whythefnot
Member
You're saying I should be tea-ing my ladies right now in the last two weeks? Wha-wha whaatt??
bobblehead's organic bedroom of high brix gardening
- Thread starter bobblehead
- Start date
You're saying I should be tea-ing my ladies right now in the last two weeks? Wha-wha whaatt??
Yes, thank you Bobble. You make it hard to be so humble.
Wait were you talking about that D guy again?
Don't put the CO2 over 900 the whole time.
I haven't been getting enough sleep lately, and its really been effecting my cognition. I totally missed this part about the yarrow. Thanks for the tip!
I've heard many different things... I figured I'd figure it out on my own. From what I can see, as long as you're feeding at a reasonable EC, you can keep feeding tea all the way through. My plants are flushing fast now b/c I stopped feeding too early. They'll never catch up and it'll have to be an early harvest.
I never took CO2 above 900ppm, but I did take the room from 400 to 900 without adding nutes. I should have known better. I have to patch up the leaks before I start using CO2 again. I think it might have to do with the new window a/c, I may have to replace it with a split in the near future.
Hi bobblehead
Very interesting thread you got here
As I haven't got through all posts in the thread and u might mention that, but do u use fan leaves from plants (as well) to make the tea ?
I have done one, first time <few photos>, and Im very keen on organic product rather than coco or hydr....
gd
Very interesting thread you got here
As I haven't got through all posts in the thread and u might mention that, but do u use fan leaves from plants (as well) to make the tea ?
I have done one, first time <few photos>, and Im very keen on organic product rather than coco or hydr....
gd
Attachments
Thx Bobble that explains a few things around my place! I'm looking at early harvest as well bc I only tea'd twice in flower. I'll be tea'n em more next time...
Right on, bro.
Just commenting that above 900 PPM things actually bud slower and stay smaller...
Just commenting that above 900 PPM things actually bud slower and stay smaller...
Co2 set to on @ 900ppm and off @ 1100... that seems to be the sweet spot for growth vs cost, etc...even with burners.
And yeah, I wouldn't really even bother with Co2 unless I was fully sealed...I'd pursue additional air flow / circulation first...
dank.Frank
And yeah, I wouldn't really even bother with Co2 unless I was fully sealed...I'd pursue additional air flow / circulation first...
dank.Frank
Hey, you really should be able to see serious break down of the leaves on the soil surface beginning within 5-7 days. And by this I mean you should see them shrinking up and looking spinach that was left in a bag in the crisper too long...you know how it gets slimy and black and a that dark bruised look to it... the leaves sitting on top of your soil surface should be looking the same...
If this isn't happening in that rapid a time frame, you want to increase your microbial activity...either through adding more beneficials when you replant, watering them in (eh), or by providing another food source specifically for the microbes...
If you haven't included dried molasses in your bed - I'd HIGHLY recommend it - seriously. The difference is truly night and day. It's one of the most beneficial things I've ever added to soil. It really makes all the difference. It's on my list of never grow without again amendments...value it just as much as micronized kelp meal.
Try to find a brand that the molasses is from derived cane rather than beet...and that it is sprayed onto soybean hulls...one of the ways of noticing this is checking the sugar content of the product...don't get ANYTHING that is lower that 40% sugar, it's a much cheaper quality product...
http://www.stockadebrands.com/products.cfm?cat=14&productID=70 - is a good one.
I use about 1/2c per cubic ft - you may want to just want to add 2 tbsp per plant site on your next cycle...
dank.Frank
Never tried making tea with leaves, and in my mind they wouldn't add much. They would need to be at least partially decomposed for the bacteria to break them down further. In the beds, soil mites and fungi are the major leaf decomposers... And that's not what's in the bacteria dominant teas.
That's not to say they don't add something... But other ammendments will have a greater effect.
Oh yeah those leaves break down fast. I've been adding leaves almost every day lately, so there's quite a few on top at the moment. They do get watered in as well. Anything left over when I plant the new crop will get burried in fresh ammendments.
Never even heard of dry molasses... I thought that molasses just confuses the microbes though, that they're suppsoed to get their starches from the roots. If you're saying it helps I'll have to give it a go.
Does anyone reading add ammendments half way through the grow? Or all at the beginning? I'm thinking about adding more Dr. Earth 4-4-4. Probably a little late for this crop, but I was thinking more so for future crops.
Your better off topping off with some high quality EWC...every time I top feed, you gotta figure you are just getting the basic leeching effect, as it hasn't really had time to compost. It's gotta be something that breaks down rather quickly...
Don't have access to rabbit "guano" do you? That'd work perfectly...
-edit-
As far as molasses confusing microbes...I don't know. I know I compost with it in the mix...and my plants are significantly better with it than without it. I'm no scientist, nor do I have a passionate quarrel against "stoner science" and at a certain point, there is only so much I can do to experiment and come to conclusions about...but, I have done more side by side soil mixes with single variables and have sent in more soil tests than I care to even count (I stopped counting once I hit over 300 - but there are a couple file cabinets chuck full of notes and test results and formulas...lol) - and sometimes, you'd never know the difference and other times, it's just night and day.
