farmergiles

Work is currently under way on the revised GrowFAQ2.0.

Now is the time to correct any errors, defects or omissions.

If anyone has any suggestions, criticisms or material they wish contribute then don't be shy. Yahooka and especially GTGH will thank you.

Don't feel you can't comment if you have little or now growing experience- the GrowFAQ should hopefully be of use to beginners and veterans- your input will be appreciated.

- fg

__________________
Cultivate a stoic calmness

Coaster13

This is AWESOME!
Please feel free to use any material I've posted as a "here's what to do if trouble arises" format. I'd be happy to contribute in any way I can. Peace!

mothernature

Drying and Curing

Well, here is my secret....

After the buds appear to be dry, I would put them in coffee cans (because I had alot of them) for 24 hours. Then I would lay them out on the screen for another 24 hours. Perfect smokability every time.

I actually thinks this works because of the wicking action draws the moisture from the inside of the bud and distributes it more evenly during the day it's in the closed coffee can.

Galt

No practical outdoor experience with cannabis but these are some things that worked extremely well in our organic field trials (read that: too effing hot and humid like the inside of a damp sponge day and night for weeks at a time - little evening respiration opportunity in this area where hops and grapes usually develop mold and mildew issues).

Soil modifiers to heavy red clay soil;

Ground horticultural gypsum ( not drywall which has all sorts of other crap in it), bank run sand and composted stable bedding and horse manure (not raw or green stuff), as well as one cubic yard of year old composted yard waste (mainly grass clippings and oak leaves) per 100 sq. ft.

A cover crop of nitrogen fixing legumes (beans) were planted the year before and tilled in to depth of approximately 12" along with soil modifiers and amendments.

Organic amendments added;

Blood Meal - 1/2 to 1 lb. per 100 sq. ft. - One of the highest sources of organic nitrogen that lasts for about 4 months. Typically rapid nitrogen release is not recommended for seedlings (fert burn) but is well tolerated by healthy transplants. Typical Analysis 13-0-1. Warm moist conditions will hasten protein to ammonia conversion and plant uptake so the presence of aged compost and its still modest carbon levels were thought to help mitigate this tendency in our trials. Blood meal also helps keep animals away.
Rock Phosphate - 6 lbs. per 100 sq. ft. - provides slow release of phosphorus for up to about five years years
Dolomitic Lime - 4 to 5 lbs. per 100 sq. ft. of improved soil (dependent on starting pH.) adds calcium and magnesium as well as adjusts pH
Crushed Granite - 5 lbs. per sq. ft. - slow release potash and trace minerals that will last almost ten years
Greensand - 4 lbs. per 100 sq. ft. - marine potash with loads of trace minerals that also helps break up clay soils
Cold Water Kelp Meal - 1 lb. per 100 sq. ft. - potash and trace minerals as well as natural growth hormones. Do not use warm water variety due to possible high levels of Mercury and don't over use due to the presence of the growth hormones.
Bone Meal - 1 lb. per 100 sq. ft. - provides calcium and phosphorus and contributes to early season root development.

Additional additives and beneficial organisms;

Roots / Roots plus Iron - Liquid commercial preparation that provides trace minerals as well as mycorrhizae inoculant - promotes root growth and stimulates micro root growth
Beneficial Nematodes - Slightly larger than microscopic worms that feed on pest larvae which typically begin their life cycle in the soil. Different nematodes live in different soil strata, eg; top six inches vs. 12"-18" deep.
Beneficial Insects
- Lady bug and parasitic wasps were released at intervals throughout the growing season

Using aged compost as a top dressing mulch and low concentrate (1-1-1) fertilizer, no other nutrients were typically required throughout the growing season, although liquid fish emulsion was fed through out on a bi-weekly basis and heavy feeding transplants were given an addition of one tablespoon of Epsom salts in their transplant hole when first set out. Watering was root zoned leaky hose type irrigation with moisture control sensors. Transplants were hardened off in cold frames and placed in permanent beds one month early by using Wall-O-Water insulating jackets. (not very stealthy for weed)

Our resultant yields were 2-5 times the commercial averages for our region using exclusively open pollinated heirloom variety seed and no hybridized genetically engineered seed stock. All plants were "pinched back" and flowering was delayed to promote larger root development, minimize inter nodal spacing. Many of the trellised indeterminate variety heirloom tomatoes yielded well over 120 lbs. of fruit per plant over the course of the season.

Since a plant's healthy physiology makes it inedible to most of its native pests, the best insecticide is simply healthy and vigorous plants. Deep well developed root systems are better able to access trace elements and moisture thereby limiting stress during times of drought. Well nourished loamy soil with moisture conserving mulch allow transplants and seedlings to out compete with weed seeds and eventually shade them out as a result of their own accelerated growth.

