# Root Development vs Plant Growth



## skunkushybrid (Oct 5, 2007)

Here's the plan. Roots are merely a mechanism for the plant to uptake nutrients... therefore, so long as the plant is getting fed regularly enough... a small root system should be capable of sustaining a large plant.

I have 18 plants in 0.5litre containers. So far they've been vegging for 13 days. Made a couple of mistakes... I treated this like a sog grow, when it isn't, I also allowed them to stretch a little.

DAY 13

Here's the feed I've just given into 9litres of water:

Sensi Grow A: 18ml
Sensi Grow B: 18ml
MET Grow: 20ml
Fulvic Acid: 11ml
B52: 40ml
Barricade: 1.5ml
Cannazym: 22.5ml

I'm also going to be lowering the light very soon. I'll provide pic's later.


----------



## nongreenthumb (Oct 5, 2007)

I'm also going to run an experiment along similar lines.

I read on this site on a post from garden knowm about light cycles for veg and the different sizes of roots for the comparison.

He also stated that bigger roots = a bigger plant.

I plan on taking two seedlings from the same strain and putting one on 24 hour lighting and one on 18 hour lighting and comparing the size and yield throughout.

I'm 100% sure that the seedling that recieves 24 hour lighting will out do the 18 hour seedling by some way.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Oct 5, 2007)

Yes... the dark period will encourage the plants to grow roots, that i spend money on (in the form of cannazym) getting rid of.

Somebody very recently made a valid point that it is the skinny roots that do all the work anyway. The older, larger roots become useless and like I say, i spend money to get these roots eaten away.

By using the 24 system, I feel that the plant will grow just enough root to sustain itself... maybe even more as I am still spending money on cannazym.


----------



## nongreenthumb (Oct 5, 2007)

I've read that with 24 hour lighting the plant is given more energy and provides more sugars to help it grow. The article also said that if you use 18 hour lighting then you are losing 25% of your growth so a plant on 18 would take 5 weeks veg where as a plant on 24 would take 4 weeks veg.


----------



## natmoon (Oct 5, 2007)

skunkushybrid said:


> Here's the plan. Roots are merely a mechanism for the plant to uptake nutrients... therefore, so long as the plant is getting fed regularly enough... a small root system should be capable of sustaining a large plant.
> 
> I have 18 plants in 0.5litre containers. So far they've been vegging for 13 days. Made a couple of mistakes... I treated this like a sog grow, when it isn't, I also allowed them to stretch a little.
> 
> ...


I would agree,a small yet efficient root system is better for indoor growers,this is why i repot 3 times to keep the root system small and tight.
The plant doesn't waste time and energy on growing huge root systems and having huge pots to soon also causes stretch.
My plants never have fluffy buds even when i only used fluros to grow because of this i think.
The plant will emulate its root system if the roots are tight the nuggs will be tight.
I have no choice but to keep my plants short and fat and tight because of space issues so i have to do this anyway


----------



## skunkushybrid (Oct 6, 2007)

Hey nat', with all your experience... do you have any thoughts on the amount of B vitamins a plant needs during veg' and flower?


----------



## wafflehouselover (Oct 6, 2007)

you guys want bigger and more roots?! If your using rockwool you need to learn how to dry it out to the point where roots search for water but u don't want dry out the roots. For dwc, you want the bubles to splash onto the roots so that it can grow downwards. Aero you don't have to do anything but maintain. 

Its simple, roots expand and search for water from the plants response that it needs water. Just how a huge ass tree would have roots deep into the earth if theres a drought on top of the surface.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Oct 6, 2007)

wafflehouselover said:


> you guys want bigger and more roots?!


 
I'd appreciate you reading through what's going on before adding your 2 cents.


----------



## natmoon (Oct 6, 2007)

skunkushybrid said:


> Hey nat', with all your experience... do you have any thoughts on the amount of B vitamins a plant needs during veg' and flower?


LOL i have many years of exp of basically growing untechnically in mud,many people here i am sure know a damn site more than me.

One thing i do know is how to grow a great plant from a pot of mud and about helping to keep plants healthy and trained for your situation,i am fairly good at identifying problems with the plants as i have had so many problems myself over the years.

Anyway i have heard that you can feed your plants vitamin b complexes to improve growth rate and yield but i have never used it myself.
I did once try crushed kelp tablets but i found that it helped to encourage soil mould so i no longer did it.

Plants do need vitamins yes but how many and how often is not something that i really know about and i think it is probably more relevant to hyrdo/aero growers as well maintained soil with the correct nutrients will encourage the plant to produce for its own needs.

I have noticed that one of the key ingredients in molasses which is probably why many people who grow in soil rave about molasses is vitamin b as well as the carbs molasses has a large amount of vitamin b amongst other things as well as acting as a chelating agent which helps root growth in soil anyway.

Anyway please dont think i think im a know it all,i know that i only know a small amount of the knowledge and i know nothing hardly at all when it comes to hydro/aero/dwc etc.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Oct 6, 2007)

OK, just wondered... some guy I was speaking to reckons I'm giving my plants too much. I asked him "why, how much do they need then?" 

He couldn't answer me.


----------



## natmoon (Oct 6, 2007)

skunkushybrid said:


> OK, just wondered... some guy I was speaking to reckons I'm giving my plants too much. I asked him "why, how much do they need then?"
> 
> He couldn't answer me.


I don't think it would easy to overdose a plant on vitamins as the plant could only take them up through its roots at its standard rate of absorption,its not the same as nutrients all though i don't know this for a fact.

Do you use a hydro nutrient of vit b or are you just adding something that contains vit b?


----------



## skunkushybrid (Oct 6, 2007)

natmoon said:


> I don't think it would easy to overdose a plant on vitamins as the plant could only take them up through its roots at its standard rate of absorption,its not the same as nutrients all though i don't know this for a fact.
> 
> Do you use a hydro nutrient of vit b or are you just adding something that contains vit b?


I'm using a product called B52 by Advanced Nutrients. I also use superthrive if I haven't got any B52...

I follow the advanced charts... to a degree. I look at it like they know better than I do about the right levels of nutes. I don't follow the charts exactly as they are based on an 8 week flower schedule... I'm also fairly experienced enough with them now to make calculations based on varying factors.

Like I said, the guy said I was wasting my B52... yet he couldn't explain how HE knew better than a company with a team of scientists NASA would be envious of. He's had me thinking though since... but what I've found is that the more nutes you give, the bigger your plants get.


----------



## natmoon (Oct 6, 2007)

skunkushybrid said:


> I'm using a product called B52 by Advanced Nutrients. I also use superthrive if I haven't got any B52...
> 
> I follow the advanced charts... to a degree. I look at it like they know better than I do about the right levels of nutes. I don't follow the charts exactly as they are based on an 8 week flower schedule... I'm also fairly experienced enough with them now to make calculations based on varying factors.
> 
> Like I said, the guy said I was wasting my B52... yet he couldn't explain how HE knew better than a company with a team of scientists NASA would be envious of. He's had me thinking though since... but what I've found is that the more nutes you give, the bigger your plants get.


Yeah definitely finding your type of plants max tolerance levels for nutes will improve your yields.
Your friend may be thinking that what your adding is wasted as the plant can only take up so much as to be useful in the allocated time.
My theory is to see what works and what doesn't and then stick to it and ignore the rest.

Some strains can tolerate exceptionally high levels of nutes and even toxicity whereas others would be dead in a few days.
Basically if you can see that it works for you do it or use a test plant which is what i do each grow i have one test plant that i feed all sorts of crap to.
As an example BigBud would probably grow in a couple of dog turds whereas say Blueberry would probably die within days.

At the moment im experimenting with mixing miracle gro and tomato food with molasses,so far i burnt the plant a little bit lol.
I have to slightly lower the miracle gro i think but i have noticed that all though i burnt the plant the crystal development is very high.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Oct 6, 2007)

I grow in coco coir and perlite 60/40. coir is an excellent ph balancer, it absorbs many of the excess salts left over from heavy nute schedules. My strain is also chronic, at least in growth behaviour, as it is crossed with white russian which plays more a part in the high. 

Also, since growing in coco I'm sure the taste of my bud has improved. It reminds me of soil grown bud... but you get all the advantages of hydro. If you're looking for a soil replacement, coco would be a great choice. It even looks like soil.


----------



## natmoon (Oct 6, 2007)

skunkushybrid said:


> I grow in coco coir and perlite 60/40. coir is an excellent ph balancer, it absorbs many of the excess salts left over from heavy nute schedules. My strain is also chronic, at least in growth behaviour, as it is crossed with white russian which plays more a part in the high.
> 
> Also, since growing in coco I'm sure the taste of my bud has improved. It reminds me of soil grown bud... but you get all the advantages of hydro. If you're looking for a soil replacement, coco would be a great choice. It even looks like soil.


I may one day try hydro but for the foreseeable future i am going to stick with what i know.
Hydro seems like such a hassle and initial expense to me,but that may just be my age showing through.
Did you cross the chronic x wr yourself and have stabilised it as seed or are you cloning the best?


----------



## skunkushybrid (Oct 6, 2007)

natmoon said:


> I may one day try hydro but for the foreseeable future i am going to stick with what i know.
> Hydro seems like such a hassle and initial expense to me,but that may just be my age showing through.
> Did you cross the chronic x wr yourself and have stabilised it as seed or are you cloning the best?


not mine... I wouldn't know an f6 from an f1. I just clone. The guy i got them from is a breeder though. This strain should end up in the shops soon. Not sure when, or what it will be called yet though.


----------



## trapper (Oct 6, 2007)

ive read that useing 24 hour veg,gives you a 15%increase over 18/6,but you are useing 25%more power,so if power and money is a consideration,then 18/6.


----------



## nongreenthumb (Oct 6, 2007)

trapper said:


> ive read that useing 24 hour veg,gives you a 15%increase over 18/6,but you are useing 25%more power,so if power and money is a consideration,then 18/6.


I'd like to see the source, i read a ed rosenthal column where he said you lose 25% of growth from running 24/0 and it works out cheaper because for every month you veg you lose a weeks worth on 18/6 and all other costs remain static like rent and everything else.

18/6 is actually more expensive in the long run


----------



## trapper (Oct 6, 2007)

im a one finger typer jorges grow bible page 175 pot can efficiently process 16 to 18 hours of light after which it has deminishing returns,also a study in hight times but thats 80 mags i read so to find the story would take a weekend.but it doesnt really matter its about preferance in the end.


----------



## nongreenthumb (Oct 6, 2007)

trapper said:


> im a one finger typer jorges grow bible page 175 pot can efficiently process 16 to 18 hours of light after which it has deminishing returns,also a study in hight times but thats 80 mags i read so to find the story would take a weekend.but it doesnt really matter its about preferance in the end.


I've got a jorge cervantes book and to be honest i've read through it and I question a lot of his "facts" but ed rosenthal I will take his word every day of the week.


----------



## Pullin' weeds (Oct 6, 2007)

To super-charge your plants root system, you might look at adding Mycorrhizae. 

It's a natural fungus that work sybiotically (sp?) with the host plant. Basically the fungi spread through the root system, spreading the little hairs through the soil, effectively increasing the surface area by a ton. The fungi break down the nutrients in the soil into a more usable form and pass it on tho the host plant. Feed the microlife, they in turn feed the plant.

I've just started using it a little while ago, but all my plants are pretty happy!


----------



## 000420 (Oct 6, 2007)

trapper said:


> im a one finger typer jorges grow bible page 175 pot can efficiently process 16 to 18 hours of light after which it has deminishing returns,also a study in hight times but thats 80 mags i read so to find the story would take a weekend.but it doesnt really matter its about preferance in the end.


get his newest book....Jorge also now agrees that 24 hours grows plants faster........he use to think there was a diminishing return...but now he knows that it isn't so.


----------



## trapper (Oct 6, 2007)

000420 said:


> get his newest book....Jorge also now agrees that 24 hours grows plants faster........he use to think there was a diminishing return...but now he knows that it isn't so.


ya i saw that,ive seen alot of revisions on alot of stuff from rosenthal and jorge,actually hightimes has every once in a while were rosenthal is called on things by growers and changes his first assesment,i know people that disregard most of the information and just grow plants like they allways have and there results speak for them selves, horticulture is a billion dollar industry,and they want to captilize on the money thats out there,my uncle who has been growing for 45 years tells me the only thing benificial to him was learning to seperate the males from the garden,other then that hes been doing the same stuff and has never bought the high priced nutes,he is quite happy spending 5 dollars on some nutes and useing compost.mind you he knew about reflective properties through photogrophy.there is alot of iformation out there and alot of mis information,no one has put in the big bucks to do extensive trials,we all chase the next best thing in growing,like it says in scripture nothing is new under the sun its all been done before.i bet you the incas grew plants with guano 3000 years ago that would make us drool.i can honestly say since i started this hobby for health reasons,ive read about 2000 hours on growing,im trying to keep it simple and just enjoy the fruits of my labour.rosenthall even said in a 2001 ht article that 24 hours was a waste compared to 18/6.he apparently has changesd his views.jorge states in the new bible that a 1000 does very well for a 6x6 room page 177,alot of growers would say from personal experience this is not correct.as well he states that t8,s give off a 100 lumens per watt,ive never seen that,but it may well be true,i thought that the 96 lumens per watt was the highest achieved useing the 54 watt t5 ho,but maybe the t8 is more efficient,but im rambling,so much to learn and so much to disregard.thats why i like this site,seeing what growers are useing,and how they have improved on things,it is an exchange of free information,i try to answer questions if i believe i can help,but if im wrong im uselly corrected by an experienced grower,and thats what its all about..