When composting, I know a soil becomes "active" faster and produces much more heat...and gets that jiggly bowl of jello type of response to it much, much faster - which tells me the microbial activity is simply that much greater. I know the results of watering in blackstrap vs using the dried in the soil and that dried is much, much better.
I understand what you are saying, from the scientific aspect of things...but I also know what I have experienced first hand. I've never tried adding it after the fact, in a top dress type of fashion, but I know dried molasses and EWC applied to the lawn had remarkable effects. Soil tests confirmed such...BUT THAT too is different...but maybe not so much when you consider building long term in a bed style grow.
But then again, I never apply microbes directly to roots either...I always have just mixed them into the soil, just like any other amendment...LOL - but I also don't buy into the notion that we should only be using Endo spores, or more specifically glomus intraradices. I like having trichoderma present and allowing for the natural competition that takes place in a "natural" soil present in what I try to re-create. There is only so much point to trying to re-invent what nature has already perfected...and I truly believe there are some synergistic aspects that we'll never fully grasp or understand the importance of. While most will tell you that things I do are a complete waste, but soil tests have shown otherwise - but that could also be because I recycle my root balls and there is always some sort of root matter in a composting batch of soil, that allows for different microbes to thrive and perpetuate their life cycles...
I'll never claim to know it all or have it all figured out - and I'm not very good at following directions most of the time - and hardly ever am I the smartest person in any given room - but I do know what has worked for me over the years and what hasn't. I truly wouldn't recommend something if I hadn't gotten great results with it. Dried molasses makes a remarkable difference...and the soybean hulls it is sprayed on are kind of a nice late term low strength nitrogen source once they start breaking down as well..my re-veg attempts are entirely successful with dried molasses in the soil vs without out it...and then re-veg is hit or miss...or requires a transplant into new soil, etc.
Anyway, just wanted to come back and expand a bit further on this post. Good vibes, man.
dank.Frank
Don't have access to rabbit "guano" do you? That'd work perfectly...
-edit-
As far as molasses confusing microbes...I don't know. I know I compost with it in the mix...and my plants are significantly better with it than without it. I'm no scientist, nor do I have a passionate quarrel against "stoner science" and at a certain point, there is only so much I can do to experiment and come to conclusions about...but, I have done more side by side soil mixes with single variables and have sent in more soil tests than I care to even count (I stopped counting once I hit over 300 - but there are a couple file cabinets chuck full of notes and test results and formulas...lol) - and sometimes, you'd never know the difference and other times, it's just night and day.
When composting, I know a soil becomes "active" faster and produces much more heat...and gets that jiggly bowl of jello type of response to it much, much faster - which tells me the microbial activity is simply that much greater. I know the results of watering in blackstrap vs using the dried in the soil and that dried is much, much better.
I understand what you are saying, from the scientific aspect of things...but I also know what I have experienced first hand. I've never tried adding it after the fact, in a top dress type of fashion, but I know dried molasses and EWC applied to the lawn had remarkable effects. Soil tests confirmed such...BUT THAT too is different...but maybe not so much when you consider building long term in a bed style grow.
But then again, I never apply microbes directly to roots either...I always have just mixed them into the soil, just like any other amendment...LOL - but I also don't buy into the notion that we should only be using Endo spores, or more specifically glomus intraradices. I like having trichoderma present and allowing for the natural competition that takes place in a "natural" soil present in what I try to re-create. There is only so much point to trying to re-invent what nature has already perfected...and I truly believe there are some synergistic aspects that we'll never fully grasp or understand the importance of. While most will tell you that things I do are a complete waste, but soil tests have shown otherwise - but that could also be because I recycle my root balls and there is always some sort of root matter in a composting batch of soil, that allows for different microbes to thrive and perpetuate their life cycles...
I'll never claim to know it all or have it all figured out - and I'm not very good at following directions most of the time - and hardly ever am I the smartest person in any given room - but I do know what has worked for me over the years and what hasn't. I truly wouldn't recommend something if I hadn't gotten great results with it. Dried molasses makes a remarkable difference...and the soybean hulls it is sprayed on are kind of a nice late term low strength nitrogen source once they start breaking down as well..my re-veg attempts are entirely successful with dried molasses in the soil vs without out it...and then re-veg is hit or miss...or requires a transplant into new soil, etc.
Anyway, just wanted to come back and expand a bit further on this post. Good vibes, man.
dank.Frank
Last edited:
O
otis33
outstanding bobbles!
SRGB
Member
dank.frank:
If you haven't included dried molasses in your bed - I'd HIGHLY recommend it - seriously.
