High Yield Organics!

[Photosynthesis]

Photo nailed it. Who has the greater bragging rights?

The guy who grows with 18 hours of light for 4 to 6 weeks, then flips to 12 hours for 75 (avg) days of flowering and ends up with 2 lb per light. Then he needs to reamend his growing media or at least mix it up and remove roots. (plant to harvest = 110 days approx avg)

Or

The guy who grows with 18 hours of light for 10 to 14 days in a living soil then flips to 12 hours with a fast flower ripening cultivar finished in approximately 50 days ending with 1.5 lb per light. No need to reamend, nor transplant part way through; just pull out the immediate root ball (old peat pellet, etc) and plop in rooted cutting.
(plant to harvest = 62 days approx avg)

In scenario number one you may consider that one might add on at least 2 days for dealing with the media = 112 days. This means that in a year one gets 3.26 harvests @ 2 lb per light = 6.52 lbs per light per year. Also consider having to deal with the extra plant tissue, trimming lots of leaves, etc.

In scenario number two in a year one would get 5.89 harvests in a year @ 1.5 lb per light = 8.84 lbs per light per year. The bonuses are that; no remix of soil, the lights were on less, the quality is likely higher, the plant is finished at around 18 inches tall and is practically all floral clusters, so less trimming is required.

If this is for other people then another attribute is a clean conscience. Do the math. You may also alter flowering times etc. but I believe one still comes out ahead using natural living soil techniques.

BTW, this movie is based on a true story

What he said.

 

[CannaBrix]

Microbe-

I am sorry, but why are you looking at the scenario with two different cultivars. You just shifted the balance to the living soil method by switching to a faster ripening plant?
No qualms that sustainable indoor growing is better in almost all aspects than conventional indoor growing but I think you should even it out.

 

[Photosynthesis]

Microbe-

I am sorry, but why are you looking at the scenario with two different cultivars. You just shifted the balance to the living soil method by switching to a faster ripening plant?
No qualms that sustainable indoor growing is better in almost all aspects than conventional indoor growing but I think you should even it out.

Cannabrix making shit more complicated then it really is say what?

 

[CannaBrix]

The plant in microbes post changed from a 10-11 week finishing to a 7 week finishing....the whole point is skewed.

This isn't about crunching the numbers and making things complicated. I talk about the gray area, point out the things that COULD be complicated. I poke and prod so we can all find answers.

You came in here to call out 'funny marijuana growers' because 'they' are talking about high yields. Why can we not talk about yields?

When a grower switches his nutrient/feeding style, and they keep everything else the same....then yeah you can talk yield. Its all relative.

It is not a scientific experiment, so what? Take an internet post with a grain of salt. You SHOULD be doing the experimenting yourself. But at least it is good to see another individual enthusiastic, who saw positive results moving away from conventional growing styles.

Away from the trends we go....

 

[Baked Alaskan]

With the earlier technique i posted you can harvest a 10 week strain every 8 weeks. The plants have already been in flower for two weeks by the time they hit the 12 hr room.

The plants have still flowered for 10 weeks. But you harvest from the 12 hr room every 8 weeks

 

[Microbeman]

Microbe-

I am sorry, but why are you looking at the scenario with two different cultivars. You just shifted the balance to the living soil method by switching to a faster ripening plant?
No qualms that sustainable indoor growing is better in almost all aspects than conventional indoor growing but I think you should even it out.

I thought I mentioned that;

Do the math
You may also alter flowering times etc. but I believe one still comes out ahead using natural living soil techniques.

In actuality, I think the flowering time for those larger breed plants is often longer than 75 days. Please correct me if I'm wrong. That is what I actually experienced so it is what I stated. If you want to do the math actually filling in the KWhrs, etc. go for it.

Without figuring the extra cost of electricity, trimming, nutrients, labor if you give the big plants the 50 day flower time we get 8.39, still less yield I think...right?.

 

[Microbeman]

With the earlier technique i posted you can harvest a 10 week strain every 8 weeks. The plants have already been in flower for two weeks by the time they hit the 12 hr room.

The plants have still flowered for 10 weeks. But you harvest from the 12 hr room every 8 weeks

Its all about how long a certain number of lights are on, the cost of labor and materials if one is calculating yield.

 

[Photosynthesis]

I believe I saw Microbeman and someone else in this exact same conversation a few years ago.

This forum sometimes seems like the Movie Groundhog Day.

 

[CannaBrix]

Microbe-

I don't want to get into specifics, as then we'd be compiling a nice business plan for somebody who may not even appreciate it!

Just wanted some clarification. I like the truth, and even when it is a subject I agree with, the truth must come forward. Skewing the numbers in your example is just an inaccurate way to prove living soil techniques are better.

There are many many reasons living soil techniques are better than conventional. The debate on yields will go on forever, as there are often many other limiting factors as we are discussing.

Let us recognize that you can get comparable or even better yields using living soil or sustainable growing, and there will also be examples where growers will get less yields.

We should spread information that shows the definitive pros of living soil, which higher yields is not a definitive pro.

But in living soil comparable yields are feasible, dependence on hydro or 'snake oil' companies is lessened, we take money and power away from the chemical industry, plant stress can be greatly reduced, we lessen the risk of over or under feeding, less waste....

My biggest (yet forgotten) reason is that moving forward to a legal and commercial cannabis industry, when it gets really big, the waste and pollution of conventional farming will hopefully not be followed by the cannabis growers. As we are hopefully more informed and more prepared than farmers of yesteryear.

That's what I can get out of my head right now, anybody care to add?