----------



## 000420 (Oct 6, 2007)

trapper said:


> ya i saw that,ive seen alot of revisions on alot of stuff from rosenthal and jorge,actually hightimes has every once in a while were rosenthal is called on things by growers and changes his first assesment,i know people that disregard most of the information and just grow plants like they allways have and there results speak for them selves, horticulture is a billion dollar industry,and they want to captilize on the money thats out there,my uncle who has been growing for 45 years tells me the only thing benificial to him was learning to seperate the males from the garden,other then that hes been doing the same stuff and has never bought the high priced nutes,he is quite happy spending 5 dollars on some nutes and useing compost.mind you he knew about reflective properties through photogrophy.there is alot of iformation out there and alot of mis information,no one has put in the big bucks to do extensive trials,we all chase the next best thing in growing,like it says in scripture nothing is new under the sun its all been done before.i bet you the incas grew plants with guano 3000 years ago that would make us drool.i can honestly say since i started this hobby for health reasons,ive read about 2000 hours on growing,im trying to keep it simple and just enjoy the fruits of my labour.rosenthall even said in a 2001 ht article that 24 hours was a waste compared to 18/6.he apparently has changesd his views.jorge states in the new bible that a 1000 does very well for a 6x6 room page 177,alot of growers would say from personal experience this is not correct.as well he states that t8,s give off a 100 lumens per watt,ive never seen that,but it may well be true,i thought that the 96 lumens per watt was the highest achieved useing the 54 watt t5 ho,but maybe the t8 is more efficient,but im rambling,so much to learn and so much to disregard.thats why i like this site,seeing what growers are useing,and how they have improved on things,it is an exchange of free information,i try to answer questions if i believe i can help,but if im wrong im uselly corrected by an experienced grower,and thats what its all about..


I agree there is a lot of hype out there..I've used many different fertilizers but I've come to use the stuff I started with after getting blinded by the hype I snapped back into reality....I get the same yields and the quality is better...using my good old Alaska fish emulsion and seaweed for veg and bat guano in bloom, I also use worm casting and molasses......works best for me and it;s cheap as hell...


----------



## trapper (Oct 6, 2007)

000420 said:


> I agree there is a lot of hype out there..I've used many different fertilizers but I've come to use the stuff I started with after getting blinded by the hype I snapped back into reality....I get the same yields and the quality is better...using my good old Alaska fish emulsion and seaweed for veg and bat guano in bloom, I also use worm casting and molasses......works best for me and it;s cheap as hell...


i have an outdoor that gets shultz 10 54 10(price 3.99)and mollases,i have one that get gh three parts plus carboload and guano,there is no differance in growth,but maybe the differance will be in potency.im tempted by all the advertisements,about beast buds and so forth,and i have put the money in,i find that growing is a great hobby and theraputic,and i am very limited by health,so im home alot,but the hype of this gram per watt i find misleading,and is desighned for people to spend money on products,im not saying a gram per watt is not achievable,it is,ive just never personally met any one who has and ive known quite a few who also knew quite a few,and the one who claims to have has also cought a 200 pound sturgeon fish.very few people can have the perfect growing inviroment indoors,it is very expensive.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Oct 7, 2007)

A gram per watt is meant for the SOG systems. As they are small plants they get more light, and fatter, tighter colas. A gram per watt is achievable, is in fact the standard that all sog growers set themselves.

I'll update this thread with pic's today of my experiment. 15 days in 0.5litre containers. Usually, by now these would be in 3 litre containers and gone into flower 3 days ago. Whereby I'd expect at least an oz per plant.

These gus are in a container a 6th of the size. Yet the plants are the same size as they would be in a 3litre. 

Roots are merely a mechanism for the plant to uptake nutes... concentrating on root development as indoor growers, I feel, is a waste of time. For a start we need to spend money on root eaters to get rid of the roots... why spend time developing roots? This time would be best served by encouraging plant growth. Which we can do by decreasing our pot sizes and giving the plants as much light as we can.

This is still an experiment, so it'd be best to wait and see how mine turn out. fdd' is already ahead of me... but he's an outdoor grower, so he doesn't count.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Oct 7, 2007)

Here's the pic's at 15 days... I've checked the bottom of the pots and they are fine. These plants are now slightly over 12" in height. The third pic' I hope shows a slight redding/purpling to the leaf stems.

These are clones, and despite them being only 13 days old (at the time) I gave them the equivalent to a 4week veg' feed if I were starting from seed. Today, at just day 15, by the redding/purpling leaf stems I can see that they need more nutes. So today, I'm going to give these 15 day old clone plants the equivalent to a 5 week veg' feed for seed plants.

I don't want these guys to be undernuted when they go into flower... that way i can start with the flowering nutes right away. Also, due to the smaller pot size, I can afford more veg' time. I haven't got much height space in the flowering area, and this needs to be an important consideration. If the plants grow too big, I'm going to lose out on yield through burns and poor ventilation. 

I may well end up just concentrating on a certain group of plants... due to space etc, the rest will most likely be left in the shadows somewhere.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Oct 7, 2007)

I'm also slightly worried about the feed schedule during flower... watering from the top is going to be an extremely frequent affair in these tiny pots. I could be watering 3 times a day... maybe even more.

I'll see... I have the tools, should I decide to change mid-flower, to water from the bottom instead.


----------



## natmoon (Oct 7, 2007)

skunkushybrid said:


> I'm also slightly worried about the feed schedule during flower... watering from the top is going to be an extremely frequent affair in these tiny pots. I could be watering 3 times a day... maybe even more.
> 
> I'll see... I have the tools, should I decide to change mid-flower, to water from the bottom instead.


Tighter root balls equal tighter buds.
Make sure your water is well oxygenated and you'll be fine with small pots.
If watering is a problem try a drip system,anyway i hope it works out for you and i agree with you that indoor growing is not at all root dependent especially when you wish to keep the plants short and fat.

The more energy the plant puts into growing roots the less energy it puts into growing its cola,small tight efficient root balls are the best for indoors imo anyway you just have to watch that the roots get enough oxygen


----------



## skunkushybrid (Oct 7, 2007)

natmoon said:


> Tighter root balls equal tighter buds.


I've found this to be more a case of genetics...

I'm not doing a small grow... I'm doing a normal grow in small pots.

I can understand that I may not have explained this properly enough...

It is my belief that roots are merely a mechanism for the plant to uptake nutrients. Their role stops there. That's it. 

If it were the case that plants emulate their root systems then my plants wouldn't look anything like they do at the moment.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Oct 7, 2007)

I've decided to give them a week 7 feed... this into 9litres of water:

Sensi Grow A, 20ml
Sensi Grow B, 20ml
MET Grow, 21.5ml
Fulvic Acid, 12ml
B52, 40ml
Barricade, 2ml
Piranha, 4.0g
Cannazym, 22.5ml
Voodoo juice, 21ml


----------



## nongreenthumb (Oct 7, 2007)

These are plants grown solely in a 4" cube, it was quite an early shot and I didn't take any more pics before i chopped them down but the buds were sure tight enough, they required watering more often but i still got a good amount of tight bud.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Oct 7, 2007)

nongreenthumb said:


> These are plants grown solely in a 4" cube, it was quite an early shot and I didn't take any more pics before i chopped them down but the buds were sure tight enough, they required watering more often but i still got a good amount of tight bud.


This is because of the extra light available to the smaller plants. The whole plant can be bathed in light. LIGHT is what produces tighter nugs, alongside a plants genetics...

I just honestly believe that roots are not worth worrying about. A plant will get so big... but do the roots need to be big as well? I will find out (to a degree) within this thread soon enough.


----------



## natmoon (Oct 7, 2007)

Plants in huge containers and high levels of light whatever their genetics will produce tall stretched plants with fluffy buds down the stem and only hard dense nugs at the tops.

Plants in small containers with low levels of light will produce hard buds all the way down the stem whatever their genetics.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Oct 7, 2007)

natmoon said:


> Plants in huge containers and high levels of light whatever their genetics will produce tall stretched plants with fluffy buds down the stem and only hard dense nugs at the tops.
> 
> 
> Yeah, yeah... whatever mate. Why? Explain to me how a tighter root ball produces tighter nugs... are you saying that the plant is in tune with its root system to such a degree where it can recognise if its roots are tight enough so that it can develop tighter nugs?
> ...


----------



## skunkushybrid (Oct 7, 2007)

Do you see that tree in my avatar? It is planted in the ground... this means that it has all the room in the world to spread out it's root system... does this mean it's nugs will grow loose?

Of course not. It has enough light, and its genetics shall determine the tightness of the buds. Rootball, shmootball.


----------



## natmoon (Oct 7, 2007)

I have already explained myself you just dont understand because your relatively new to growing.

Having 6000 posts and being a moderator doesn't mean you know everything.
Any good experienced gardener knows that root shapes,binds and sizes will affect plant shape and size,you however as usual offensively know better than the rest of the planet.

Fdds plant has developed deep tap roots and is outdoors with a full term of vegative light and a long term of flowering cycle in real sunlight.

If you go through fdds other posts about his roots you will see that he has in fact naturally developed clumped root systems which will also help to give him tight nugs even on huge plants.

Anyway its a shame your always so defensive and that your desire to be always right about everything from God and the universe to weed has taken you over.

I tested this theory probably when you were in the infant school but anyway cya and best of luck


----------



## skunkushybrid (Oct 7, 2007)

natmoon said:


> I have already explained myself you just dont understand because your relatively new to growing.
> 
> Having 6000 posts and being a moderator doesn't mean you know everything.
> Any good experienced gardener knows that root shapes,binds and sizes will affect plant shape and size,you however as usual offensively know better than the rest of the planet.
> ...


1. Did you actually read the part where I said this was an experiment? The point of an experiment is not knowing the outcome. Therefore, how could i possibly be claiming to know more than the rest of the planet? Your choice of words belittle your self-professed wisdom.

2. Explain this long flowering cycle to me? Once a plant enters flowering this is genetic.

3. Impart this to me also? He's naturally developed, clumped root systems? This is exactly what my experiment is doing. It is intended to prove that a large plant does not need an equally large pot... which will shoot away the theory that plants actually need an extensive root system. 

4. Pointless statement really... can we stick to the point, please.

5. And yet another pointless statement... if I didn't know better I'd say you were still smarting from when you got that newbie question wrong. Where was your experience then, old man?


----------



## natmoon (Oct 7, 2007)

skunkushybrid said:


> 1. Did you actually read the part where I said this was an experiment? The point of an experiment is not knowing the outcome. Therefore, how could i possibly be claiming to know more than the rest of the planet? Your choice of words belittle your self-professed wisdom.
> 
> 2. Explain this long flowering cycle to me? Once a plant enters flowering this is genetic.
> 
> ...


Its ok dude you are the man


----------



## skunkushybrid (Oct 7, 2007)

natmoon said:


> Having 6000 posts and being a moderator doesn't mean you know everything. Any good experienced gardener knows that root shapes,binds and sizes will affect plant shape and size,you however as usual offensively know better than the rest of the planet.


Explain that to me also... where was I offensive? I didn't once offend you... you have issues with me... I can see that. Not like I'm bothered... I like the attention.

You always read anger into my posts... you remind me a little of roseman. You have a lot of pent up aggression in there... honestly nat' you need to chill the fook out.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Oct 7, 2007)

natmoon said:


> Its ok dude you are the man


sarcasm now... words that say you think you know better than I do. You can't even get a simple overnute question right... and you talk about experience. Pull the other one... it has bells on.


----------



## natmoon (Oct 7, 2007)

skunkushybrid said:


> Explain that to me also... where was I offensive? I didn't once offend you... you have issues with me... I can see that. Not like I'm bothered... I like the attention.
> 
> You always read anger into my posts... you remind me a little of roseman. You have a lot of pent up aggression in there... honestly nat' you need to chill the fook out.


This will be the last time i bother to have a conversation with you.
IMO you have a bad know it all attitude,you don't listen and your so quick to dismiss everything that anyone else says from philosophical theories to actual knowledge and facts because you are so old and experienced right?

I believe that your in your twenties at most and that you've been growing for a year or 2.
I am sorry that i dared to challenge or add any of my opinions and experience to your posts,it wont happen again.

You imo are so arrogant and self opinionated that you have become blind to yourself.

_You are_ full of anger imo as nothing else makes a person like this except anger and frustration unless your just naturally like it.then oh well thats a shame init.

Anyway i hope you get what you want from your plants and your experiments and goodbye


----------



## skunkushybrid (Oct 7, 2007)

natmoon said:


> thats a shame init.


innit? 

Yeah, it's a shame innit mate. 


It's a shame you're a bit of a muppet, also that you can't hold a decent conversation without steering away from the point to cry like a little girl.

I do seem to attract you fake hippies... and you're all psycho's. oh yeah nat', have one of these...


