Sleeper7784
Active member
8 looks like he's got bigger balls. He might be packen heat.
8 looks like he's got bigger balls. He might be packen heat.
looks good man. its been a while since I been around, but I will be getting something together here in the next cpl weeks keep up the great work bud
AD I am gonna put in a special request Gsc x F13. What could be better? Maybe a low yielder but the quality will be off the hook 2 heavyweights getting together!
You should take your gsc turn on some Marvin gay lets get it on and let that f13 hump the hell out of one of your gsc FEMs. Lol
On another note Ad hope your Christmas was bomb and hopefully you have a great new year!!
Peace mike
Man what a PITA... lol
Just finished washing the last of 400 lbs of calcinated clay...
Washed it in the blue totes and even after 30 + minutes of swishing the CC and dumping the dirty water off the top it comes up cloudy...
Using a hose at full power I must have used a over a hundred gallons of water for the 3 totes...
Garden hose full power for and hour and a half....
Seems like a waste of water..lol Gots to get er dun though...
Getting ready to prime the new pool and looks like im going to be using all 400 lbs of CC...lol Damn....
What do yall think about pre jacked water neem washing ?
Washing the CC in the pool with plain water and neem.
6 oz of neem in 30+ gallons of water...
Change out the res water and add jacked water to charge the CC...
Is this a good idea or waste of time and neem ?
Another question for those that know...
Having 2 pools in the same tent,each with its own light source.
Could I run one light 12 hours then change over to the other for 12 with no total dark time and never both at the same time ?
Would this work instead of 18/6 or 12/5/2/5 ...
This would help with my rh and temps...
Wanting my temps and RH in the 70s at all times.
All lights on
no exhaust T 84 RH 55
Exhaust on T 81 RH 42
One light on at a time.
No exhaust T 78 RH 65-75 depending on the light.
Any thoughts ?
..
I think preventative measures (i.e neem wash) are always a good thing . As for one light on at a time, can't see any reason it wouldn't work. Might induce some extra stretch during the "off" period, due to the plants reaching for the "on" light, but that's purely a guess.
I would also think it might depend on how far away the pools are from each other. My only concern would be to much shading on some plants and causing hermies to pop out.
Maybe get one of those light movers Ad.
Hi, Alien Dawg.
Thank you. Happy Holidays to you and yours as well!
--
--Perhaps, beginning with clear and concise definitions of the terms used to convey concepts might be beneficial towards effective communication, in virtually any forum of exchange of concepts, particularly scientific concepts.
For example, the practice of flooding to
`Make nutrients more available to roots`.
we would first begin by defining `more`. `More` compared to what base or control? How is `more`, as an example, compared to `less` calculated and confirmed?
Would flooding multiple occasions per 24 hour period provide the conditions to
`make nutrients more available to roots`
Comparing the results of the above, that is, constantly top-fed and fed at once per day, the gardener might find similarities with regard to the root health and growth of the specimen.
We did the tests at multiple occasions, at both extremes, and found that constant watering did not necessarily increase root or growth rates of the specimen. Though, it might be rewarding for the experimental gardener to perform there own tests with extremes of watering and draw their own conclusions.
The second point that you present, that is multiple floods per day
`Adds more air to the root zone,allowing for more air roots.`
might be an interesting proposition to examine.
Again, we would probably seek to first define `more air`. How is that measurement calculated? Compared to which practice? How much `more air`?
From our experiments with SRBGB`s, water did not provide as much direct access to air as air itself. That is, what we found was that providing oxygen channels, or access to environmental air permitted roots that were seeking that element to grow into that environment. While water does contain oxygen, air does not require the splitting of hydrogen away to access the air - it is just air (actually there is almost 21% nitrogen and other elements also in the atmosphere, or `air`, from what we can accurately recollect).
In any event, a brief example might be a container filled with water next to a container filled with nothing. The container containing nothing might have greater volume of accessible `air`, or oxygen, by volume. An interesting experiment to evaluate, perhaps.
Similarly as to the above points, we would first have to define what
`air roots`
are - and also what they are not. How they might differ from `non-air roots`, and the conditions which might encourage their growth and overall health.
Perhaps, for some gardeners, the definition might include references to `air roots` in various at large articles or publications or documentations; there might be a defnitive method to visually observe differences between `air roots` and `non-air roots`, yet those observations might be primarily defined within the frameworks of certain publications or `techniques` to achieve a specific result.
Another way to put the question might be, can any gardener observe any given root mass and accurately distinguish between `air roots` and `non-air roots`?
For that matter, what are `non-air roots`? What is their proper biological reference? How are they properly distinguished from `water roots`?
It might be advantageous for gardeners themselves to to thoroughly define what `air roots` are and which roots are not `air roots`. Based on available publications, corroborated with the capacity to actually distinguish between the two, or other specialized root mass portions - by their own (preferably replicatable) observations.
--
Air root production is associated with cannabinol production.
Water roots often seem to be more brittle than soil-grown ones. This may due to the bigger aerenchyma – the airy tissue found in roots of plants that allows exchange of gases between the shoot and the root – which the water roots have.
SRBGB`s were specifically developed to encourage root growth, not `root pruning`, within whichever technique the gardener may select to employ (scalable to DWC, SWC, NFT, other novbel methods), or by employing the methods that we developed to refine the technique of watering as little as possible and wasting as little as possible (preferably, wasting zero/no) resources.