 

[Photosynthesis]

Higher quality will always command a higher price. Thus negating this "yield" discussion.

$25 6 pack of limited edition micro brew beer, or $9.99 24 pack of Milwaukee's Best?

I think this has been left out of your arithmetic lessons.

 

[mojave green]

Soil is just another media...nuttin to get ur panties in a bunch over.

 

[dank.frank]

It all comes down to environment...when I want bigger yields...I don't change my "nutrient formula" to something else promising "gainz"....

I change the genetics I am playing with for a plant that possess the genetic potential to produce. Yields are a combination of proper environmental factors and genetic potential.

Quality of quantity.

If you are using soil as "just another media' - then your doing it wrong, in my honest opinion. Soil should be a living, functioning ecosystem. When I think of "media" it brings to mind something inert...not something that is sustaining a living habitat.

The problem I often find is plants that produce commercial quantity...just don't posses that head stash quality. I hate growing something that I don't even care to smoke...

All that aside, I've gotten higher yields in true sustainable organic soils, per volume of soil - on the same plants - than I ever did treating soil as a media and dumping PBP+additives into it...



dank.Frank

 

[CannaBrix]

mojave-

This isn't about a media, or just 'soil'. Its about 'living soil' a living media. As frank is saying. Soil was the first media to have chemicals dumped on it, not hydro.

frank-

thanks for the input. that is exactly the mindset needed to get away from the bells and whistles of the cannabis culture. higher yields are genetic traits, not a growing style.

 

[Baked Alaskan]

Its all about how long a certain number of lights are on, the cost of labor and materials if one is calculating yield.

I agree. Labor is fairly static (except for maybe trimming) and materials are commensurate. As far as light usage ive always had my rooms going all the time and with this technique you use less light by turning the 18-24 hr room to 12 hr early.

That being said, this is the simplest most cost effective way to increase yearly yield I've ever seen or heard of for indoor growing.

A 10 week strain gets an extra harvest per year and an 8 week strain gets two extra harvests per year, same floor space, lights and plant count per cycle. This worked great with the 3/3 plant count laws in Alaska (a pre-flowering plant looks like a vegging plant, but is actually in flower mode).

My yields increased with a living soil. I think partly because i never had nutrient problems or deficiencies and the bug problems went away, both huge problems when i used chemicals.

 

[Nico Farmer]

HI every bogy!
I grow for near 15 years in hydro with mineral nutrients,
and today I Think organics in the way...
next sessions in Biopony; life in soil make natural weed!

 

[Microbeman]

My approach was from a medium sized commercial production stand point. It is possible to use 100% natural (living soil) growing techniques to produce an equal or greater yield but usually of a much better quality.

The largest expenses which apply to both is electricity. With the system I described, lights are on for 18 hrs for a maximum 14 days per cycle. There is no this room nor that room, just several rooms (cells) all serving the same purpose. Well actually there is a cuttings room with fluorescents.

Quality is a variable applied to the skill and knowledge of the grower. There is a tendency for people growing with chemicals to overuse, in an attempt to push the envelope. This leads to a spiral of this chemical to fix the effects of that chemical.

Natural/organic growers can fall into the same trap, especially at the beginning but one major pitfall is not being pro-active concerning pathogens and pests.

I have not considered plant number laws into this analysis. If the same genetics are used, one is still confronted with the cost of reamending if growing conventionally.

 

[mojave green]

Soil should be a living, functioning ecosystem. When I think of "media" it brings to mind something inert...not something that is sustaining a living habitat.

Like a bio-bucket?

 

[Microbeman]

Like a bio-bucket?

Do you mean like this https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=8182 The most important part, the nutrient profile is left out. Do you have another resource? At least he does say it is complex.

We did something very similar at the turn of the century with waterfall effect into a vertical garden into 4 inch pipe plus resevoir. Media was clay pellets. The problem was with nutrient salts we had disease-disease-disease.

This cannot be compared in the slightest to living soil. We spent about $10K on research trying to use ACT in this system and utterly failed. I do have ideas now, in my old age that might make it work.

 

[3rdEye]

Higher quality will always command a higher price. Thus negating this "yield" discussion.

$25 6 pack of limited edition micro brew beer, or $9.99 24 pack of Milwaukee's Best?

I think this has been left out of your arithmetic lessons.

Quality is first and yields, as TM pointed out, are genetic given healthy happy plants and soil.

Saying that, i must also say that higher prices are an automatic results of quality. It also takes an educated end user who is also interested and dedicated to paying those premiums. Assuming you are having to deal with commercial end of things.

I think, with a few exceptions, plants with exceptional qualities and reasonable yields are achievable. Root room in living soil is a big factor as well.

 

[Team Microbe]

Quality is first and yields, as TM pointed out, are genetic given healthy happy plants and soil.

Saying that, i must also say that higher prices are an automatic results of quality. It also takes an educated end user who is also interested and dedicated to paying those premiums. Assuming you are having to deal with commercial end of things.

I think, with a few exceptions, plants with exceptional qualities and reasonable yields are achievable. Root room in living soil is a big factor as well.

Well said 3rd Eye -

I know 1st hand of how frustrating it is not to have people that appreciate the level of quality in flowers. They could have A grade sensi next to some heavy metal beasters and not care. Those are the people I don't deal with because their ignorance just pisses me off to the point of argument.

It's hard to find connoisseurs in non-med states sometimes, so when you do you usually rely on each other for obvious reasons. There's nothing like getting those texts complimenting your product... then more orders because their friends liked it so much. You can easily see giant yields while keeping quality levels very high, it's all about obeying the laws of the soil food web IMO