--
As far as molasses confusing microbes...I don't know
--
bobblehead:
Never even heard of dry molasses... I thought that molasses just confuses the microbes though, that they're suppsoed to get their starches from the roots. If you're saying it helps I'll have to give it a go.
Does anyone reading add ammendments half way through the grow? Or all at the beginning? I'm thinking about adding more Dr. Earth 4-4-4. Probably a little late for this crop, but I was thinking more so for future crops.
Hi, dank.frank. Hi, bobblehead.
We have experimented to an appreciable degree with several types of molasses, both liquid and farm grade in SRBGB`s. We will not go into all of the details in this post, as it would be rather lengthy. Though we will engage in a dialogue relevant to the matter, based on our experience with experiments we performed some time ago.
The subject matter can get as technical and scientific as might be desired.
--
To begin, dry molasses is primarily ordinarily used for feeding chickens, turkeys, and similar animals. It might actually be some form of grain (more than likely `waste` grain or that grain deemed unfit for other uses), lightly covered with some form of molasses (there are many). The coating is more for the nutritional value of molasses than to add any `sweet` or `sugar` content to the foodstuff.
There are also purely `garden variety` dry molasses, though that variant might generally require greater resources.
--
Molasses itself might possess an
N-P-K-Ca-Mg
of approximately
1(N)-0(P)-5(K)-2.5(Ca)-(Mg)1, though it will more than likely additionally contain a large variety of trace elements as well.
If the gardener is further interested in the actual phyisical and chemical properties, they could calculate the `N-P-K` content themselves, by using the `Nutrition Facts` label (they are generally required by one regulatory body or another), and doing the appropriate conversions to derive the `N-P-K`.
We will not approach the subject of `microbes`, or how molasses might affect `microbial` activities in a medium.
We are only here discussing the topic of the actual physical and chmecial composition of molasses, as a standalone item.
Depending on how the molasses is considered, it can possess either 3 to 5 inherent properties:
1. Sugar content
2. Protein content
3. Mineral content
and, or
4. Vitamin content
and
5. Energy
See, in general
rcrec-ona.ifas.ufl .edu/pdf/publications/molasses-general-considerations..pdf
Some literature might omit the fourth characteristic, or include (4) within (3).
Each of those properties can be relatively accurately calculated relevant to an awareness of what might be included into a nutrient regime for gardening.
The first step might be to convert the `Nutrition Facts` label to the general types of values that a gardener might ordinarily use.
The `Nutrition Facts` is based on a `Recommended` daily caloric diet of a human. `Calorie` in this regard, might be the unit of energy `calorie`, which provides fuel for humans. In general,
`The heat energy of a body is that type of energy that flows from a hotter to a cooler body. The common unit of heat energy is the calorie (cal), which is defined as the heat energy necessary to change the temperature of 1 g of water by 1 degree Celsius (from 15 degrees to 16 degrees Celcisu for the precise definition).`
Since by convention the `Nutrition Facts` label is based on a 2,000 to 2,500 calrie diet for a human, the gardener would need to convert the stated percentages on a bottle of human type molasses to correspond to the `diet`, to derive numbers consistent with `NPK`, et. al. Requires some math, but can be done.
Feed grade molasses can be acquired in 1, 3 or 5 gallon containers. Some labels of feed grade molasses might have a very lengthy label, consisting of perhaps each of the 20 plus mineral and vitamin properties that might be in the molasses.
During experiments with SRBGB`s we set aside some coco coir media units with a feeding regime of molasses only; both human type and feed type. We would estimate that it might be possible to modeled to use molasses only as a standalone `nutrient`. Perhaps a prerequisite, though not entirely necessary, might be some familiarity with the conversion of foodstuff (both human and animal feed) labels to their corresponding `gardening` values, if applicable. Though 1 - 3 teasponns per gallon might also be an option to explore, without doing the math to convert values back and forth.
The approach of gardening with some form of `molasses` is not that uncommon. Infact, there might be several articles or studies published on the matter. Mainly tested by farmers that had some close proximity to a molasses type production facility, where they would apply the waste product of molasses production, or `vinessse` to the crop.The practice might be referred to as `fertigation`; with some interesting studies coming from Spain, Brazil, and other places around the globe. Basically, taking part of the `waste` product of molasses production (the non-sweet, `mash`) part, and reusing it locally for agricultural nutrition.
Depending on how `technically` the gardener might want to evaluate their solution, they might be able to derive an NPK-Mg-S-Fe-Vit-B, sugar content, and nearly all other labeled content, from 1 teaspoon of molasses in 1 gallon of water; and perhaps be fairly accurate in the resultant conversions.
In any event, we simply posted to convey the above. It might be advantageous for the gardener seeking an `organic`, with molasses included, to further examine the actual physical properties of `molasses`, and how to convert foodstuff values to gardening values to better evaluate and become aware of the content of their solution.
