guy that can do it, has done it, and would like to learn again on this new and interesting plant. The guy interviewing may enjoy the same, but certainly wants peoplethat can do it. Also that you can do the labour stuff when it's called for. Remember it's all hands on deck some days, while others are quiet. Depending on crop rotation and style.

I wouldn't talk of NPK, but an appreciation of it is a must. If you have walked with your uncle for long summers, he has taught you what he thinks he is looking at. You must understand the job of feed correction, but not show an interest in doing it, as you understand that is the job of a lab testing, not somebodies guess. If you show that understanding, then they might show more interest in putting you in that role.

I'm definitely not looking to be a "leading role" and i think I've been pretty clear on my intent being to take on a challenge, rather than to come in as an established expert who has nothing nothing improve. I am also not looking to manage 10 million watts- as I've said, I'm not in this for massive profit, or profit at all.


Yes, I would work on weed (or walk the "orchards" a la your metaphor.) For free, just for the joy, and have.

I have experience with basic production line and lab work already, yes. As I've said, I've spent years doing all variety of manual labor, some requiring a level of speed and dexterity that 98% of the posters here couldn't muster, and lifting weights 99.99% of the them can't. I can spot (most) problems by glancing at a fan leaf. And yes, I appreciate the value of knowing the definiton of "N-P-K", I just threw that in as an example of something so basic it's barely worth discussion, and would be a hassle/waste of time to have to explain from the ground up- things as basic as defining NPK or SoG.. Do you disagree?

 

[Redrum92]

This is a general post, not to Ca++, or anyone specific- just an attitude I've noticed on this site frequently

There are about 100 positions in between "The God of weed" and "dude can't even trim right"... and measuring experience by how many lights you mange is the stupidest way to measure experience I've ever heard. You know how many 100kw grows pop out garbage too shitty to even extract? Not 0. There are people on this forum with a handful of 315s in a basement that grow better than 99% of 100kw setups.

Some of you guys act like knowing how to grow good bud is the same rarified air, exclusive club status of being an astronaut. There are tens of thousands of decent growers, and hundreds more by the day. It's a plant- don't poison it, and it will turn out dank all on its own. It literally grows itself. Have I "solved the mystery" of cannabis, and unlocked all the secrets? Not even 10%. Can growing entail some incredibly complex challenges, and science solve them? Yes. I don't think that changes the point:

You'd never catch a tomato or tobacco farmer thinking like that- "You have to have a degree in 'soil biology' and 20 years of experience on a 300 acre farm growing tomatoes, otherwise clearly you are too stupid to even pick tomatoes".. the attitude that growing is like rocket science says more about your own growing skills than anything.

 

[Ca++]

I'm not quite sure about your last paragraph. You have certainly noticed something about weed growers, vs other commercial crops. Who you want to work for, will greatly effect the interview technique.

I loved the line about having walked the fields for free.
The weed orientated human resources manager could hear that as a love of the plants.
The commercial grower used to working other crops, could hear you work for free.
You need to know your target audience. Here, we have heard the sound of your horn, but don't know how well polished it is. I hear you are the strongest in every 10,000 posters. However that sounds more like an attitude than the truth. One leading to accidents in the work place, like decking your manager.

On one hand, we have a love of plants. The other, a strong man contestant. HR will judge you, like you are stereotyping this site. Looking at a leaf and knowing the problem, is a technique for field corrections. Like a bit of one field is drifting, and the economics of the situation suggest action. Where we are looking at corn crops, checking the ground once a year is often not even done.
We are cash cropping. We check all the time. The cost is covered by the extra profit. Testing is mandatory. That might be just pH or it might be a full lab suite.

In effect, a lack of mg might be correctly identified by looking at a leaf. You might just add some, along with whatever else the amendment carries. Standard forum behaviour. The next step most recognise, is checking the mg was actually available. We can all check the pH was in range. Realistically mg is only blocked if too much Ca is present, but other things can contribute, such as the K balance. If you have a field of wheat going bad in one corner, you could just try adding mg, or checking the pH. If you have a cannabis grow worth real money, a bad leaf means a lab report. Nobody cares what the leaf hints at. We need to know for sure, and fix it before it costs us more than a lab report costs.

Next run, you would bring in the fix early. Essentially a large run on a new strain could be tested every week, as record keeping. Watching for our expected concentrations, and seeing what might be changed next run. Also the differences having made changes from a past run, if it's not a new plant. A healthy looking plant, isn't the end of our efforts. It just means we are close. There is still room for maneuver. My last batch of testing was every few days at transition. Helping me with crop steering for that opp.

If growing isn't to be as exacting as rocket science, then you are probably not getting a lead role in anything NPK related. You are rejecting the attitude of major industry. The smaller owners tend to be scaling up from home grows. Where they are the chief gardener. They are not looking for another. Unless you help someone from out the area, expand with your help. Meaning finance and facilities management, so they can just come in and do the bit you want to do.


One day we will start talking about used lab equipment costs, and gas chromatography results. Some users here are familiar with an array of methods, with their plus and minus points, in certain tasks. The main reason we are not seeing more testing, is as home growers, we don't have a few plants to submit. Typically a meter of canopy needs defoliating, to get a good ball of leafs in your hand to send in. Legal aspects aside.
Having an idea of what's involved, is a good start towards an inspection job. Nobody would trust me with anything more. Cataloguing pictures of plants, throughout their growth, to get a baseline photo-album. One that evolves as the operation does. Photo's that enable team training. As knowing what is good, is as much use as knowing what is bad. The big book of bugs is more use than opinions as to which bug it is. Local legislation guides your program and spot treatment choices.


