in any case I appreciate the work done. I am no biologist, and have no degrees or even real experience in botany but I am fairly intelligent and have enough education to be truly dangerous.
Some say start the EWC in a jar with some food and a little water in a jar first, some say NO! My grow is too small for any real tests.
I only grow for my head, it's all a labor of love. I have plenty of good smoke now and I am always looking for a way to up my game.
The constant conflicting information and downright misinformation is really part of the fun. Frustrating as it may be.
I will check out more of your posts.
Here are some free tips. Information given with no back up data could be suspect. Data given for lay people should be easy to see and comprehend. Saying that the plants did great is not data.
If someone has set their own bar or parameters for their supportive data, view it as suspect. (e.g. X volume of bacteria with Y volume of fungi or protozoa = XY pounds of nitrogen per acre; presented without logic or foundation)
If someone gives a different way of doing something, it should be based on gathered data, not observed growth results.
For example if the presenter advocates adding nutrients to a finished ACT, they should be able to show that the microbial life was not negatively impacted by such a practice.
If they are advising this practice then they should have data (results) available from 1/ using nutrients added to ACT
2/ using only the nutrients 3/ using only ACT 4/ other applicable controls deemed relative
My microscopy data has consistently shown a reduction in microbial activity from adding substances to finished ACT. One might conclude that growing benefits observed may be from the nutrient alone and that 24 to 48 hours was wasted in making ACT.
.. as I am a naive experienced SMALL"chemical" grower wanting to dab into the organic world.