We are not certain advantaages about the inclusion of `microbes` into each discussion relevant to `organic` gardening, without accurately listing which `microbes` correspond to which application of a specific nutrient, product for `microbes` to consume, and how many unique `microbes` exist within a given media. Especially, if the approach might be evaluation of those varied `microbes` as to their effect on a plant or tree, no baseline as to effective count of, co-efficient, or actual efficacy of their (`microbes`) activities in the media. In other words, how does the gardener know that `x` amount of `microbes` are actually present in the media? Which `microbes`? What are their ratios amongst their populations? What different effects are observable at different population ratios (based on media samples)? Perhaps each of the above, and more datasets could probably be calculated and evaluated as the the overall efficacy of, for example, adding mycorrhyzae versus not adding mycorhhyzae. Just variables that perhaps could be looked into further, both for the individual gardener and for those gardeners that may seek to define a baseline approach. Otherwise, what would be the maximum input? Why should any fertilizers be added if in fact `microbes` activity in the media can effectively provide some form of sustainable nutrietion to the plant?
Interesting mention relevant to the notion of `confusing` `microbes`. Without actually addressing that desribed state, one might also posit that in order to determine such a state, an observer would have to be aware of the `microbes` being in an `un-confused` state. How would either theoretical `rational` state ,of `microbes`, be practically, or accurately, determined by the gardener?
How does the organic gardener practically evaluate the efficacy of their approach, as to required inptuts to produce and reproduce the same results?
This post is by no means intended to be a comprehensive discussion of the topic. Only areas relating to the present subject matter that the soilless or organic garderner might further consider or explore.
Kind regards,
/SRGB/
If you haven't included dried molasses in your bed - I'd HIGHLY recommend it - seriously.
--
As far as molasses confusing microbes...I don't know
--
bobblehead:
Never even heard of dry molasses... I thought that molasses just confuses the microbes though, that they're suppsoed to get their starches from the roots. If you're saying it helps I'll have to give it a go.
Does anyone reading add ammendments half way through the grow? Or all at the beginning? I'm thinking about adding more Dr. Earth 4-4-4. Probably a little late for this crop, but I was thinking more so for future crops.
Hi, dank.frank. Hi, bobblehead.
We have experimented to an appreciable degree with several types of molasses, both liquid and farm grade in SRBGB`s. We will not go into all of the details in this post, as it would be rather lengthy. Though we will engage in a dialogue relevant to the matter, based on our experience with experiments we performed some time ago.
The subject matter can get as technical and scientific as might be desired.
--
To begin, dry molasses is primarily ordinarily used for feeding chickens, turkeys, and similar animals. It might actually be some form of grain (more than likely `waste` grain or that grain deemed unfit for other uses), lightly covered with some form of molasses (there are many). The coating is more for the nutritional value of molasses than to add any `sweet` or `sugar` content to the foodstuff.
There are also purely `garden variety` dry molasses, though that variant might generally require greater resources.
--
Molasses itself might possess an
N-P-K-Ca-Mg
of approximately
1(N)-0(P)-5(K)-2.5(Ca)-(Mg)1, though it will more than likely additionally contain a large variety of trace elements as well.
If the gardener is further interested in the actual phyisical and chemical properties, they could calculate the `N-P-K` content themselves, by using the `Nutrition Facts` label (they are generally required by one regulatory body or another), and doing the appropriate conversions to derive the `N-P-K`.
We will not approach the subject of `microbes`, or how molasses might affect `microbial` activities in a medium.
We are only here discussing the topic of the actual physical and chmecial composition of molasses, as a standalone item.
Depending on how the molasses is considered, it can possess either 3 to 5 inherent properties:
1. Sugar content
2. Protein content
3. Mineral content
and, or
4. Vitamin content
and
5. Energy
See, in general
rcrec-ona.ifas.ufl .edu/pdf/publications/molasses-general-considerations..pdf
Some literature might omit the fourth characteristic, or include (4) within (3).
Each of those properties can be relatively accurately calculated relevant to an awareness of what might be included into a nutrient regime for gardening.
The first step might be to convert the `Nutrition Facts` label to the general types of values that a gardener might ordinarily use.
The `Nutrition Facts` is based on a `Recommended` daily caloric diet of a human. `Calorie` in this regard, might be the unit of energy `calorie`, which provides fuel for humans. In general,
`The heat energy of a body is that type of energy that flows from a hotter to a cooler body. The common unit of heat energy is the calorie (cal), which is defined as the heat energy necessary to change the temperature of 1 g of water by 1 degree Celsius (from 15 degrees to 16 degrees Celcisu for the precise definition).`
Since by convention the `Nutrition Facts` label is based on a 2,000 to 2,500 calrie diet for a human, the gardener would need to convert the stated percentages on a bottle of human type molasses to correspond to the `diet`, to derive numbers consistent with `NPK`, et. al. Requires some math, but can be done.