Any soil amending schedule should always begin with a soil sample analysis, which is usually available through your State's agricultural extension services for a nominal fee.

Our experiences were all very successful with no disease organism or pest infestations in evidence even though they were prevalent throughout the surrounding non-organic no till farming community that season. There was also no need for any additional cultivation for weed control after the second top dressing of compost was applied one month after transplants had been set.
Water usage was also calculated to represent less than 25% of the average rate utilized by conventional techniques in that area for that season despite a two week drought.

I know what all of this means if you're growing tomatoes, peppers or squash, but haven't tried it on cannabis. The techniques are simple and sound however and it seems that they should benefit any outdoor growing scenario to some degree.

__________________
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."
- Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
_________________

"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."
- Martin Luther King Jr. (1929-1968)

Galt

Ever here of Espaliered fruit trees? Why couldn't you do it with cannabis. Depending on the pattern that you choose it might turn out looking like a Menorah filled with budsickles instead of candles. Maybe grow some Jasmine on top to help hide the buds and smell?

Espalier Fruit Tree: Step By Step Espalier Directions

I dunno...just a whacky thought. Might make it easier to hide some outdoor plants

__________________
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."
- Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
_________________

"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."
- Martin Luther King Jr. (1929-1968)

farmergiles

Just looking at the lighting section of the FAQs Lighting. One thing I'd like to get straight.

Comparisons of flouro's and HID lighting are made. One piece of information given (that I've heard oft mentioned elsewhere as well) is that flouro's are cooler than HID lighting.

On reflection (lol- get it?) I'm a bit suspicious of this statement.

If we have say a 400w sodium HID light compared with 400w worth of flouro's I'm sure from my own experience and everything I've ever read, that the sodium produces a higher amount of PAR (photosynthetically active radiation- ie light which plants can use for photosynthesis) than the flouro's.
Because of conservation of energy, if we start with 400w worth of energy this must all go somewhere. The PAR can be absorbed and used by the plant. All the remaining energy is radiated onto the plants or the cabinet walls. This all turns to heat one way or another.

So we have energy in 400w = PAR out + heat out.
So the sodium light should produce less heat than the flouro's. Indeed I have found that if you fill a cabinet with flouro's it does get hot in there.

Now I hear you say, fg you fool!, how do you explain the fact that I can put my flouro's right on top of my plants without scorching them whereas the sodium needs to be at the very very least 6" away to avoid scorching them?

Simple- the sodium light is almost a point source whereas 400w of flouros will have a considerable surface area. So the intensity of heat and light radiated close to the flouro's will be much less even though the overall heat output will be greater.

Also- if you have a remote ballast for the sodium lamp then this can be mounted outside the cab to reduce temperature whereas flouro's usually have the control gear built in, so this heat will be dissipated in the cab.

I'm aware that not all the energy goes to lumens in the first place but have a look at some figures for efficiency of bulbs lighting efficiency. High pressure sodium pwns flouro's, metal halide is about the same or slightly worse than flouro's. No mention is made of what proportion of energy is lost at the bulb and at the ballast but still..

?

__________________
Cultivate a stoic calmness

Galt

I'm curious if you hope to establish an absolute hierarchy here or are you just attempting to quantify some standard values for comparison when setting up a new system? Either way I'll throw my 2 cents in for consideration.

The floro's emit their light not just along the length of the lamp but also obviously all around its circumference, so yes it is a much less directional source than the HID's. Your point regarding the conservation of energy I believe answers the query. Regardless of the ballast location, for the same equivalent wattage the electronic ballasts for H.O. T-5 fixtures get warm whereas the HID's are hot. Not a particularly authoritative treatise but there it is nonetheless. It would seem that the HID ballasts turn more electricity into heat energy compared to the floro's. The ability/tendency of the HID's to radiate heat energy along with its light waves would suggest that even more electricity is being turned into heat.

Looking at the generic data provided by lighting suppliers this can be better qualified. The initial system efficiency of a Metal Halide system vs. an H.O. T-5 system illustrates a difference of system efficiencies of 79 vs. 85 lumens per watt respectively (system efficiency being that of the ballasts and lamps combined energy usage). Of course the problem with that data is that it refers to Lumen output (the light spectrum that the human eye sees in) and not the more plant usable specific PAR or Quantum ratings.

Another aspect is the degradation of color rendition over the lamps' life time as well as the shorter usable life expectancy rating of the MH lamp. So the quality of the light generated then also needs to be factored along with the relative cost to purchase as well as the cost of energy to operate.