I'm hoping I sound reasonable for a position. Yet I have not said I ever grew a cannabis plant, or know anything about them. It's a science led business at the top. I'm not going to show them my best green. I'm not their as a competitor.
I would be moved straight into building services anyway. Everyone thinks they can do it, but gravity pulls in the right people.

 

[Redrum92]

I'm not quite sure about your last paragraph. You have certainly noticed something about weed growers, vs other commercial crops. Who you want to work for, will greatly effect the interview technique.

I loved the line about having walked the fields for free.
The weed orientated human resources manager could hear that as a love of the plants.
The commercial grower used to working other crops, could hear you work for free.
You need to know your target audience. Here, we have heard the sound of your horn, but don't know how well polished it is. I hear you are the strongest in every 10,000 posters. However that sounds more like an attitude than the truth. One leading to accidents in the work place, like decking your manager.

On one hand, we have a love of plants. The other, a strong man contestant. HR will judge you, like you are stereotyping this site. Looking at a leaf and knowing the problem, is a technique for field corrections. Like a bit of one field is drifting, and the economics of the situation suggest action. Where we are looking at corn crops, checking the ground once a year is often not even done.
We are cash cropping. We check all the time. The cost is covered by the extra profit. Testing is mandatory. That might be just pH or it might be a full lab suite.

In effect, a lack of mg might be correctly identified by looking at a leaf. You might just add some, along with whatever else the amendment carries. Standard forum behaviour. The next step most recognise, is checking the mg was actually available. We can all check the pH was in range. Realistically mg is only blocked if too much Ca is present, but other things can contribute, such as the K balance. If you have a field of wheat going bad in one corner, you could just try adding mg, or checking the pH. If you have a cannabis grow worth real money, a bad leaf means a lab report. Nobody cares what the leaf hints at. We need to know for sure, and fix it before it costs us more than a lab report costs.

Next run, you would bring in the fix early. Essentially a large run on a new strain could be tested every week, as record keeping. Watching for our expected concentrations, and seeing what might be changed next run. Also the differences having made changes from a past run, if it's not a new plant. A healthy looking plant, isn't the end of our efforts. It just means we are close. There is still room for maneuver. My last batch of testing was every few days at transition. Helping me with crop steering for that opp.

If growing isn't to be as exacting as rocket science, then you are probably not getting a lead role in anything NPK related. You are rejecting the attitude of major industry. The smaller owners tend to be scaling up from home grows. Where they are the chief gardener. They are not looking for another. Unless you help someone from out the area, expand with your help. Meaning finance and facilities management, so they can just come in and do the bit you want to do.


One day we will start talking about used lab equipment costs, and gas chromatography results. Some users here are familiar with an array of methods, with their plus and minus points, in certain tasks. The main reason we are not seeing more testing, is as home growers, we don't have a few plants to submit. Typically a meter of canopy needs defoliating, to get a good ball of leafs in your hand to send in. Legal aspects aside.
Having an idea of what's involved, is a good start towards an inspection job. Nobody would trust me with anything more. Cataloguing pictures of plants, throughout their growth, to get a baseline photo-album. One that evolves as the operation does. Photo's that enable team training. As knowing what is good, is as much use as knowing what is bad. The big book of bugs is more use than opinions as to which bug it is. Local legislation guides your program and spot treatment choices.


I'm hoping I sound reasonable for a position. Yet I have not said I ever grew a cannabis plant, or know anything about them. It's a science led business at the top. I'm not going to show them my best green. I'm not their as a competitor.
I would be moved straight into building services anyway. Everyone thinks they can do it, but gravity pulls in the right people.

I never said anything about being the "strongest in 10k posters", are you kidding me dude? Where? "Attitude that will lead to me decking my boss" I could not have been more clear on my attitude being the polar opposite. Don't know whose posts you're reading. I've attached some quotes so you can try again.

And as far as rocket science - there is difference in being exact and diligent and incredibly complex and academic. I was discussing academic requirements, not personal attributes, or lack of them. Same with with NPK thing. I very clearly asked the question "is it worth your time to teach someone the definiton of NPK and SoG?" At no point have I said the concepts "NPK" implies are not worth knowing, simple, or not my intent to learn.

Im not talking to someone who's replying to posts they imagined, attributing them to me, dodging questions, and ignoring what I say.


If you were genuinely trying to be helpful, you would've read my posts.

I'm aware of what I need to do in terms of improving my actual cannabis-working abilities.

... but half of my interest in getting into it legally would be to learn the larger scale methods from truly more qualified people.... I'm nowhere near consultant level, that is true.

Wouldn't you rather "dial in" a mostly competent grower than have to teach someone what NPK means, etc?

I'm definitely not looking to be a "leading role" and i think I've been pretty clear on my intent being to take on a challenge, rather than to come in as an established expert who has nothing nothing improve.

And yes, I appreciate the value of knowing the definiton of "N-P-K", I just threw that in as an example of something so basic it's barely worth discussion, and would be a hassle/waste of time to have to explain from the ground up- things as basic as defining NPK or SoG.. Do you disagree? (<--- you still never answered this.)

There are people on this forum with a handful of 315s in a basement that grow better than 99% of 100kw setups.

Have I "solved the mystery" of cannabis, and unlocked all the secrets? Not even 10%.

but mostly just an amateur fumbling around. I definitely need guidance, which is exactly why I want to get into the industry when it's legal

 

[Redrum92]

I will no longer be checking this thread. It is over a year old, I found the answers I needed long ago, and some people have been needlessly, consistently critical.

 

[Jellyfish]

Some might even say bitchy and petty.

 

[madalasatori]

I will definitely set my sights on the smaller craft/boutique style setups for many reasons: less greedy (hopefully) and more about the joy of living in the beginning of the Golden Age of Weed, that will be spoken about in lore and legend for generations.

You’re about 15 years late for that