Feed grade molasses can be acquired in 1, 3 or 5 gallon containers. Some labels of feed grade molasses might have a very lengthy label, consisting of perhaps each of the 20 plus mineral and vitamin properties that might be in the molasses.
During experiments with SRBGB`s we set aside some coco coir media units with a feeding regime of molasses only; both human type and feed type. We would estimate that it might be possible to modeled to use molasses only as a standalone `nutrient`. Perhaps a prerequisite, though not entirely necessary, might be some familiarity with the conversion of foodstuff (both human and animal feed) labels to their corresponding `gardening` values, if applicable. Though 1 - 3 teasponns per gallon might also be an option to explore, without doing the math to convert values back and forth.
The approach of gardening with some form of `molasses` is not that uncommon. Infact, there might be several articles or studies published on the matter. Mainly tested by farmers that had some close proximity to a molasses type production facility, where they would apply the waste product of molasses production, or `vinessse` to the crop.The practice might be referred to as `fertigation`; with some interesting studies coming from Spain, Brazil, and other places around the globe. Basically, taking part of the `waste` product of molasses production (the non-sweet, `mash`) part, and reusing it locally for agricultural nutrition.
Depending on how `technically` the gardener might want to evaluate their solution, they might be able to derive an NPK-Mg-S-Fe-Vit-B, sugar content, and nearly all other labeled content, from 1 teaspoon of molasses in 1 gallon of water; and perhaps be fairly accurate in the resultant conversions.
In any event, we simply posted to convey the above. It might be advantageous for the gardener seeking an `organic`, with molasses included, to further examine the actual physical properties of `molasses`, and how to convert foodstuff values to gardening values to better evaluate and become aware of the content of their solution.
We are not certain advantaages about the inclusion of `microbes` into each discussion relevant to `organic` gardening, without accurately listing which `microbes` correspond to which application of a specific nutrient, product for `microbes` to consume, and how many unique `microbes` exist within a given media. Especially, if the approach might be evaluation of those varied `microbes` as to their effect on a plant or tree, no baseline as to effective count of, co-efficient, or actual efficacy of their (`microbes`) activities in the media. In other words, how does the gardener know that `x` amount of `microbes` are actually present in the media? Which `microbes`? What are their ratios amongst their populations? What different effects are observable at different population ratios (based on media samples)? Perhaps each of the above, and more datasets could probably be calculated and evaluated as the the overall efficacy of, for example, adding mycorrhyzae versus not adding mycorhhyzae. Just variables that perhaps could be looked into further, both for the individual gardener and for those gardeners that may seek to define a baseline approach. Otherwise, what would be the maximum input? Why should any fertilizers be added if in fact `microbes` activity in the media can effectively provide some form of sustainable nutrietion to the plant?
Interesting mention relevant to the notion of `confusing` `microbes`. Without actually addressing that desribed state, one might also posit that in order to determine such a state, an observer would have to be aware of the `microbes` being in an `un-confused` state. How would either theoretical `rational` state ,of `microbes`, be practically, or accurately, determined by the gardener?
How does the organic gardener practically evaluate the efficacy of their approach, as to required inptuts to produce and reproduce the same results?
This post is by no means intended to be a comprehensive discussion of the topic. Only areas relating to the present subject matter that the soilless or organic garderner might further consider or explore.
Kind regards,
/SRGB/
Last edited:
To put it as simply as possible...because microbes are responsible for the different ionic stages of "nutrients" - you can test soil to see how much of a given mineral or element is present. From this you can deduce the level of microbial activity that is taking place...whether there is an increase or a decrease, over a given period of time. You are not so much as looking at the microbes themselves, as much as you are looking for the by products of their general presence...and in what concentrations...
dank.Frank
dank.Frank
Why add more 4-4-4 during the crop?
Why not add something like Ferti-Nitro Soy Protein powder or Pure Protein Dry 15-1-1 to the water and using that? It will go much farther to stimulate microbe activity etc., than adding more dust that needs to break down.
Why not add something like Ferti-Nitro Soy Protein powder or Pure Protein Dry 15-1-1 to the water and using that? It will go much farther to stimulate microbe activity etc., than adding more dust that needs to break down.
SRGB
Member
dank.frank:
To put it as simply as possible...because microbes are responsible for the different ionic stages of "nutrients" - you can test soil to see how much of a given mineral or element is present. From this you can deduce the level of microbial activity that is taking place...whether there is an increase or a decrease, over a given period of time. You are not so much as looking at the microbes themselves, as much as you are looking for the by products of their general presence...and in what concentrations...
dank.Frank
Hi, dank.frank.
To preface, we would probably post that our approach to experimental gardening might be based on, in pertinent part, The Scientific Method.
If we were to view the topic through the lens of the scientific method,
`because microbes are responsible for the different ionic stages of "nutrients" `
might appear to be an absolute concept, where `are` repsonsible appears.
Whereas plants and trees can be provided nutrition solely by a synthetic nutrient solution, for example DWC, SWC, NFT, using an inert media, or, even solely moist nutrient filled air, for example, aeroponics.