----------



## daddychrisg (Oct 7, 2007)

*
I follow the advanced charts... to a degree. I look at it like they know better than I do about the right levels of nutes. I don't follow the charts exactly as they are based on an 8 week flower schedule... I'm also fairly experienced enough with them now to make calculations based on varying factors.*



LOL, you guys crack me up! I just read this thread from the start, and man did it ever change! You both are abit agro imo, LOL! Hey Skunky did you see where you can change the # of weeks to what ever length of flowering cycle you are using? Check it out.. Hey Quick question for ya Skunky, what do you think of Advanced Nuts? What products do you think are there best? I have been using them for 2 cycles, and just now forming a opinion. I bought alot of there product @ cost, so I figured why not check them out. Anyhow, I hope we can change the direction of this thread from agro to something positive...Hit me with a PM if you would like to share more Advance Nuts advice...Peace, LOL


----------



## trapper (Oct 7, 2007)

nongreenthumb said:


> These are plants grown solely in a 4" cube, it was quite an early shot and I didn't take any more pics before i chopped them down but the buds were sure tight enough, they required watering more often but i still got a good amount of tight bud.


the one plant i grew in a 5"pot from veg to flowering ended up beig a 10"slim bud that dried at 3 grams,it was only recieveing 5000 lumens of light on the outside perimeter,the root system remained healthy through out,i watered only every 2nd or 3rd day,it didnt drink alot because of its size.but it also needed no manicureing it was a neat plant,the fan leafs were tiny,but i next time i might do 20 of them but im worried what happened was a fluke and not the norm,but if i can keep trying new things and god willing i will next planting.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Oct 7, 2007)

daddychrisg said:


> *I follow the advanced charts... to a degree. I look at it like they know better than I do about the right levels of nutes. I don't follow the charts exactly as they are based on an 8 week flower schedule... I'm also fairly experienced enough with them now to make calculations based on varying factors.*
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, you guys crack me up! I just read this thread from the start, and man did it ever change! You both are abit agro imo, LOL! Hey Skunky did you see where you can change the # of weeks to what ever length of flowering cycle you are using? Check it out.. Hey Quick question for ya Skunky, what do you think of Advanced Nuts? What products do you think are there best? I have been using them for 2 cycles, and just now forming a opinion. I bought alot of there product @ cost, so I figured why not check them out. Anyhow, I hope we can change the direction of this thread from agro to something positive...Hit me with a PM if you would like to share more Advance Nuts advice...Peace, LOL


it's the english for you... we're always arguing about something. We'll be sharing tea tomorrow like it never happened.

Honestly... i like all their (AN) products except sensizym. I use cannazym instead. I'm kinda going off B52 as well, as I think superthrive does the job just as well, is cheaper and you use less. Humic acid doesn't sit well in hydro either, so i don't use that. i think they all are good products... developed specifically for growing cannabis... they have won countless awards... i've built my nutes up over time. once you get them all you need to do is replace the ones that run out. imo they last a long time, except for sensizym (which i no longer use) and B52 which i may stop using soon, in favour of the superthrive.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Oct 8, 2007)

After giving 15 day old clones the equivalent to a 7 week veg feed if I were growing from seed. I expected today to have seen the purpling stems green out. Instead, I find more purple stems, and the plants are thickening out nicely. They are loving the nutes... and they are asking me for even more.

I still have half the feed left from yesterday... so they're just going to have to get that for today.

I may be imagining the worsening of the purpling... maybe because I half expected a little over nute... but no, it seems the opposite is true. I'll post a pic' later.


----------



## GraF (Oct 8, 2007)

Skunk!! how ya been buddy?! I see that youre still up to no good!!! lol

give me a PM partner..

-GraF


----------



## skunkushybrid (Oct 9, 2007)

GraF said:


> Skunk!! how ya been buddy?! I see that youre still up to no good!!! lol
> 
> give me a PM partner..
> 
> -GraF


Great to see you back Graf... pm's in the post.


----------



## nongreenthumb (Oct 9, 2007)

GraF said:


> Skunk!! how ya been buddy?! I see that youre still up to no good!!! lol
> 
> give me a PM partner..
> 
> -GraF



awwwwww sheeeeet!!!

Der gows da nayborhud


----------



## skunkushybrid (Oct 9, 2007)

Everything is going just as i imagined it would. These guys are getting a bit big now, and with my tiny flowering height of (total plant size) 4ft. I can't really let these guys go past 15" which is where they are now.

If I let them get too tall I'm going to mess up on the stretch part of flowering. I wish i had more height, because I know these plants could happily veg' in here for another week. As it stands, I'm going to have to put them in within the next couple of days.

Flowering will be the crunch... I'm thinking that I'm going to have to water from the bottom with aerated water. Else I'm going to suffer too much droop in between feeds which will lose me budding time...

I've also been thinking that this will work because they are clones... i'm not sure what would happen to a seed plant if vegetated this big in the same sized pot... I'll get cracking on that one tomorrow, soon as a seed germinates.


----------



## LoganSmith (Oct 9, 2007)

Hey Skunk,
Looks good, what type of lights r u using? 
Can't wait to see the outcome.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Oct 9, 2007)

LoganSmith said:


> Hey Skunk,
> Looks good, what type of lights r u using?
> Can't wait to see the outcome.


In veg' I have a 400w mh... for flower I'll be using a 400w HPS, although I have 2 lights in the flowering area... so once the chronics are done I could split these between the two lights... not sure yet.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Oct 10, 2007)

I should put these into flower today... I'm thinking. They're already quite large, and they should be on their way to giving me a decent yield. I have an indica plant still in the flowering area that will have to come down today. Two mother plants can be just shoved into a corner somewhere until the chronics have finished...

Yes, today would be a good day as it means the ex-moms can share the same feed.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Oct 10, 2007)

I've placed 15 plants into flower, and left myself with three indicas... two of which are very stretched, in veg' for further experimentation.

The flowerers, I believe, should all be Chronic x White Russian... unless a sneaky, stretched indica has managed to creep in.

Here's the first flower feed into 9litres of water:

Sensi Bloom A, 15ml
Sensi Bloom B, 15ml
MET Bloom, 9ml
Fulvic Acid, 9ml
Barricade, 1ml
Carboload, 7ml
Cannazym, 15ml
Piranha, 2.7g
Voodoo Juice, 27ml

EC... 1.0


----------



## natmoon (Oct 10, 2007)

I will bet that you find these nuggets much more dense because of their small pots.
Dont forget to make sure that water is well oxygenated as when those roots pack up later on they will be hard pressed to get any air.
Clones are looking nice and healthy,best of luck with this


----------



## skunkushybrid (Oct 11, 2007)

Thanks Nat. I haven't got a clue what is going to happen next, if I'm honest. I should max on 1.5 oz per plant after an 18 day veg like that. 

This is where my logic rests: A 6 day veg per (max) half oz per plant. With an 18 day veg' I should be looking at 1.5 oz per plant. Yet if that is to happen I'm only going to fit 4-6 plants below one light, using the extra space afforded by the small pots. 15 should be too many.

Either way, this experiment is going to teach me something. I have long been interested in the relationship between root development and upward plant growth.

If these plants max out on an oz... then I'll try the same thing again in the same pots but with a 12 day veg, and if it gets the same result (an oz per plant) I will have learned the optimum pot size to achieve an oz per plant, should it be the case where roots have more to do with growing the plant than merely uptaking nutes.


----------



## natmoon (Oct 11, 2007)

skunkushybrid said:


> Thanks Nat. I haven't got a clue what is going to happen next, if I'm honest. I should max on 1.5 oz per plant after an 18 day veg like that.
> 
> This is where my logic rests: A 6 day veg per (max) half oz per plant. With an 18 day veg' I should be looking at 1.5 oz per plant. Yet if that is to happen I'm only going to fit 4-6 plants below one light, using the extra space afforded by the small pots. 15 should be too many.
> 
> ...


I dunno if you do this or similar already but i have a small fish tank pump and i just blast my water with air for 6 hours before i water by just putting the tube straight into my water container.
Also do you know of anywhere that sells boron?


----------



## Ralphie (Oct 11, 2007)

ive grown same strains from the same batch on both 18/6 and 24/0 and 24 definatley won the race by atleast 25%


----------



## skunkushybrid (Oct 11, 2007)

natmoon said:


> I dunno if you do this or similar already but i have a small fish tank pump and i just blast my water with air for 6 hours before i water by just putting the tube straight into my water container.
> Also do you know of anywhere that sells boron?


No I don't do that. I've used other methods similar in the past... liquid oxygen etc... but at the time i was growing in DWC, so i don't think it made much difference. I honestly feel that the medium I grow in most now, coco coir, holds plenty of oxygen to sustain the plant without requiring any more.

No, I don't know anyone that sells boron. Why'd you ask?


----------



## skunkushybrid (Oct 11, 2007)

Ralphie said:


> ive grown same strains from the same batch on both 18/6 and 24/0 and 24 definatley won the race by atleast 25%


Yeah 24 is best... no doubt about it... for upward plant growth. Yet this neglects root growth... which a lot of people seem to think is very important. My experiments here, as I'm sure there'll need to be more than one, are intending to determine just how important the roots are.

The only reason i really grew DWC was so that I could examine root behaviour... and I did note that roots grow better when a dark period is instigated during veg'. If you start a DWC grow in 24 hour veg, the roots take longer to get to the res'. Give them even just two dark periods of four hours each, and a remarkable difference can be seen in root development.


----------



## natmoon (Oct 11, 2007)

skunkushybrid said:


> No I don't do that. I've used other methods similar in the past... liquid oxygen etc... but at the time i was growing in DWC, so i don't think it made much difference. I honestly feel that the medium I grow in most now, coco coir, holds plenty of oxygen to sustain the plant without requiring any more.
> 
> No, I don't know anyone that sells boron. Why'd you ask?


I heard thats its good for creating oxygen in the soil and i haven't been able to find a nute thats basically a boron additive on its own


----------



## Ralphie (Oct 11, 2007)

yes, i wanted to do a 22/2 but i never got around getting a second timer on this grow, so i guess i'll try that next time.. i'm sure it will do good for the plants to give a small break, as well as the equiptment.. i grow in soil and the way i figured it is the roots deep down are in complete completle darkness and are still doing fine, and i also figured they would be developing alot of roots in flower where they get 12 hours dark so why not give them the green growth during veg

EDIT:

also on 24/0 after 2 weeks from seed, my roots were popping out of my 3.5 inch square pots


----------



## LoganSmith (Oct 11, 2007)

Hey Skunk, can you explain how to grow with coco and if there is any other stuff that you add to it.
Thx


----------



## FilthyFletch (Oct 11, 2007)

So what size are those pots you have them in?These pics are mine in 3 gallon pots in miracle grow moisture control at day 15 in soil. 14 days veg 1 day 12/12. I give no nutes just plain water at ph of 6 as needed.Will eventually add peruvian bat guano in about 2 weeks for the phos...Why use boron ad grotek H202 to your water and it gives an o2 boost and kills fungus in the soil..These were under 400 watt mh and now 600 watt hps enhnaced spectrum bulb


----------



## skunkushybrid (Oct 12, 2007)

Ralphie said:


> also on 24/0 after 2 weeks from seed, my roots were popping out of my 3.5 inch square pots


Mine are from clone, 18 days and not a sign of root at the bottom of the pots. I'm still yet to start the seed version of this, but thanks for the info', gives me something to look out for.



FilthyFletch said:


> So what size are those pots you have them in?


Each pot holds a max of 0.5 litres... there are some a little smaller.



LoganSmith said:


> Hey Skunk, can you explain how to grow with coco and if there is any other stuff that you add to it.
> Thx


Coco is easy... it's just like soil, only better at holding onto both water and oxygen, but you get all the benefits of hydro. To help with the oxygen content of the coco, I mix in around 40% perlite. So i grow in 60/40 coco/perlite. You need to add everything. Unlike soil, coco is nutrient free. You also want a lower ph of between 5.8 and 6.2 if you want your plants to uptake nutrients properly, and prevent build-ups etc.


----------



## LoganSmith (Oct 12, 2007)

Thxs


----------



## skunkushybrid (Oct 12, 2007)

Not much to report. The flowerers won't need another feed till tomorrow... it'll be the same make-up I gave them last time. 

I've always noticed though that once plants go into flower for the first week they don't drink too much... maybe due to them starting to produce buds, or the switch to 12/12 confuses them a little at first, I'm not sure.

The veggers are happily growing away, drinking loads. I'll post update pic's tomorrow.


----------



## LoganSmith (Oct 12, 2007)

Hey again, how often will you need to water the flower after that first week?


----------



## skunkushybrid (Oct 12, 2007)

I'm thinking it should go up to once a day.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Oct 13, 2007)

Put a clone in yesterday straight out of the prop', with the equivalent to an 8 week veg' feed. Expected to see some overnute this morning. Maybe it'll happen later.

I've always judged my veg' feed with clones by size of the plant. Yet, more and more, I am thinking that the amount of veg' feed a clone needs is more to do with the age of the clone.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Oct 14, 2007)

Well I didn't feed these guys yesterday, like I said I needed to. I was out enjoying myself and I didn't get back till after lights out. I'm thinking they should be ok at this stage, I'll find out at 10am... when the lights come on.

The veggers are doing fine.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Oct 14, 2007)

No other word can describe how I'm feeling now... i'll give you a clue, the first letter is F, the last K, there are also two letters in between, one of them being U, and the other C...