During experiments with SRBGB`s we did find that given certain conditions, certain portions of a given root mass might indeed grow into `thin air`.
The conditions which generally encouraged such diverse root growth and development were those which permitted a greater volume of air both into the given SRBGB and outside of the SRBGB.
We would, perhaps premilimarily consider these portions of root mass as `air roots`, though we are not necessarily certain if that is the appropriate physiological term to describe such root structures. Unfortunately, for various reasons, this area of root development research might include terms which may have taken on more of a reference with an emphasis on `root pruning` `techniques` or `methods` than simple definitions between actual physiologically differentiated root structures.
With SRBGB`s, we were, at least to the best of our limited experimental data sets, able to tentatively distinguish portions of root systems that tended to grow directly into air; and further to replicate the process which we considered positive encouragment of such root growth, at other experiments.
The illustration at
SRBGB - Roots (at #6)
were 1 liter SRBGB`s which were part of an `extremes` experimental set, in which the specimen were only `watered`, at most, once per 24 hour period.
Some waterings were approximately 2 - 4 ounces (or less) per delivery, or only enough solution to produce a minimal run-off - a run-off that accumulated to only dampness (see basin floor).
At other occasions, the delivery was even less than 2 - 4 ounces of solution, that is, the experimental SRBGB units were only top misted from a single 1 liter spray bottle, until only the top of the media was damp - without enough being applied to drain through the SRBGB and accumulate run-off.
The media mixes varied between calcined clay, perlite, pumice, and combined mixes of each. The SRBGB depicted to the right, if we could recollect accurately, had media consisting of 1/2 - 1 inch pumice; rather `large` inert rocks, at least when compared to calcined clay particulate. That type of media might drain `more` thoroughly than a more compacted media such as calcined clay, or fine perlite or pumice.
Our estimation being that larger, irregular rocks might provide greater actual physical channels for oxygen within the SRBGB (as larger rocks compact less and form gaps between the irregular shapes of the rocks), and conversely might possess less actual water holding capacity on the collidial surfaces than a finer medium.
Again, the SRBGB`s were only provided water roughly once per 24 hours, until the approximate accumulation of dampness depicted in the illustration accrued.
--
Relevant to your (very good) question regarding multiple floods; our short answer would be that we are not certain about whether or not multiple floods might cause `damage` or other `negative effects`. As to whether multiple floodings are `simply unneeded`, we would refer to the above described experiments relevant to the limited amount of water or solution that we provided during what we might refer to as `extremes` testing.
I would say that if you have not found a negative associated with multiple watering a day. Given the array of test and amount of work you have done with roots... I for one find am comfortable in believing multiple floods do not cause undue harm to the root system and there for are a safe option(In my own opinion)If desired.
Note that the moisture level at basin floor level was only `damp`, not `wet`; at occasions, it was `dry`, at least as perceptible to the experimenters, in addition to having not provided any moisture for 48 hours, or more (to determine if in fact the specimens` roots would stop growing into only `air`). The illustration that reference might depict the results better than we could accurately describe, though we would still do our best to remain within the restriction of accurate scientific communication, even if an illustration from an experiment was not available.
Towards that, we would describe a particular root tip growing out of the side wall of a 1 liter SRBGB, at approximately 1 inch (+/- 1/8) above the floor of a basin. The root tip increased in length and diameter as it grew into `thin air`, not having constant direct contact with a water supply. The root eventually grew to a length exceeding 3 inches (7.5cm), having a diameter of between approximately 1/16 to 1/8 of 1 inch (.15cm - .3cm). The specimen were irrigated at the rate of approximately 2 to 4 ounces (.06 - .12 liters) per 24 hour period, alternatively, some specimen were only lightly misted (1 ounce), in either instance the accumulated drainage (run-off) accumulated to no more than 1/16 to 1/8 of 1 inch (.15cm - .3cm). Root growth continued employing the same approach as described. Container: SRBGB 1 liter. Media: Calcined clay, perlite, pumice, combination of the individual inert rocks. Nutrient solution: Primarily synthetic, provided once or twice per week. Water: provided every 24 to 48 hours.
(See, in general, Square Root® Brand Garden Bag - Drain-To-No-Waste [Methods]).
--
The gardener themselves might experiment with different extremes to find any preliminary or definitive conclusions to the present question relevant to the advantages, benefits, or potential adverse (not necessarily as to the specimen) of mulitple waterings.
We would only present that clean water is perhaps the most `valuable` resource on this planet. If `less` could be used to accomplish the given task, perhaps alternatives to excessive use might be explored; by the farmer, soilless gardener, agrarian, industry at large, person. We might seek to hope that at least some considerations might be, perhaps, examined, relevant to the general usage of clean water.
From a purely experimental soilless gardening perspective, we would probably attempt to use as less water, and, indeed any resource (natural or synthetic, mechanical or static) as possible; in pursuit of potential maximum efficiency, and also simply to see if it (whatever the question of the experiment might be) is actually possible - and most importantly, is replicatable within the framework of the scientific method. To that end we posted the article Drain-To-No-Waste [Methods] (see above) which explored, in greater detail, the steps that we took during some of the above experiments.
Kind regards,
/SRGB/