Having experimented with each of the above methods, without adding any `microbes`, it might be difficult to reconcile the part of your post that might appear to convey absoluteness.
Additionally, roots exchange ions, or electrical charges, when acquiring `calories`, or, `cation exchange`. From what we could gather, the process of plant and tree nutrient delivery can take place without `microbes` being required in the process.
`Test`[ing] a media might reveal some of its characteristics, depending on its inherent nutrient values, and its drainage capacity. For example, coco coir might inherently hold more nutrients per square inch than pumice is capable of holding, due only to their inherent physical compositions. Again, how is the base `case` even formulated? With regard to maximum and minimum input required in a system where the nutrients `are` derived, primarily, if not wholly, from the activities of fungi, bacteria, nematodes, viruses, and even single-celled creatures that might be present in the total population?
We might be in concurrence with the `philosophy` of `organic` gardening and farming, yet, we might view the same or similar instances of references to processes that may have difficulty proceeding through the flow chart of the scientifc method.
For example, a healthy discussion with the scientific method as the base principle, might next require - for the benefit of all interested gardeners - a thorough reproduction, by any experimenter, of the case(s) in which,
1) `because microbes are responsible for the different ionic stages of "nutrients" `;
and;
2) `you can test soil to see how much of a given mineral or element is present. From this you can deduce the level of microbial activity that is taking place.`
The former might be easier than the latter to conceive of possibly being reproducible; the latter might be quite challengin -
`dudicing`
the composite level of microbial activity in a given sample. To what level? Single-celled activity? Comparing aerobic and anaerobic `microbe` population differences?
We are not posting that the above is too challenging to create a baseline from, and to reproduce, yet, simply outlining the sheer amount of variables involved - and verifying their results across several replications - might be an interesting and engaging project.
Perhaps, the cuurent evaluation might not be geared towards such exploration, but rather on `what works` or what seems to work. However, we might approach the topic as, perhaps, in a unique situation to explore the open laboratory in this forum to actually create reproducible flowcharts, based on the scientific method. The rewards from such an approach might be potentially enormous.
--
`.whether there is an increase or a decrease, over a given period of time. You are not so much as looking at the microbes themselves, as much as you are looking for the by products of their general presence...and in what concentrations...`
Again, how can this be verified and more importantly, reproduced? What are the relevant numbers?
`Concentrations` might imply a minimum and maximums, as well as perhaps solubility. What are the ranges of these variable inputs? If not measured for efficiacy, than merely for edification as to approach taken might actually be accurate in its application?
Perhaps gardeners might draw a comparison to simply using a 1 part or 2 part totally synthetic dry solution as a `nutrient`, as the experimental gardener that might apply such an approach might also be able to accurately and factual post that synthetic nutrient solution is `repsonsible for different ionic stages of "nutrients"`.
In other words, the two could equate, to a neutral observer. Which, as a team which strives to eliminate waste in final processes, or products, the `organic` approach might be described more scientifically, or, in a rational flow chart of illustrated processes - to demonstrate its accuracy - and that it is actually worth the effort.
Otherwise, the resources allocated to continually acquire more, or different `organic fertilizers` - on top of pointing out theat `microbes are responsible for the different ionic stages of "nutrients"`, might not appear consistent. To put it another way, if the gardener is still consuming the same or similar amount of
1) packaging,
2) travel for materials,
3) applying more of anything than is necessary for success
the sum total might be `organic` and `hydroponic` type systems producing the same or similar impact with regard to overal l production requirement for consumption demand; there would be no advantage to employing `organic` methods if the gardener is demanding from the market the same amount of products to be produced to satisfy the `microbes`, or any other `organic` approach.
For a neutral scientist or experimenter, either option might inherently contain the potential for over-consumption and could, at the end of the day, be relatively similar with regard to the `principles` or `philosophies` of `organic gardening`.
Actually, the option of a single bag of base NPK-Mg-S-Fe hydropinc and a separate bag of calcium nitrate, might be more `organic` than organic - if the total inputs can be reduced and maximum efficiency garnered by the least amount of inputs.
Either way might work well, though. We simply post here as a neutral experimenter.
If the 1st of the concepts (hypotesis) set forth from the above post
`because microbes are responsible for the different ionic stages of "nutrients" `
could be rationally verified, corroborated, and reproduced, based on the actual variables and resulting numbers, the concusions might be worthy of setting the standard for the approaches mentioned worldwide. it is doable, but might require a great deal of rational efforts to formulate into a cohesive - and reproducible just by the numbers approach. Any of the interested gardeners could do it.
Simply presenting the position in such an absolute manner might be the intial requirement; perhaps the next step might optionally be adequate numbers and min/max base required inputs, total variables to be examined and whether the concept is verifiable and reproducible.