On lights on, I was waiting for the lamps to warm up, admiring the already amazing growth rate and stem thickening of these plants... when I notice something move on one of the leaves... looks like a tiny, white worm, only it moves very fast. Then I see not just one, but lots of them scurrying away from the light and onto the underside of the leaves. At that point I got extremely itchy and high-tailed it out of there... not wanting to be mistaken for a plant.

I'm the type of guy that believes these type of things can only happen to other people... and I'll admit, I have been somewhat lax (extremely lax) in taking care of my plants.

I believe they are spider mites, although I've never suffered an insect problem before (except caterpillars). 

I've read that neem oil is good for these, anyone know if this is true? Or even, if from my description of these things, they are indeed spider mites.


----------



## natmoon (Oct 14, 2007)

skunkushybrid said:


> No other word can describe how I'm feeling now... i'll give you a clue, the first letter is F, the last K, there are also two letters in between, one of them being U, and the other C...
> 
> On lights on, I was waiting for the lamps to warm up, admiring the already amazing growth rate and stem thickening of these plants... when I notice something move on one of the leaves... looks like a tiny, white worm, only it moves very fast. Then I see not just one, but lots of them scurrying away from the light and onto the underside of the leaves. At that point I got extremely itchy and high-tailed it out of there... not wanting to be mistaken for a plant.
> 
> ...


Its not spider mites as they don't look like worms,sound possible that they are moth larvea but to be honest i don't know as i have sticky strips hanging around the ceiling and dishes of molasses and water most things that enter my cupboard of death lol never get anywhere near the plants.

I have had spider mites once and i killed them with a fairy liquid and water spray,i used 1 half teaspoon per 2 pints of water and obviously do not shake this formula if anyone else is reading this,just stir it really well and slowly.

Spider mites are little round buggers and look nothing like worms,i also heard that the neem oil is good at killing them,best of luck


----------



## skunkushybrid (Oct 14, 2007)

Ok... so they're not spider mites. These things look like a grain of rice, but about 100th the size. They are just visible by the naked eye. In the dark, they sit happily on TOP of the leaves sucking out the goodness. When the lights come on they scurry for the underside of the leaf. They move quick too... and, they're everywhere.

Are these how caterpillars start out? If it's caterpillars, I think the earth is being invaded... there's around 3-4 on each leaf... on the big leaves 3-4 to each finger.


----------



## natmoon (Oct 14, 2007)

skunkushybrid said:


> Ok... so they're not spider mites. These things look like a grain of rice, but about 100th the size. They are just visible by the naked eye. In the dark, they sit happily on TOP of the leaves sucking out the goodness. When the lights come on they scurry for the underside of the leaf. They move quick too... and, they're everywhere.
> 
> Are these how caterpillars start out? If it's caterpillars, I think the earth is being invaded... there's around 3-4 on each leaf... on the big leaves 3-4 to each finger.


Whats the nearest bug that they look like from this links pics.
UMCE Sucking Insect Fact Sheet


----------



## skunkushybrid (Oct 14, 2007)

natmoon said:


> Whats the nearest bug that they look like from this links pics.
> UMCE Sucking Insect Fact Sheet


None of them.


----------



## natmoon (Oct 14, 2007)

skunkushybrid said:


> None of them.


Probably these then.
Doctor Optimara: Soil Mealy Bugs


----------



## natmoon (Oct 14, 2007)

If that aint them because i dont even know if they leave the roots for the leaves,heres a better id list for bugs.
Pest control and silica gel products - Agropharm Ltd


----------



## skunkushybrid (Oct 14, 2007)

Sorry about this cut n paste... but this site is well worth checking out. I think mine falls into this category:

*Arthropods*
Six arthropod classes are particularly important to _Cannabis _agriculture: the Crustacea (including "pillbugs," with 5-7 pairs of legs), Symphyla ("garden centipedes," with 12 pairs of legs), Chilopoda (true centipedes, with 1 pair of legs per segment), Diplopoda (millipedes, "thousand-leggers," with 2 pairs of legs per segment and many segments), Arachnida (spiders and mites, with 4 pairs of legs), and the Class Insecta, with 3 pairs of legs.
Insects are the largest class. Twenty-seven orders of insects are currently recognized by entomologists, and _half _of them attack _Cannabis. _Mostafa and Messenger (1972) list 272 species of insects and mites associated with _Cannabis! _Of course, few of these species elicit serious concern. Probably the worst pests are stem-boring caterpillars, especially in fiber crops. Two economically important pests are the European corn borer (_Ostrinia nubilalis_), and the hemp borer (_Grapholita delineana_).
European corn borers (ECBs) attract a lot of scientific attention thanks to their amazing appetite for corn plants. ECBs are native to eastern Europe, where _Cannabis sativa _and _Humulus lupulus _(hops) served as original host plants. ECBs switched to maize after _Zea mays _cultivation began in Europe two centuries ago (Nagy 1976, 1986). About one century ago ECBs moved to North America and plagued American hemp, where they "nourished themselves upon the marrow within stalks" (Dodge 189. More recently ECBs have infested marijuana crops (Bush Doctor 1987).
ECB feeding induces stem cankers, which are structurally weak. Stems supporting heavily flowering tops often break at cankers. Larvae boring into smaller branches cause wilting of distal plant parts. Under heavy infestations entire plants collapse. Emchuk (1937) states 5-12 larvae can destroy a hemp plant. ECB entry holes in stems are essentially open wounds, providing access for fungi such as _Macrophomina phaseolina. _Other insects may also crawl in. ECBs hatching late in the season may infest flowering tops instead of stems, where they spin webs and scatter feces.





*Figure 1. *Larva, pupa and female moth of _Grapholita delineana _(A) compared to larger _Ostrinia nubilalis _(B). Both about 1.5x actual size. (_G. delineana _from Senchenko and Timonina 1978, _O. nubilalis _from Ceapoiu 1958.)

Cannabis pests I think mine is the one in the first pic'. They gotta have a lot of legs to move that quick.


----------



## natmoon (Oct 14, 2007)

Yeah i did think it might have been moth worms,sounds likely,hang some sticky strips from the ceiling and spray those buggers


----------



## natmoon (Oct 14, 2007)

Also of note if you have a problem with moths getting into your grow area is getting yourself one of those electric bug zappers


----------



## skunkushybrid (Oct 14, 2007)

natmoon said:


> Yeah i did think it might have been moth worms,sounds likely,hang some sticky strips from the ceiling and spray those buggers


Yeah, i'm going to give everything a good clean... thanks for stopping by.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Oct 14, 2007)

natmoon said:


> Also of note if you have a problem with moths getting into your grow area is getting yourself one of those electric bug zappers


I've been thinking about one of those... just have to turn it off on dark period.


----------



## natmoon (Oct 14, 2007)

skunkushybrid said:


> I've been thinking about one of those... just have to turn it off on dark period.


Chances are that they are only coming in when they see the light so you could just add it to your lights timer section,hope you kill them anyway


----------



## daddychrisg (Oct 14, 2007)

Sucks to get bugs, doesn't it? I hate spider mites! Good think you don't have those fuggers to deal with! Gl, I am interested on how you are going to eradicate moth worms from you area...


----------



## skunkushybrid (Oct 14, 2007)

I took all the plants down into my bathroom and layed them out in the bath. Then I cleaned the flowering area. After that I used a clean rag with plain water to wipe every single leaf on every single plant. The plants are now back in the flowering area, and I'll do this again in a few days.

Wiping the leaves with a damp rag killed quite a few... i'm quite pleased with the job. regular rinsing of the rag, and critters drowning helped convince me i was using the right course of action.


----------



## daddychrisg (Oct 14, 2007)

extermination phase 1
success


----------



## skunkushybrid (Oct 14, 2007)

I've also started the feed from the bottom. they're sitting in a gravel tray, maybe 3" deep. I've filled it with feed and put an air stick in there. i chose the stick because the res isn't very deep, and i can lay it on it's side. I'm going to lay maybe another 2 in there tomorrow. atm i've also got a fan blowing on the feed to keep it disturbed even more.

The only thing that worries me about feeding from the bottom is that the roots may use the tray to stretch out. the tray isn't covered, but the shrubbery may block out enough of the light for them to travel places in the gravel tray.

The plants are bang on course, and I'll definitely have to tie them up on week 2 of flower... bang on schedule.................. so far.


----------



## daddychrisg (Oct 14, 2007)

The plants are bang on course, and I'll definitely have to tie them up on week 2 of flower... bang on schedule.................. so far.

*Nice....*


----------



## skunkushybrid (Oct 15, 2007)

*5 DAYS FLOWER*


Checked the leaves today... and only a few critters could be found. I have 2 fans at ground level blowing right into the leaves. They're going to have to hang on for dear life if they want to live.

I'll use the plain water and rag technique again as it did seem very effective, to clean them in a few days. I don't mind feeding my plants synthetic feeds, I've just never like the idea of insecticides or pesticides. 

Meanwhile, here's an updated couple of pic's. Everything is on course so far, stem thickness, height of plant... i'm really impressed. I suppose weeks 3 and 4 will be the most telling.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Oct 16, 2007)

Well looking at these guys this morning, I'm only going to be able to fit 6 per light... max.

Usually in the 3litre pots I could fit 4 plants. In these 0.5 litre pots I'll fit 6. Which, at least with the math in my head, means I'm on schedule. 

So far the root system has had little or no bearing on the upward growth and development of the plant itself.

Although, I believe the end of week 4 will be the most telling.


----------



## kt0s.6o4 (Oct 16, 2007)

skunkushybrid said:


> So far the root system has had little or no bearing on the upward growth and development of the plant itself.


Have you noticed much side branching tho??

Ive been following your experiment and am for one, thankful to you for documenting it. I have been doing my own experimenting as well, while following this thread.

One thing i have noticed is that when the roots have a chance to spread out away from the plant, more horizontal growth happens. And when they (roots) are kept in tight, there is much more vertical growth. 

Ive noticed that when i put my clones into the cup, it takes a couple days for the roots to hit the side of the cup. Once that happens, the plants stop growing out, and shoots upward. Now if i put them straight into 1G pots they grow out much more, then once those roots hit the side, they start reaching.

Ive also noted that the leaves grow outwards to about the size of the pot, not much bigger, then up.

Ive noticed that about ur plants as well, SKH. quite tall and not so many branches, compared to plants of the same age put into bigger pots.

oops....lost train of thought....time for a rip.....

I will conclude when done.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Oct 16, 2007)

kt0s.6o4 said:


> Have you noticed much side branching tho??
> 
> Ive been following your experiment and am for one, thankful to you for documenting it. I have been doing my own experimenting as well, while following this thread.
> 
> ...


No, they look tall because of the comparison to the pots. Also side branching is genetic amongst sativa strains. I'm suffering the side branches too, hence my supposition that I may only fit 6 beneath the light.

I said earlier in the thread that the la's would have been better for this experiment due to their tendency to just grow one straight cola, as they have very heavy indica sided genes (mine are x'd with a mystery haze). But this experiment isn't about sog, it's about the importance of root development.

I'm going to take some pic's of individual plants... with them all crushed together like that (1 more week for the chronics to come down) it's hard to study the plants properly.

Thankyou for taking the time to pass your comments... the one about the leaves has me very interested... as it is something I had noted before. Not sure on it yet... because as a plant flowers and stretches its leaves always overstretch the width of the pot. Although to take pic's now would be a very good way of proving this point. they are not yet 7 days in flower, they are getting big now, almost time to tie. Now is my only opportunity.


----------



## closet.cult (Oct 16, 2007)

hey skunk, this thread is a great read. 

my two pennies: i've read in multiple third party places (not on this site) that the visible plant mimicks the root system. supposedly, if you see a tree with a 20' diameter drip line and 30' tall, that's about the limits of the root system underground. this comment jives well with kto's comment on the leaves not getting much wider then the pots.

of course, potted plants work differently then those in ground. the roots will begin to intertwine and weave while the plant is still growing up and out, but that's how it works in nature. it's also the reason why some people trim the roots before repotting: to limit the canopy growth.

i don't know if a tight root system will contribute to tighter buds. i guess your experiment will attempt to confirm this. i hope nat is right: smaller plants + tighter buds. sounds like a win/win.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Oct 16, 2007)

The second pic is of a plant given the best of the light. You need to remember there are currently 15 plants all scrambling for a 400w HPS. The third plant is of one that has been overshadowed by the others.

These plants like to stretch up and out. Give them the room and they will fill it.


----------



## kt0s.6o4 (Oct 16, 2007)

closet.cult said:


> the visible plant mimicks the root system. supposedly, if you see a tree with a 20' diameter drip line and 30' tall, that's about the limits of the root system underground.


exactly what i was trying to get at.....



> But this experiment isn't about sog, it's about the importance of root development


ya, i know. I was trying to say that plant growth = root growth and visa versa. Root growth patterns determine plant growth patterns.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Oct 16, 2007)

If you take a look at the second pic'... these plants are barely into flower and will easily double in height by the end of week four. I have some that are in bigger pots... coming up to 9 weeks flower... there's around an oz and a half per plant, and they grew at the same rate as these I have now.

I need to separate these asap. There's just not enough room untill the chronics come down, and they could easily go 10 weeks.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Oct 16, 2007)

Also... something else worth note. The plants are already too big for the pots, they waived this way and that when I carried them to the bathroom. I had to support them.

What will they be like by the end of week 4?