Both systems are adaptable to a remote ballast installation so the issue of what to do about that source of residual heat is moot. The heat energy emitted with the light energy however is still a concern where the MH is concerned. Again, the data is presented in the less helpful Lumen form but the maintained efficiency of each system drifts further apart once the lamps approach 40% of their life expectancy. The MH at 40% of terminal age is rated at 51 lumens per watt while the H.O. T-5 is still at 81. This roughly correlates to a 35% reduction in correct color lumen output for the MH compared to only a 5% loss by the floro's. Usable light is what we are after so it would seem that in terms of system energy efficiency and consistency of desired light spectrum the floro's are superior.

Now as to the business of what you see vs. what your plants get, that's where the Quantum readings come into play and unfortunately the lamp manufacturers have been successful in marketing their wares without having to provide any definitive test data that might simplify this for us. When in doubt each one that I've spoken with has defaulted to wattage and lumen comparisons, which as already noted mean nothing for our purposes.

The best analogy that I have read describes light energy as being waves of particles. The particles in this situation are photons, and their density varies with the length of the wave. The measure of how many usable particles fall on what part of the plant is a complex issue that requires an accumulation of data over a sustained period of time. Indoors under artificial lights this isn't quite as complex since the relative light being provided is a constant on or constant off. Where the measurement of quantum light is taken is the next concern.

A reading of light available to the top of the plant canopy can be compared to a similar one taken at the soil line to determine the relative amount that is lost in transmission. Discussions about the HID's ability to punch down further never really made sense to me since shade is shade whether the sun is yellow or red. In an enclosed space with reflective surfaces surrounding the plants the reflected light will mitigate the effects of shading on the lower storied leaves and I suppose that this is where the intensity of the source would play a part. But just to keep things as confusing as possible this is also where the difference between floro's greater dispersion at the source vs. the HID's more focused point of origination comes back into play.

The HID, even with a high quality reflector does not seem capable of spreading as much light around uniformly, but it will have a concentration that is highest in the center of its focus. The more distance from the plants that is provided the less this is noticed but it will always remain essentially unbalanced, hence the advent of the track systems to spread it around.

Regarding how close the light source can be to the plants without scorching them, the light spectrum that is generated by the different bulbs can include U.V., PAR, Red and Far Red waves. The UV is the sun burner that can burn leaves and damage plant DNA. The radiant heat energy effects evapotranspiration, which includes relative humidity and air movement (which in turn also brings micro climes formed by dead air spaces, etc. into play).

So in the final analysis...I haven't got a clue...just a headache from trying to get my mind around all of this. The reason that the manufacturers don't figure this out for us is probably that there are just entirely too many variables in play to be able to nail down any significant absolutes. I'm using T-5's because of the confines of my space and the design flexibility that they provide. My interests in maintaining maximum stealth are also best suited to this approach. The proof will no doubt be in the final product. Total production and quality relative to input costs and aggravation avoided.

__________________
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."
- Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
_________________

"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."
- Martin Luther King Jr. (1929-1968)

Cerebro

some fantastic brainstorming guys, very informative.

__________________

farmergiles

Wow, gets complicated doesn't it?

Galt- you raise some good points.

I can't argue with this, even with super dooper modern digital ballasts, there is blatantly more heat emitted with the HID ballasts compared to an equivalent wattage of flouro ballasts, T5's or other.


Again, I can only agree with this. MH bulbs will need replacing after 6 months to a year, sodium will last longer, say 12 - 18 months whereas flouros should last 5 yrs (though cheapo Chinese ones might last a lot less well). And as you imply, inefficiency from bulb degradation will result one way or another in more heat and less PAR.
In my experience flouros don't degrade that much, just eventually they fail abruptly.


Depends on the wavelength of the light, so shade is not quite the same yellow or red. Longer wavelengths are less easily absorbed so they are more penetrative.
For instance, an infra red camera can see through thin walls whereas a regular camera cannot see through paper.
So especially in the case of sodium bulbs which have a pronounced yellow/red band (rather than the bluer MH) they should be more penetrative. Though I don't know how much more .


Yes, flouros are certainly easier to set up without scorching the plants, thereby saving having to spend $$ on light movers or aircooled shades etc.
However because the intensity of light from flouros falls off a lot quicker as distance from the light increases, the lights must be moved more often to keep the plants at an optimum distance- the tops of the plants should be almost touching the lights whereas with say a 600w HID anywhere between 8 and 30" is ok from a light intensity point of view.
I love this graph.


The comparisons you make are between T5's and MH. There is no denying that MH pushes out a lot of heat, however by comparison the figures for sodium look a lot better.
From wiki
T5 tube 10–15.63% overall luminous efficiency.
metal halide lamp 9.5–17%
high pressure sodium lamp 12–22%

__________________
Cultivate a stoic calmness