If accurate on its plain words alone, it would appear to eliminate the need for any additional `nutrients` or `fertilizers` at all.
Just potential considerations for the soil or soilless gardener or experimenter.
Thanks.
Kind regards
/SRGB/
To put it as simply as possible...because microbes are responsible for the different ionic stages of "nutrients" - you can test soil to see how much of a given mineral or element is present. From this you can deduce the level of microbial activity that is taking place...whether there is an increase or a decrease, over a given period of time. You are not so much as looking at the microbes themselves, as much as you are looking for the by products of their general presence...and in what concentrations...
dank.Frank
Hi, dank.frank.
To preface, we would probably post that our approach to experimental gardening might be based on, in pertinent part, The Scientific Method.
If we were to view the topic through the lens of the scientific method,
`because microbes are responsible for the different ionic stages of "nutrients" `
might appear to be an absolute concept, where `are` repsonsible appears.
Whereas plants and trees can be provided nutrition solely by a synthetic nutrient solution, for example DWC, SWC, NFT, using an inert media, or, even solely moist nutrient filled air, for example, aeroponics.
Having experimented with each of the above methods, without adding any `microbes`, it might be difficult to reconcile the part of your post that might appear to convey absoluteness.
Additionally, roots exchange ions, or electrical charges, when acquiring `calories`, or, `cation exchange`. From what we could gather, the process of plant and tree nutrient delivery can take place without `microbes` being required in the process.
`Test`[ing] a media might reveal some of its characteristics, depending on its inherent nutrient values, and its drainage capacity. For example, coco coir might inherently hold more nutrients per square inch than pumice is capable of holding, due only to their inherent physical compositions. Again, how is the base `case` even formulated? With regard to maximum and minimum input required in a system where the nutrients `are` derived, primarily, if not wholly, from the activities of fungi, bacteria, nematodes, viruses, and even single-celled creatures that might be present in the total population?
We might be in concurrence with the `philosophy` of `organic` gardening and farming, yet, we might view the same or similar instances of references to processes that may have difficulty proceeding through the flow chart of the scientifc method.
For example, a healthy discussion with the scientific method as the base principle, might next require - for the benefit of all interested gardeners - a thorough reproduction, by any experimenter, of the case(s) in which,
1) `because microbes are responsible for the different ionic stages of "nutrients" `;
and;
2) `you can test soil to see how much of a given mineral or element is present. From this you can deduce the level of microbial activity that is taking place.`
The former might be easier than the latter to conceive of possibly being reproducible; the latter might be quite challengin -
`dudicing`
the composite level of microbial activity in a given sample. To what level? Single-celled activity? Comparing aerobic and anaerobic `microbe` population differences?
We are not posting that the above is too challenging to create a baseline from, and to reproduce, yet, simply outlining the sheer amount of variables involved - and verifying their results across several replications - might be an interesting and engaging project.
Perhaps, the cuurent evaluation might not be geared towards such exploration, but rather on `what works` or what seems to work. However, we might approach the topic as, perhaps, in a unique situation to explore the open laboratory in this forum to actually create reproducible flowcharts, based on the scientific method. The rewards from such an approach might be potentially enormous.
--
`.whether there is an increase or a decrease, over a given period of time. You are not so much as looking at the microbes themselves, as much as you are looking for the by products of their general presence...and in what concentrations...`
Again, how can this be verified and more importantly, reproduced? What are the relevant numbers?
`Concentrations` might imply a minimum and maximums, as well as perhaps solubility. What are the ranges of these variable inputs? If not measured for efficiacy, than merely for edification as to approach taken might actually be accurate in its application?
Perhaps gardeners might draw a comparison to simply using a 1 part or 2 part totally synthetic dry solution as a `nutrient`, as the experimental gardener that might apply such an approach might also be able to accurately and factual post that synthetic nutrient solution is `repsonsible for different ionic stages of "nutrients"`.
In other words, the two could equate, to a neutral observer. Which, as a team which strives to eliminate waste in final processes, or products, the `organic` approach might be described more scientifically, or, in a rational flow chart of illustrated processes - to demonstrate its accuracy - and that it is actually worth the effort.
Otherwise, the resources allocated to continually acquire more, or different `organic fertilizers` - on top of pointing out theat `microbes are responsible for the different ionic stages of "nutrients"`, might not appear consistent. To put it another way, if the gardener is still consuming the same or similar amount of
1) packaging,
2) travel for materials,
3) applying more of anything than is necessary for success
the sum total might be `organic` and `hydroponic` type systems producing the same or similar impact with regard to overal l production requirement for consumption demand; there would be no advantage to employing `organic` methods if the gardener is demanding from the market the same amount of products to be produced to satisfy the `microbes`, or any other `organic` approach.
For a neutral scientist or experimenter, either option might inherently contain the potential for over-consumption and could, at the end of the day, be relatively similar with regard to the `principles` or `philosophies` of `organic gardening`.