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 16, 2007)

thank you skunk. nice thread.



i believe you will have NO problems. looking at your plant to pot size comparison i can see they look just like mine. mine were bigger but the plant to pot size ratio looks exact.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Oct 16, 2007)

fdd2blk said:


> thank you skunk. nice thread.
> 
> 
> 
> i believe you will have NO problems. looking at your plant to pot size comparison i can see they look just like mine. mine were bigger but the plant to pot size ratio looks exact.


i thought that too. i have a vivid image of one of your trees in that relatively tiny pot, and it does look almost a scaled version... or at least on target. 

I don't want to ruin this with plant overcrowding. So i'm going to sort the best ones tomorrow and concentrate on those.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Oct 17, 2007)

I can't do a thing at the moment... plasterers are taking their time putting me a new ceiling in the kitchen, drinking tea etc... popping out for a pub lunch...

I need to raise the light... and give them todays feed, and separate them so they can grow properly.

Also, once the plastering has finished it means that I'm going to have to decorate the kitchen... lay new floor, tile the walls, breakfast bar.... I'm going to try and do it all in one day... get it out of the way.

I'm going to go tell those guys to hurry the feck up... I got plants that need feeding.


----------



## natmoon (Oct 17, 2007)

skunkushybrid said:


> The second pic is of a plant given the best of the light. You need to remember there are currently 15 plants all scrambling for a 400w HPS. The third plant is of one that has been overshadowed by the others.
> 
> These plants like to stretch up and out. Give them the room and they will fill it.


The structure of the second plants pic is spot on mate,nice and tight,i reckon your gonna get some nice super hard nugs from this lot.
The small pots will definitely help your buds to be tighter has always worked for me anyway and i was told to do it by a very old grower years ago,after i smoked some of his stuff and i wondered how he got his buds so hard on an outdoor grow


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 17, 2007)

skunkushybrid said:


> I can't do a thing at the moment... plasterers are taking their time putting me a new ceiling in the kitchen, drinking tea etc... popping out for a pub lunch...
> 
> I need to raise the light... and give them todays feed, and separate them so they can grow properly.
> 
> ...


serve them some "coffee". tea is for old ladies.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Oct 17, 2007)

fdd2blk said:


> serve them some "coffee". tea is for old ladies.


 
They've finished now... I can get on with the grow. 

It'll be interesting to see this tighter nugs theory unfold... particularly when the strain I'm using (chronic x white russian) is not known for tight nugs.

My strain is a bloomer, out and out. Rather than sit there just getting all hard and solid like an indica, she blooms outwards, and constantly displays new bud growth right to the end just like a sativa. She has thin pistils whereas an indica has thick ones. The buds on her grow tight, but light and in much abundance.

Tightness of nugs comes down to genetics and quality of light. The reason why nat's uncle (or whatever) grew tight nug's 'even' outdoors is obvious, as he was growing using the sun. I would expect tighter nugs too... and look how much root a plant grown outdoors in the ground has.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Oct 17, 2007)

Things are going to start kicking into high gear now... so here's the feed for this week, into 9litres of water:

Sensi Bloom A, 19ml
Sensi Bloom B, 19ml
MET Bloom, 12ml
Fulvic Acid, 12ml
Barricade, 1ml
Carboload, 8ml
Cannazym, 17.5ml
Piranha, 3.6g
Voodoo Juice, 36ml
Big Bud, 30ml

EC 1.2-1.4

The first pic' is of the 6 plants I've chosen to get the best of the light. The second pic is a weird bitch, two-headed freak brought on by the early stretch I encouraged the first 5 days. I've got another one too, with three heads... just remembered about that one. Either way, none of them have made it into the final 6. 

The third pic' is of what these guys should look like approaching the end of flower. Plenty of side branches.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Oct 19, 2007)

I'm itching to get those other chronics down... just a few more days and they can come down. I took one today... shouldn't have. Around an oz and a half when its dry, which isn't too bad, only the bud isn't ready. 

The flowerers are doing ok. So too are the vegging indicas, which have been in there for 27 days. In all fairness to the veggers, I haven't exactly been boosting them up with feed and I have been neglecting the somewhat. They now feed twice a day.

Has anyone ever given 24 hour light half way through flower and see what happens? I may try it on the ones I have vegging at the moment.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Oct 19, 2007)

These guys are growing exactly the same as if I had them in a larger container. I have 6 mystery seeds germinating at the moment, hopefully a couple will pop so I can study the relationship in a seed plant.

Meanwhile, here is a pic' of the favoured 6.


----------



## kt0s.6o4 (Oct 19, 2007)

They looks pretty big now.... How long did you veg these for again?

Have you checked on the roots lately?? You'd think they would be rootbound by now....but they sure dont look it...


----------



## skunkushybrid (Oct 19, 2007)

kt0s.6o4 said:


> They looks pretty big now.... How long did you veg these for again?
> 
> Have you checked on the roots lately?? You'd think they would be rootbound by now....but they sure dont look it...


They vegged for 18 days. I've checked the bottom of the pots and they are fine. I'm struggling for space even with 6 under the light. There's some nice bud heads forming too.

One thing I've noted is that so far, not only have I used less medium but I've also used less feed as well. I feel that in the larger pots a lot of space is wasted, and therefore a lot of feed too.

I can't wait to try the seed version of this.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Oct 20, 2007)

Here is an indica plant, 28 days into veg'... The plant is also 14" high, and in a slightly smaller pot than the other 0.5litre. I've also not been boosting these up with feed the way I usually would. This is merely to demonstrate that even in veg' these plants are still nowhere near rootbound, even after 28 days veg' in this tiny pot.


----------



## nongreenthumb (Oct 20, 2007)

On the blueberry i'm growing, i set them all going at the same time and they all more or less popped at the same time, 4 of them are in 6" cubes and the other one started out with just 1 4" cube, the roots were flowing freely from the underneath so i put another one underneath, I can't really notice a lot of difference in growth on the whole between the plants.


----------



## silk (Oct 20, 2007)

skunkushybrid said:


> They vegged for 18 days. I've checked the bottom of the pots and they are fine. I'm struggling for space even with 6 under the light. There's some nice bud heads forming too.
> 
> One thing I've noted is that so far, not only have I used less medium but I've also used less feed as well. I feel that in the larger pots a lot of space is wasted, and therefore a lot of feed too.
> 
> I can't wait to try the seed version of this.


Interesting... I'm currently flowering a range of pots from 5 gallons to 1 pint. All of which were raised from seed. I have noticed that in my past 5 grows, the plants have not utilized the full 5 gallons of media. I also did not use as rich of a nutrient mix as you have, however from first glance I would agree it is a waste.


----------



## natmoon (Oct 20, 2007)

skunkushybrid said:


> Here is an indica plant, 28 days into veg'... The plant is also 14" high, and in a slightly smaller pot than the other 0.5litre. I've also not been boosting these up with feed the way I usually would. This is merely to demonstrate that even in veg' these plants are still nowhere near rootbound, even after 28 days veg' in this tiny pot.


Ye thats another thing that i think people get confused about,pot bound and root bound.
When i was learning i was taught that root bound is good and pot bound is bad.
Pot bound to me means when the plants roots are so tightly bound that the plant cannot grow anymore due to the confines of its pot.
Root bound just means that the plant has made a tight root ball and the roots are showing all around the sides of the medium if you remove the pot.
Having a tight shapely root ball is actually good for cannabis,in my opinion anyway.
Being pot bound is bad for any plant


----------



## skunkushybrid (Oct 20, 2007)

natmoon said:


> Being pot bound is bad for any plant


...and when do you feel this pot bound you speak of occurs? You have already stated that you did this experiment back when I was in nursery school. So I'd appreciate you sharing your opinion. how long would I need to veg a plant in a container no larger than a regular can of coca cola before the plant becomes pot bound? How large would this plant get before the dimensions of its container became a hinderance to it's growth?


----------



## natmoon (Oct 20, 2007)

skunkushybrid said:


> ...and when do you feel this pot bound you speak of occurs? You have already stated that you did this experiment back when I was in nursery school. So I'd appreciate you sharing your opinion. how long would I need to veg a plant in a container no larger than a regular can of coca cola before the plant becomes pot bound? How large would this plant get before the dimensions of its container became a hinderance to it's growth?


As soon as you see the plant in questions growth rate slow right down assuming all other conditions are perfect.
Its impossible to say how long exactly,but i would hazard a guess that growing as you do that as long as the water has a decent amount of oxygen in it that you will be able to get away with growing a hardy indica in that same pot from start to finish.
The main problem that you will have is that the weight of the buds may try to tip the small pots over.

I have several plants in coffee cup size pots that will be ready for the chop in 4-6 weeks.
I wont be repotting them at all and they grow just fine.

Also i wasn't trying to state that you were confused just in general people confuse severe pot binding with healthy root binding


----------



## skunkushybrid (Oct 20, 2007)

natmoon said:


> but i would hazard a guess that growing as you do that as long as the water has a decent amount of oxygen in it that you will be able to get away with growing a hardy indica in that same pot from start to finish.
> The main problem that you will have is that the weight of the buds may try to tip the small pots over.
> 
> I have several plants in coffee cup size pots that will be ready for the chop in 4-6 weeks.
> I wont be repotting them at all and they grow just fine.


You got any pic's of these plants in the coffee cups?

I already know about the weight problem... although in pots these size it's the actual plant that will get too big, no need for it to get any bud. As you can see from the pic' of the indica, the plant is already too big for the pot, yet it keeps growing.

I'm also feeding from the bottom on the flowerers only, and they are hardly getting any oxygen. I just let them soak it up. The vegging plants are being fed from the top. So, 4 weeks veg and no such thing as root bound, nor this pot bound you speak of.

And how long is start to finish?


----------



## natmoon (Oct 20, 2007)

Heres one of them i planted as seed on the 1st of september in a small pot.
It is 30" tall and has about 5 weeks left.
It should provide me with a 32-33" stick of bud in the end i hope.
I burnt all of my side line testing plants(plants not directly under the light) to varying degrees including this one. My unstable as yet ppp x blueberry was the worst and is half dead,does not like strong nutes at all


----------



## skunkushybrid (Oct 20, 2007)

How does that plant stand up? it looks in the pic' as if it is leaning against the wall, so ordinarily would you tie it up?

That's some serious nute burn... not a single fan leaf left and even the little leaves are showing signs of burn. That plant is going to struggle.

Also, what strain is it? It's tiny side branches suggest indica. How long did you veg' the plant?


----------



## newbutpersistent (Oct 20, 2007)

I think so far the experiments are shaping up to confirm the original hypothesis, that the actual size of the root system, doesn't have anything to do, independently, with the size or healthiness of a plant. As long as the plants are getting the nutrients that they need to maximize the amount of light they are getting too photosynthesize. It would make sense that the plants in nature have large root systems, seeing as they have pretty much all the light they can handle, and that in general each cubic foot of soil has a set level of nutrients in it (varying by region of course), so in order to find more nutrients to maximize the sunlight, it has to have as much root surface area as possible. I think FDD's outdoor plants are also a great example of this, his plants are massive compared to his pot size, because he feeds them enough nutrients. I have also seen plants (my own) which did not have enough light or nutrients, but were in very big pots, and the root system was larger than the upward growth.

I would be interested in a side by side comparison of 2 plants grown outdoors in the soil, one which just gets rainwater and watever nutrients are found in the soil, and another which gets a good feeding of nutes right around the base of the plants. Then when the grow is over pull out the root system to see what the size difference is (if any).

p.s. on a side note about the B-vitamins, Ive been looking at experimenting with my GF's pre-natal vitamins, which have 4 or 5 B-vitamins in them. I don't know if these are the right kind, but if so, they could be a cheap and easily available additive.


----------



## natmoon (Oct 20, 2007)

skunkushybrid said:


> How does that plant stand up? it looks in the pic' as if it is leaning against the wall, so ordinarily would you tie it up?
> 
> That's some serious nute burn... not a single fan leaf left and even the little leaves are showing signs of burn. That plant is going to struggle.
> 
> Also, what strain is it? It's tiny side branches suggest indica. How long did you veg' the plant?


Stands up on its own,isn't tied or leaning up on the wall.
Its the bubblegum x blueberry.
It had no veg cycle at all,straight to 12/12.
I tested a mix of miracle grow mollasess and tomorite was to much for the younger ones,would seem that this cross doesnt like nutes much,next time i will only feed them half strength all the way through


----------



## BIGMIKE13 (Oct 20, 2007)

nice thread and read skunk and others that have given their thoughts.

i will also be doing this with 16 clones in just under 1gal pots veged for 14 days.

again nice thread and ill be watching...


----------



## skunkushybrid (Oct 21, 2007)

BIGMIKE13 said:


> nice thread and read skunk and others that have given their thoughts.
> 
> i will also be doing this with 16 clones in just under 1gal pots veged for 14 days.
> 
> again nice thread and ill be watching...