Actually, the option of a single bag of base NPK-Mg-S-Fe hydropinc and a separate bag of calcium nitrate, might be more `organic` than organic - if the total inputs can be reduced and maximum efficiency garnered by the least amount of inputs.
Either way might work well, though. We simply post here as a neutral experimenter.
If the 1st of the concepts (hypotesis) set forth from the above post
`because microbes are responsible for the different ionic stages of "nutrients" `
could be rationally verified, corroborated, and reproduced, based on the actual variables and resulting numbers, the concusions might be worthy of setting the standard for the approaches mentioned worldwide. it is doable, but might require a great deal of rational efforts to formulate into a cohesive - and reproducible just by the numbers approach. Any of the interested gardeners could do it.
Simply presenting the position in such an absolute manner might be the intial requirement; perhaps the next step might optionally be adequate numbers and min/max base required inputs, total variables to be examined and whether the concept is verifiable and reproducible.
If accurate on its plain words alone, it would appear to eliminate the need for any additional `nutrients` or `fertilizers` at all.
Just potential considerations for the soil or soilless gardener or experimenter.
Thanks.
Kind regards
/SRGB/
Last edited:
When I refer to confused bacteria, I mean confused about their sexuality. They're neither male nor female. 
Oh, I get it...like my seed lines... ROFL... 
dank.Frank
dank.Frank
SRGB - Hey man, I'm not trying to detract from the thread, so I replied to you in a rep message, in part...so it doesn't come off as being snide or pointed.
I soil test through Cornell. They've got one of the best programs in the nation. Some times, they laugh at me for sending in 20 different samples that all test nearly identical, and have often assumed I was taking core samples from a large field...
Other times they have been amazed at the various figures they've gotten from samples and test them multiple times to make sure there wasn't an error...
With much guidance, I've been able to dial in a soil formula that not only works on cannabis, but across a very broad range of plants...pretty much anything within a given pH range. Alter pH a bit and it works exactly the same for a different set of plants. The main reason for this is due to the beneficial bacteria populations that are present...
I'm not trying to play a game of wits or who can make the most comprehensive most ... the base line, is what I started with many years ago, and the improvements that have been gradually made, until a different base line was formed. With each elimination of a problem a new baseline is formed...it's progressive, but ultimately, I've worked with about 4 solid, improve from here, measures, over the course of the last 6 years or so. The only measure of success I rely on is the quality of my medicine. Is that subjective...perhaps...but only to the point of allowing myself to become jaded and thinking that I've got it "all" figured out. I'll never take claim to such a statement...but I do know (believe) that nature has it all figured out - and as much as I can leave to natural order, I do.
The HARDEST part of the equation, is really learning that EVERY cannabis plant actually DOES feed a bit differently, even clones...that in and of itself, can and does result in different test results. It took me a bit to realize some of my varying figures and miscalculations along the way were the result of this variance...
One day, perhaps I'll compile all the various tests and notes in the filing cabinets into some form of comprehensive conclusion. Until then, all I can do is share with others what I have learned from my personal first hand experience. It's not like I stand to gain anything by someone else growing better flowers...but they certainly do.
dank.Frank
I soil test through Cornell. They've got one of the best programs in the nation. Some times, they laugh at me for sending in 20 different samples that all test nearly identical, and have often assumed I was taking core samples from a large field...
Other times they have been amazed at the various figures they've gotten from samples and test them multiple times to make sure there wasn't an error...
With much guidance, I've been able to dial in a soil formula that not only works on cannabis, but across a very broad range of plants...pretty much anything within a given pH range. Alter pH a bit and it works exactly the same for a different set of plants. The main reason for this is due to the beneficial bacteria populations that are present...
I'm not trying to play a game of wits or who can make the most comprehensive most ... the base line, is what I started with many years ago, and the improvements that have been gradually made, until a different base line was formed. With each elimination of a problem a new baseline is formed...it's progressive, but ultimately, I've worked with about 4 solid, improve from here, measures, over the course of the last 6 years or so. The only measure of success I rely on is the quality of my medicine. Is that subjective...perhaps...but only to the point of allowing myself to become jaded and thinking that I've got it "all" figured out. I'll never take claim to such a statement...but I do know (believe) that nature has it all figured out - and as much as I can leave to natural order, I do.
The HARDEST part of the equation, is really learning that EVERY cannabis plant actually DOES feed a bit differently, even clones...that in and of itself, can and does result in different test results. It took me a bit to realize some of my varying figures and miscalculations along the way were the result of this variance...
One day, perhaps I'll compile all the various tests and notes in the filing cabinets into some form of comprehensive conclusion. Until then, all I can do is share with others what I have learned from my personal first hand experience. It's not like I stand to gain anything by someone else growing better flowers...but they certainly do.
dank.Frank
ptfarmer420
Member
Very good info around here and very good buds ...
What is your opinion of Death Star ?
What is your opinion of Death Star ?