If the pot is just under a gallon, I'd reckon you can veg' them for 3 months if you want to. I used to use 3 litre pots, give a 12 day veg' (from clone) and achieve 1.5oz -2oz per plant. Looking at my plants now, I should achieve the 2oz mark.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Oct 21, 2007)

newbutpersistent said:


> I think so far the experiments are shaping up to confirm the original hypothesis, that the actual size of the root system, doesn't have anything to do, independently, with the size or healthiness of a plant. As long as the plants are getting the nutrients that they need to maximize the amount of light they are getting too photosynthesize. It would make sense that the plants in nature have large root systems, seeing as they have pretty much all the light they can handle, and that in general each cubic foot of soil has a set level of nutrients in it (varying by region of course), so in order to find more nutrients to maximize the sunlight, it has to have as much root surface area as possible. I think FDD's outdoor plants are also a great example of this, his plants are massive compared to his pot size, because he feeds them enough nutrients. I have also seen plants (my own) which did not have enough light or nutrients, but were in very big pots, and the root system was larger than the upward growth.


Exactly, it's logical that the root system is merely a vehicle to transport nutrients to the plant. 

Why would the shape of a plants root sysytem have anything to do with the plant above ground? 

These two sentences are what spurned me on. I used to believe that plants would send out feeler roots to determine how big the plant can get, but then I looked at fdd's outdoor trees, in tiny pots, and then the spark hit. Roots are no more important than a vehicle to transport nutrients. So long as the plant is getting enough nutrients, it will only need a tiny root system to sustain it.

All that wasted medium... all that wasted feed. Strange though, as i'm still using voodoo juice, which is famed for increasing root mass, and also Piranha which is said to increase root mass by up to 700%. hmmmmmmmmmmmm.


----------



## newbutpersistent (Oct 21, 2007)

I wouldn't be surprised if those products have an enzyme which either tells the plant, or helps the plant search out more nutes, but if the plant's already getting all the nutes, it wouldn't be searching in the first place. 

It's funny, seems like everybody is doing some kind of experimentation with this. My next grow, which ill probably get started on sometime this week is going to be doing the same thing out of neccesity. I have a very limited space and am going to most likely be planting in cut-off 20oz plastic soda bottles. Im going to be experimenting with what natmoon is doing, going straight to 12/12. Ive heard that the plants only grow one long main bud, with very minimal side branching. This would be perfect b/c with the small plant size and small pot size, I could fit probably 16 in my 18" X 25" space.

Do you think the 20oz soda bottle would be enough?


----------



## skunkushybrid (Oct 22, 2007)

I wouldn't bother going straight to flower... especially from seed. The plant needs time to mature before it starts flowering, and by placing it straight under 12 hours light, you are only giving it half the light it needs to mature quickly enough to provide you with a decent yield. 

I should think that a 20 oz soda bottle would be enough, although as I haven't got any seed at the moment, I'm not sure how a seed version of this experiment would turn out.

The flowerers had a mid week feed yesterday. Here it is (as it's slightly different to the first feed this week), into 9litres of water:

Sensi Bloom A, 19.5ml
Sensi Bloom B, 19.5ml
MET Bloom, 12ml
Fulvic Acid, 12ml
Barricade, 1ml
Carboload, 7ml
Cannazym, 15ml
Big Bud, 50ml


----------



## silk (Oct 22, 2007)

skunkushybrid said:


> Exactly, it's logical that the root system is merely a vehicle to transport nutrients to the plant.
> 
> Why would the shape of a plants root sysytem have anything to do with the plant above ground?
> 
> All that wasted medium... all that wasted feed. Strange though, as i'm still using voodoo juice, which is famed for increasing root mass, and also Piranha which is said to increase root mass by up to 700%. hmmmmmmmmmmmm.


I believe the distinction that needs to be made is between general plant biology and specific cannabis cultivation. The work you are doing may not really be pointing at the role of root development. In the wild, a plant with a greater root system will have a better chance of getting more nutrients. You are making sure the plants you are raising are getting a rich mix of designer nutrients. So it is possible you will make a conclusion based on solving for the wrong problem.


----------



## newbutpersistent (Oct 22, 2007)

I'm not quite sure about the 12/12 from seedling, I think the idea is that the plant begins flowering as quickly as it is possible. The thread I read it in said it was being used alot in holland and that the plants don't branch very much, just make one 12-16" cola up the whole stem. This could be very efficient b/c you can pack so many into such a small area. I switched mine to 12/12 when they were like 2 weeks, only first two sets of fan leaves. They began growing much faster immediately after swithcing to 12/12. Although that was only about a week ago, much to be seen yet. 

Silk - It could be different for other species of plant, however I think it's very likely this is universal; that a plant's root system doesn't independently inhibit the maximum size of the plant, that the factors affecting the growth and healthiness of a plant are the correct levels of light, nutrients, humidity, etc. and that the roots only have to get as big as they need to to ensure the plant gets the proper nutrients (i.e. if a plants root mass can consist of only one root, and it gets enough nutes to keep the plant running strong, (theoretically) it wouldn't need more than that one root).


----------



## silk (Oct 23, 2007)

newbutpersistent said:


> Silk - It could be different for other species of plant, however I think it's very likely this is universal; that a plant's root system doesn't independently inhibit the maximum size of the plant, that the factors affecting the growth and healthiness of a plant are the correct levels of light, nutrients, humidity, etc. and that the roots only have to get as big as they need to to ensure the plant gets the proper nutrients (i.e. if a plants root mass can consist of only one root, and it gets enough nutes to keep the plant running strong, (theoretically) it wouldn't need more than that one root).


uhuh. I know I mentioned nutrients in my comment that you are responding to. I wasn't saying that the general relationship of root development to plant size may differ from different species of plants. But that general biology and cultivation are different. So in other words we have seen natmoon's plant in a "coffe cup". Would the same strain grown under the same conditions at the same time with the same nutrients in a larger container yield more? If it does always then you can conclude or at least suggest that the larger root system is repsonible for the higher yield. Am I clear now?


----------



## skunkushybrid (Oct 23, 2007)

silk said:


> Would the same strain grown under the same conditions at the same time with the same nutrients in a larger container yield more? If it does always then you can conclude or at least suggest that the larger root system is repsonible for the higher yield. Am I clear now?


 
I have already grown this strain a few times from clone, in much larger containers. Usually 3 litre containers. ATM, the plants are exactly the right size they usually are. They are on target, even though they are in a container a 6th of the size.

I always use the same rich mix of nutes too.

I have just harvested 3 plants and each plant got me 1.5-2oz, after a 12 day veg' in 3 litre containers. The ones I have in flower now had an 18 day veg', so should raise the 2oz per plant minimum... and from what I already know about this strain these girls are well on target. I actually still have a 2oz plant ready to come down in the next couple of days. I'll take a pic' once lights come on later.

silk, I fail to see how this is anything other than a test of root development. It has long been held as true that 1 gallon of container is suitable for one month veg'... I now believe this is bullshit (Mr Jorges Cervantes)... and also fdd' has proved as much with his outdoor grows, even remarking that rootbound is bullshit. I believe him, I have an indica clone that's been vegging for 30 days (from clone) in a 300ml container.

Roots are not important AT ALL. They are merely a vehicle to transport nutrients to the plant. 

Also, i do not really care for other plants... only cannabis. I'm an indoor cultivator, and I'm investigating the role of root development in indoor cannabis cultivation. I agree that this experiment is very far removed from what could be termed scientific. I would need to do the side by side grow to determine exact differences (even then I'd need to do the same test around 10 times)... but this is for me. I only need to prove this to myself, and I already have enough knowledge of this strain to prove it.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Oct 23, 2007)

newbutpersistent said:


> I'm not quite sure about the 12/12 from seedling, I think the idea is that the plant begins flowering as quickly as it is possible. The thread I read it in said it was being used alot in holland and that the plants don't branch very much, just make one 12-16" cola up the whole stem. This could be very efficient b/c you can pack so many into such a small area. I switched mine to 12/12 when they were like 2 weeks, only first two sets of fan leaves. They began growing much faster immediately after swithcing to 12/12. Although that was only about a week ago, much to be seen yet.


I've never flowered straight from seed, but i have flowered too early before and they can take a couple of weeks to show sex. The plants also didn't provide a very good yield... I ALWAYS grow seed plants properly. For one thing, I want to find a mom... and I do it all while they are still in veg'. The males are thrown out, a mom is picked... and the rest are shoved into flower.

I only grow from seed to find a good mom plant. I like strong mothers, and reverted moms are never as strong as one that's never left 24/0.

This straight to flower thing is very similar to what I'm doing. I imagine the intention is to make extra space in your indoor grows, by using smaller pots... maybe to avoid the (what I now know as) mythical root bound, pot bound whatever you want to call it... the desire for less side branching to fit more plants beneath the light. Indoor cultivation is about maximising your space, and discovering new ways to achieve this.

It has been hereto believed that a large healthy root system is essential for a healthy large plant... so we indoor cultivators buy large pots... too large as our plants never get vegged long enough to fill them, lol. So what if, it is discovered that roots are not very important at all... are in fact no more important than a way to suck nutrients into the plant?


----------



## skunkushybrid (Oct 23, 2007)

Bud production, plant growth, and stem thickness are all on a par with my other grows in larger pots, with the same strain... indeed the same plant, as these are all clones from one mother plant.

The first and second pic's show the six plants I have chosen to get the best of the light. As you can see from the second pic'... one of the plants is actually in a smaller pot. Those pots hold around 300ml. The plant is exactly the same size (on average) as the other 5.

The other 2 pic's are of my ex moms. the first is of the chronic, the second is of the la conf'. 15 days into flower. They'll soon be getting some good light after the last chronic plant comes down today.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Oct 23, 2007)

Looking at the first and third pic's, it's actually quite hard to imagine that they are exactly the same plant. The first pic shows the plants to have long slender fan leaves... whereas the third pic' of the mom has smaller fan leaves.

This must have something to do with topping, and training the plant. Cannabis is a survivor, and it adapts readily to changes in environment... It is not the roots where we need to concentrate our efforts, but the plant itself.


----------



## natmoon (Oct 23, 2007)

The plants have necrotic spots and slight nute burn to the tips


----------



## nongreenthumb (Oct 23, 2007)

natmoon said:


> The plants have necrotic spots and slight nute burn to the tips


They do seem to have a lot of fan leaves though don't they.


----------



## natmoon (Oct 23, 2007)

nongreenthumb said:


> They do seem to have a lot of fan leaves though don't they.


I always trim my leaves all the way through my grow,all though i would not if i had a large grow area.
I have found that occasional trimming does not shock the plant at all and that it is natural for the plant to lose some leaf during flowering.
As long as you leave a fair amount of top leaf on the plant they wont even notice and the roots that they had established for the leaves that you have removed will be rerouted for buds and bud leaves.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Oct 24, 2007)

natmoon said:


> The plants have necrotic spots and slight nute burn to the tips


The necrotic spots were down to the insects... although they are gone now... I have got no nute burn on my plants.

This strain produces a lot of side branches, maybe up to around half oz dry weight is made up by the side branches with the main cola coming in at up to 1.5oz. I usually tie the side branches in tight to the main cola.


----------



## kt0s.6o4 (Oct 24, 2007)

hey skunk, 
Just wondering if you mind if i join in on your experiment. I have 2 Purp clones that have been in 16oz cups for about a week now, and i just put one into a 1g pot last night. They are the same size and have been getting the same food.

I will be taking pic's regularly. I will post starter pics when i get my camera some batteries.


----------



## kt0s.6o4 (Oct 24, 2007)

Heres those pics i offered... 
These were taken before transplant...


----------



## newbutpersistent (Oct 24, 2007)

also, the large number of fan leaves could be an adaptaion to the amount of nutrients, the plant qould be making as many leaves as it needs to photosynthisize the nutrients it's getting, just a thought. 
what was your yield from the plants you flowered too early? I know it wont be alot but if I can fit 16 plants and get 1/4 - 1/2 oz from each that will be 1/4 - 1/2 lb from all 16. It may not be as much as I could theoretically get, however, it would keep me happy for quite a while. 
Yeah, I've been thinking about this method and I'm pretty sure it would work better with clones, however that small grow room I have is the only one I got for right now, and seeing as it's only about 18" between floor and bottom of lights, I can't really fit a mom in there (unless I am mistaken, in which case please let me know), not to mention I couldn't really have the one room be in 24/0 and 12/12 at same time. 
Also, b/c of my height constrictions, how tall did those early-flowered plants get?

p.s. I haven't seen any sign of sex yet, which is what I expected. I did see a growth spurt, but what I figure is that obviously the plant won't start flowering until it's mature. It's just that with this method, the plant starts flowering as soon as it is able to. Of course my plants have also been through a little bit of stress with an unseasonable heatwave we had when they were a couple of weeks old. Also I had to get them out of the house for 2 days and they were in complete darkness for the time.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Oct 25, 2007)

newbutpersistent said:


> also, the large number of fan leaves could be an adaptaion to the amount of nutrients, the plant qould be making as many leaves as it needs to photosynthisize the nutrients it's getting, just a thought.
> what was your yield from the plants you flowered too early? I know it wont be alot but if I can fit 16 plants and get 1/4 - 1/2 oz from each that will be 1/4 - 1/2 lb from all 16. It may not be as much as I could theoretically get, however, it would keep me happy for quite a while.
> Yeah, I've been thinking about this method and I'm pretty sure it would work better with clones, however that small grow room I have is the only one I got for right now, and seeing as it's only about 18" between floor and bottom of lights, I can't really fit a mom in there (unless I am mistaken, in which case please let me know), not to mention I couldn't really have the one room be in 24/0 and 12/12 at same time.
> Also, b/c of my height constrictions, how tall did those early-flowered plants get?
> ...


To answer your first question. It is typical of this strain to produce lots of leaf, it is a very heavy budder. The mom plant also has lots of leaf, they're just not as long. She's been topped, and topped, must have around 30 heads. Has been vegging in a 3litre container for around 10 weeks. There are more main colas on the mom, so the leaves are shorter. Like us, cannabis has an amazing ability to adapt very quickly to changing environments.

In regards to the plants I flowered early... I was growing grapefruit in soil, and I maxed out at 3 q's per plant... after around 14 weeks of flower. Pissed me off. i also had a low height restriction, my flowered plants cannot get past 4ft, and grapefruit is a sativa. So, as they kept stretching and stretching I had to bend the plants, and tie them etc just so they'd fit. The reason I flowered them early was because they were feminised seed anyway, so I just picked the strongest for a mom, and threw the rest into flower. It's hard just growing with one room, I've never done it... as I actually started growing for commercial reasons, although now it is just a hobby... but you do need two spaces, one for veg' the other for flower. The great thing about a veg' space is that it doesn't need to be very big. You could have one in your closet. 

Seed plants don't really matter, only in as much as finding the mom you want to keep. After that happens, the seed plants can go into flower. You can even take clones and put the mom straight in too, raise one of her clones as a new mom plant. 2 rooms is something you should be working hard to achieve.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Oct 25, 2007)

They should really have been given this feed yesterday... but what's an extra day? Well the plants suffered a bit of droop... but not too bad. I would have done it yesterday, only decorating and almost breaking my back played their part in giving me an early night. I'd highly recommend chronic x white russian for almost instant pain relief.

Here's the feed into 9litres of water:

Sensi Bloom A, 22.5ml
Sensi Bloom B, 22.5ml
MET Bloom, 15ml
Fulvic Acid, 15ml
B52, 30ml
Barricade, 1.3ml
Carboload, 8ml
Cannazym, 17.5ml
Big Bud, 50ml

EC, 1.6.

There's some excellent bud production, and stem thickening going on at the moment. I'm almost at the right time to tie them up. I may just do it tomorrow... I'll post some update pic's too.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 25, 2007)

just so you know......i'm getting ready to re-pot my plants for their final flowering pots. i'm going with 2 litres. my plants are 14" tall at the moment. i will trnasplant then veg for 1 week under 600w of HPS then flower. i'll keep you posted, maybe start my own thread.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Oct 25, 2007)

fdd2blk said:


> just so you know......i'm getting ready to re-pot my plants for their final flowering pots. i'm going with 2 litres. my plants are 14" tall at the moment. i will trnasplant then veg for 1 week under 600w of HPS then flower. i'll keep you posted, maybe start my own thread.


Sweet... I can't believe all the wasted medium and nutrients of the past.

I've been thinking about trying to grow an apple tree in hydro, in a small pot... think it's possible?


----------



## skunkushybrid (Oct 25, 2007)

fdd2blk said:


> just so you know......i'm getting ready to re-pot my plants for their final flowering pots. i'm going with 2 litres. my plants are 14" tall at the moment. i will trnasplant then veg for 1 week under 600w of HPS then flower. i'll keep you posted, maybe start my own thread.


How long have they vegged for? If they're from seed, is that around 4-5 weeks? So you'll give a total of 5-6 weeks of veg... saves me doing the seed version now... don't you think you could leave them in the pot they're in now? Or you could start your thread, post me a link and answer in there.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 25, 2007)

skunkushybrid said:


> How long have they vegged for? If they're from seed, is that around 4-5 weeks? So you'll give a total of 5-6 weeks of veg... saves me doing the seed version now... don't you think you could leave them in the pot they're in now? Or you could start your thread, post me a link and answer in there.



started from clones. been under floros for 4 - 5 weeks. i'm battling spidermites at the moment. once i kill them all i'll put them into flower. i have to re-do my room also so it may be a week or 2.

4 days ago.....


----------



## silk (Oct 25, 2007)

skunkushybrid said:


> Sweet... I can't believe all the wasted medium and nutrients of the past.
> 
> I've been thinking about trying to grow an apple tree in hydro, in a small pot... think it's possible?


LOL, now you are moving into what I was talking about...


----------



## skunkushybrid (Oct 26, 2007)

fdd2blk said:


> started from clones. been under floros for 4 - 5 weeks. i'm battling spidermites at the moment. once i kill them all i'll put them into flower. i have to re-do my room also so it may be a week or 2.
> 
> 4 days ago.....View attachment 34629


I thought you hated flouros? 

Or is it the time scale, you are concerned about? This is why you want them to veg' slow?

I've never actually vegged under flouro before... used them for clones, but even stopped that after a while. 

The difference in veg time does seem remarkable.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Oct 26, 2007)

silk said:


> LOL, now you are moving into what I was talking about...


It was actualy you that sent my mind in this direction... as I said earlier in the thread, I'm only concerned with the indoor cultivation of cannabis. I suppose I've changed my mind.

I have two apple trees in my garden... the apples are falling off and me and my friends are sick of them. So I have plenty of seed. Just got to figure out how to grow it... ph and suchlike, germination too.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Oct 27, 2007)

Finally got off my ass today and rearranged my flowering area, also chopped off the lower branches. I got into the habit of leaving them there for a while due to my low height space, and in an effort to restrict the stretch on the main cola.

Anyway, the tallest plant is just shy of 28" tall... and they're going to need another feed today... even though I made the feed up into 9litres, these guys actually only received 6litres, the other 3 being distributed between the two mom plants i have flowering... they are also going to need another feed today. It should be the same as the last feed... 

Flower production is already going well, and these plants do not even seem to be noticing that they are in a smaller container. All they know is that they're getting enough food to grow as big as i like... or as big as I let them veg' for. So far, container size has not been an issue whatsoever.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Oct 27, 2007)

Here's some pic's of the guys at the back of the queue for light...

There's one with three heads (bear in mind these are all clones from the same mom), one with two heads... then a really tall plant in a container not much bigger than a can of coke (around 350ml).


----------



## kt0s.6o4 (Oct 30, 2007)

ok, here are the two Purp clones i am experimenting with.....
they were vegged for about a week and a half, and have been 12/12 for 2 nights now....




as you can see, this strain certainly likes to bush out as far as the roots will allow.....or so it seems


----------



## skunkushybrid (Oct 31, 2007)

kt0s.6o4 said:


> ok, here are the two Purp clones i am experimenting with.....
> they were vegged for about a week and a half, and have been 12/12 for 2 nights now....
> View attachment 35715
> 
> ...


Yes. They're looking good. I like the one in the styrofoam cup the best. There's no difference in size?


----------



## kt0s.6o4 (Oct 31, 2007)

skunkushybrid said:


> There's no difference in size?


Not much difference....just the one in the 1G pot seems to have grown wider than the one in the cup....much bigger leaves...


----------



## skunkushybrid (Oct 31, 2007)

kt0s.6o4 said:


> Not much difference....just the one in the 1G pot seems to have grown wider than the one in the cup....much bigger leaves...


Are they from seed? One could be male, the other a fem'.

21 DAYS FLOWER:

Everything's going fine. I'll post update pic's with plant measurements tomorrow. Here's the feed into 9litres of water:

Sensi Bloom A, 28.5ml
Sensi Bloom B, 28.5ml
MET Bloom, 18ml
Fulvic Acid, 18ml
Barricade, 1.8ml
Carboload, 9ml
Cannazym, 15ml
Big Bud, 55ml
B52, 40ml

EC 2.2............ I diluted the solution till I got a reading of 1.8-2.0 ec.


----------



## kt0s.6o4 (Oct 31, 2007)

kt0s.6o4 said:


> ok, here are the two Purp clones i am experimenting with.....


 
nope...as above stated...both clones off same female from seed...


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 1, 2007)

Bud development and plant growth are on target. the tallest plant is just shy of 31".

They are feeding much more now, and I'm going to have to uptake the feed to 3 feeds a week. Still not as much as I at first anticipated.

I'll start feeling more at ease once day 35 is out of the way.


----------



## past times (Nov 3, 2007)

good work guys, read the post all the way through and is definitely informative. i have a small 2x3 area that i am working on getting into a continual harvest. to continue this experiment i am going to use a 1G pot, a cut off 2 litter bottle, and a big gulp cup. ill keep you posted on this. 

how tall are your clones and how long have you rooted and vegged them before switching to the 12/12?


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 4, 2007)

past times said:


> how tall are your clones and how long have you rooted and vegged them before switching to the 12/12?


I'm not sure how long they took to take root... maybe 9 days. Last time I measured them the tallest plant was just shy of 31"... although i'll measure them today too as they are having their 3rd feed of the week.


----------



## nongreenthumb (Nov 4, 2007)

1 plant in 1 4" cube


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 4, 2007)

Interesting root development... mine barely show their faces. Although I won't know what the roots look like until I harvest. If I get that far. There's no problems, but according to the old rules my plants should be rootbound and unable to uptake nutes by now.


----------



## nongreenthumb (Nov 4, 2007)

That plant is roughly 3 weeks in, i have others all a similar age some a week older. They have all been kept in the single cube the whole time until last night when i added an extra cube for the underneath. I'm already starting to see sex on these plants 4 weeks into veg roughly.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 4, 2007)

What are they, nl? Are they from clone?


----------



## nongreenthumb (Nov 4, 2007)

All from seed, the plant in the picture i think is sensi star.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 4, 2007)

Within the next week, she's going to burst into growth. 

The roots also seem quite fat... i'm thinking that there may be a difference between clones roots and seed roots. If I had roots that fat in one of my tiniest pots (a tad bigger than a can of coke), they would be bursting through the plastic.


----------



## nongreenthumb (Nov 4, 2007)

Here is the rate of growth over 7 days from these plants. Even though they have been in just a single cube, the second picture was taken straight after the change around.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 4, 2007)

its amazing what can happen in a week.


----------



## Weedhound (Nov 5, 2007)

I must say iimpressive work. I see what you are saying about rootbound. Unfortunately I still do not agree with you.....as an experienced grower you may be very well able to do what you have accomplished here (obviously) but it's a little much IN MY OPINION ONLY to drop in on noobs and make such a statement. 

That said.....excellent work. I'm very iimpressed.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 5, 2007)

Weedhound said:


> I see what you are saying about rootbound. Unfortunately I still do not agree with you.....as an experienced grower you may be very well able to do what you have accomplished here (obviously) but it's a little much IN MY OPINION ONLY to drop in on noobs and make such a statement.


 
You see what i'm saying, yet you don't agree. Why not? 

I say things the way I see them. Rootbound, as far as my experiment is showing, is a load of bullshit. I'll admit, the experiment is not over yet... but if it succeeds then i will shout it from the rooftops... that all the old rules are full of shit... and I shall tell noob after noob about my discovery.

In fact it was fdd' that first called bullshit on rootbound, I'm merely testing how far I can push it.

So far, I've saved money on medium and nutes... I suppose you could aslo count that smaller pots like these cost much less than the bigger ones... so technically there is money to be saved there too... although I already have big pots, so technically I've lost out a little by buying the smaller ones... which i think cost me no more than a £.


----------



## Weedhound (Nov 5, 2007)

Well....let me clarify....You are obviously an extremely talented grower. The fact that you can take the rules and bend them around (very impressively I might add) I would think would only be confusing to your average grower or noob. Take my word for it I couldn't do this in a million years and I don't consider myself a noob.....some experience yes but thats different from TALENT.....which is what I believe I'm seeing here.


----------



## Weedhound (Nov 5, 2007)

Love the shouting to the newbs from the rooftops.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 5, 2007)

Wow. thankyou. Although, no matter how much i'd like to believe it is talent, I believe that this is a general rule of cultivation. Or at least should be. 

I agree that it could be confusing to a noob, but in general noob's are confused anyway. there's a lot of misinformation on the web, and on this site. Although i hope that my regular pic's and feeding regimen would help convince people that roots are only important in as much as transporting nutes to the plant. I honestly believe they have no other use than that, and so far (touch wood) i'm proving that to be correct.

Once i get past the next couple of weeks, i'll relax... I had a plant die on me once half way through flower in dwc... it died because it's roots were strangled by the other plants that were sharing the container. I'm quickly approaching the end of week 3 and beginning of week 4. Once week 5 is out of the way I will feel that i have succeeded.

Thanks for the compliment, btw.


----------



## Weedhound (Nov 5, 2007)

I will follow this thread carefully....I have had ALL sorts of "rootbound" issues in my hydro setup and would LOVE to be able to figure some of those problems out. I notice that my drip rings etc clog OFTEN with dead and dying roots....ones as you say that have no more use and don't need to be there. 

The space issue alone with the root situation has HUGE implications in your expirement....and thats the rest of it aside (saving on nutes etc) 

You are welcome.....call them like I see them.


----------



## fdd2blk (Nov 5, 2007)

i love this thread.


----------



## 000420 (Nov 5, 2007)

skunkushybrid said:


> You see what i'm saying, yet you don't agree. Why not?
> 
> I say things the way I see them. Rootbound, as far as my experiment is showing, is a load of bullshit. I'll admit, the experiment is not over yet... but if it succeeds then i will shout it from the rooftops... that all the old rules are full of shit... and I shall tell noob after noob about my discovery.
> 
> ...



He convinced me too, I've been doing an experiment also....I have been now been starting clones in solo cups(i grow in soil)for one week and then transplanting to one gallon bags for 2 weeks and then into bloom I keep them in the 1 gallon bags to harvest, I've had to start feeding and watering every day now which I don't mind....and my plants are just the same as they usually are many are even bigger and healthier, they enjoy the constant feeding and watering.......I used to flower in 3 gallon bags...now I'm seeing I can do the exact same thing in theses one gallon bags or better...but I'm spending 60% less on soil....that's a huge savings.....not to mention I have less soil to dispose of at harvest now...60% less that saves me money and labor...plus smaller bags are cheaper......this change to something I thought couldn't be done is going to save me $$$$$


----------



## Weedhound (Nov 5, 2007)

So are you guys saying that the final yield is the same as if you were not working with and training the roots?


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 6, 2007)

Weedhound said:


> So are you guys saying that the final yield is the same as if you were not working with and training the roots?


Well my plants are in 500ml containers, I used to grow in varying bigger pots, but never smaller than 3litres before. I kept a mother plant, well 2 mom plants in a 3 litre container for well over 10 weeks (the 10 weeks being a kind estimation). They are also in flower now, but have around 20 main tops each so the yield will be hard to judge.

The plants in the 500ml containers are clones of a strain that I've already grown a few times in the larger 3 litre containers. Usually after a 12 day veg' in the 3litre containers they would net me 1.5 to 2oz per plant depending on their position in the flowering area.

I actually vegged these for 18 days, till they were 15" tall before I placed them into flower. They are approaching 35" in height now and are flowering nicely. So far, no difference in size nor bud development, despite them being in not just a container a 6th of the size, but also a container that should be too small for them to finish in.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 6, 2007)

DAY 27 FLOWER

The tallest plant is now exactly 88cm high, and bud development is on target. I know I need to clean up in there, but the tight space I have to work in makes this difficult untill actual harvest day. Luckily its winter, and the insects are all either dead or dying... so the attacks on my leaves have stopped almost completely.

In the third pic', you can see my mother plant in the background. She has 20 heads and they are mostly keeping in line with the growth from my other plants. The mom plant is in a 3litre container, and was vegged for 10weeks (around about).

I also plain ph'd water fed them yesterday. Not because they needed just plain water but because I was too lazy to bother making up any feeds. I'm going to need to raise the light yet again...


----------



## Weedhound (Nov 6, 2007)

GodDAMN that's impressive. Not only do you have them in those teeny little pots but the plants themselves look gorgeous and healthy. Beautiful!!


----------



## Weedhound (Nov 6, 2007)

Ok....question....and forgive that it's sort of confusing....I'm not at all scientific.

If your theory is true then why do the plants in my hydro system keep growing huge roots? I run a waterfarm drip/dwc combo and my plants have access to nutes, h20 and EVERYTHING 24/7. Is the key simply providing the roots this certain amount of space and no more? You have them in RW cubes.....would this same approach work in a hydro medium that allows them access to nutes 24/7 or would periodic feedings be the best?


----------



## Ralphie (Nov 6, 2007)

if you give them the space they will grow roots


----------



## Weedhound (Nov 6, 2007)

Then why do they generally not grow any more when they run out of space as opposed to what Skunk has going here? His keep growing.....mine don't.

You see my problem here?


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 7, 2007)

Weedhound said:


> Then why do they generally not grow any more when they run out of space as opposed to what Skunk has going here? His keep growing.....mine don't.
> 
> You see my problem here?


I see what you're saying... but I feel that this might be because you haven't really given them a chance. I think you just need to believe it will work, if you get my meaning. Negative thoughts could help persuade you that it isn't working.

Also DWC is a little different as the only access to air the roots have is from the air stone, and in my grows I always had to fish the airstone out of the rootball after harvest. I want to try this same experiment in dwc but i'm starting from seed again this time, so it's a few weeks away yet before I can try it.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 7, 2007)

My original theory on root development was that a plant will send out feeler roots to judge how much room it has to grow in and therefore the size it will get... maybe this theory is half right. The plant sends out feeler roots to judge how much space the ROOTS have to grow in. Whereby, so long as there is sufficient nutrients and oxygen being supplied to the medium, the roots will only grow as much as the container will allow while still keeping the upward growth of the plant at a normal level.

My plants are 3ft tall. When I grew them in 3litre containers at this stage they were 3ft tall. I should have skinny colas by the end of this week, today is the start of week 4. I'll post the feeds for week 4 later.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 7, 2007)

I have a germinated seed, and was thinking of attempting the same thing... but the more I think about it, the less I think it will work. 

A seed plant needs to develop properly into a mature plant, and I believe this would require it to have a more extensive root system. 

A clone plant is different. it's already had all the root system it needs. It should be (as all my clones are) perfectly matured, like the mother it came from. I always veg' seed plants till they preflower, there's never any need to place a plant into flower to discover it's sex. Most strains will show sex from 4-7 weeks of veg'.

I believe however that this takes maturing, and therefore a healthy, largish root system. i was thinking of doing a 1" by 1" seed grow. I feel this would be pushing things too far.

I'm not sure about seed plants... I shall find out.


----------



## wafflehouselover (Nov 7, 2007)

you can get 8oz a plant if you veg for 4wk, imagine if you veg for 7!


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 7, 2007)

wafflehouselover said:


> you can get 8oz a plant if you veg for 4wk, imagine if you veg for 7!


I know. ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. I've heard of people over extending their yields... but 8oz off one indoor seed plant, after a 4 week veg, and in soil, and under a 400w dual spec', with other plants in there too!

The pic's don't even do it justice, they just look like skinny ass dry 8th buds to me. although they are still very wet in the pic's anyway.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 7, 2007)

27 day root pic's.

I harvested this plant yesterday. it was getting no light, so I thought it best taken out. So, i'll be turning it into oil. It was also a good opportunity to study the root development. Here's some pic's of the event.

This only gives me an idea of what is going on with the main plants as this plant had a low access to the light and was a good deal shorter than the rest. I have other plants too that i can take at varying stages to check on the root development.

The roots seem to be thickest around the outside of the medium which, i feel, supports the feeler root theory. Inside is a different story, the network of roots seem to stem from just 3 main roots.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 7, 2007)

Here's the feed for this week, into 9litres of water:

Sensi Bloom A, 30ml
Sensi Bloom B, 30ml
MET Bloom, 18ml
Fulvic Acid, 18ml
Barricade, 1.8ml
Carboload, 10ml
Cannazym, 22.5ml
B52, 40ml
Big Bud, 58ml

EC 1.8-2.0

They will be fed this feed approximately 3 times within the week. Although, some of this feed will also feed the background plants and the two moms. I estimate that between the 6 main plants, they are drinking only around 12litres of feed a week (which equates to 2litres a week each, it may well actually be less). The mom plant that vegged for 10weeks in a 3litre container is on around 5-6litres a week.


----------



## fdd2blk (Nov 7, 2007)

skunkushybrid said:


> I have a germinated seed, and was thinking of attempting the same thing... but the more I think about it, the less I think it will work.
> 
> A seed plant needs to develop properly into a mature plant, and I believe this would require it to have a more extensive root system.
> 
> ...




i have my seed plants next to my clones. same pots. all doing just as well. it will work. GO FOR IT!!!!


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 7, 2007)

fdd2blk said:


> i have my seed plants next to my clones. same pots. all doing just as well. it will work. GO FOR IT!!!!


Already have... I don't want to put a thread up about it though just yet. As it took 72 hours to germinate. The seeds were given to me by someone that pulled them out of some street weed a few months ago. so I have no clue what they are. So far only one has germinated, as soon as it pops its head above surface I'll start the thread. I'll also try the 1" x 1" x 1" container as soon as another seed pops. Just to keep things exciting.


----------



## natmoon (Nov 7, 2007)

skunkushybrid said:


> DAY 27 FLOWER
> 
> The tallest plant is now exactly 88cm high, and bud development is on target. I know I need to clean up in there, but the tight space I have to work in makes this difficult untill actual harvest day. Luckily its winter, and the insects are all either dead or dying... so the attacks on my leaves have stopped almost completely.
> 
> ...


I do admire the perfect electrolyte balance that you have achieved that is very apparent from your third picture along.
Those leaves are reaching in a very good way.
Forgetting previous arguments +rep to your excellent balance on the third pic along


----------



## newbutpersistent (Nov 7, 2007)

hey, good job. Things seem to be coming along great. I will be interested to see the results from the seed plants.

Just some updates from my un-scientific experiment.

i now have 5 plants, the first 2 that I had are in flower. They had been in cut-off 2-litre bottles. On 10/29 I trsanpslanted them into smaller (much smaller) containers.
They are now in plastic cups which I believe are 16oz. They are doing fine. They started showing sex 2-3 days after transplant. There is no way to do any kind of comparison. This is only my second grow, I don't know what strain, I have different lumens in a different sized space, don't have the heat issues I had with the first grow, Had only a 2 week veg time (the second tier of plant have had no veg time), etc. so obviously there are way too many unknown factors to do a real comparison.
HOWEVER..
considering that I transplanted into smaller containers (rough estimate 1/3 - 1/2 size), they're doing better than I expected. Hopefully I can get some pics just show.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 8, 2007)

Hey newbut', I'm chuffed that you have so much faith in this experiment... if anything else, I've proved that you can grow a 3ft plant in 0.5ml container. Scratch that, I've got a 3ft plant in a 350ml container.

As I downgrade pot sizes the old pots seem massive... have you got a link to your grow, newbut'? Or you can post your pic's in here if you like, I don't mind.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 8, 2007)

natmoon said:


> I do admire the perfect electrolyte balance that you have achieved that is very apparent from your third picture along.
> Those leaves are reaching in a very good way.
> Forgetting previous arguments +rep to your excellent balance on the third pic along


Hey, thanks a lot Nat'... through using the smaller pots I have more height room, around 8" extra height makes all the difference when you only have a 5' height space to grow in. So there is better circulation, etc.


----------



## zechbro (Nov 8, 2007)

skunkushybird would you recomend using smaller pots when doing sog so that the plants grew more straight up with the smaller pot limiting side growth so you could lollipop them?


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 8, 2007)

zechbro said:


> skunkushybird would you recomend using smaller pots when doing sog so that the plants grew more straight up with the smaller pot limiting side growth so you could lollipop them?


No. The smaller pots have not hindered side growth. They have not hindered growth at all. 

I also have never recommended anything of the kind. It's perfectly natural to use small pots in sog, that's what it's all about. If you read back through this thread you'll see that this hasn't anything at all to do with sog. The only relationship between what I'm doing and sog, are the smaller pot sizes.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 8, 2007)

A while ago now, I got the idea that roots take in oxygen and transform it into co2... although a search of the web ended up fruitless. The idea has come back again, strongly.

I believe that roots actually turn the oxygen into co2 for the plant above. Whether this happens in the root, or inside the actual plant, I don't know... but this would help explain why DWC and Aero grows so quickly. Might also explain why plants still grow at night. The plant itself may well be incapable of absorbing co2 during lights out, but once the lights are out the roots become more active, and actively take over from the plant in making co2. Maybe not even take over, but CONTINUE to work while the rest of the plant rests.

On a side note... the best way to restrict side growth is to cram in more plants. With poorer access to light side branches won't grow as big.


----------



## butterflykisses (Nov 8, 2007)

so do u think its possiable to do all your doing and use t5s like victor?

https://www.rollitup.org/grow-room-design-setup/33421-my-current-set-up-journal.html


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 8, 2007)

butterflykisses said:


> so do u think its possiable to do all your doing and use t5s like victor?
> 
> https://www.rollitup.org/grow-room-design-setup/33421-my-current-set-up-journal.html


 
Yes, of course. Light has nothing to do with it. Although, imo t5 fluoro's are no match for even a 400w HID lamp.


----------



## Weedhound (Nov 8, 2007)

skunkushybrid said:


> Yes, of course. Light has nothing to do with it. Although, imo t5 fluoro's are no match for even a 400w HID lamp.


Thank you......

Still following Skunk. Great stuff!!!


----------



## natmoon (Nov 8, 2007)

skunkushybrid said:


> A while ago now, I got the idea that roots take in oxygen and transform it into co2... although a search of the web ended up fruitless. The idea has come back again, strongly.
> 
> I believe that roots actually turn the oxygen into co2 for the plant above. Whether this happens in the root, or inside the actual plant, I don't know... but this would help explain why DWC and Aero grows so quickly. Might also explain why plants still grow at night. The plant itself may well be incapable of absorbing co2 during lights out, but once the lights are out the roots become more active, and actively take over from the plant in making co2. Maybe not even take over, but CONTINUE to work while the rest of the plant rests.
> 
> On a side note... the best way to restrict side growth is to cram in more plants. With poorer access to light side branches won't grow as big.


This is a theory that i think has some merit


----------



## silk (Nov 9, 2007)

natmoon said:


> This is a theory that i think has some merit


Only if he meant O2...


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 9, 2007)

silk said:


> Only if he meant O2...


It turns into oxygen gas? And what would be the point of this?

Can you explain yourself better please?


----------



## natmoon (Nov 9, 2007)

silk said:


> Only if he meant O2...


I think you have misunderstood the theory from a lack of basic knowledge of how a plant takes in co2.

The pores that are underneath the leaves that take in the majority of the co2 in the air close up during the dark period.
What skunkys saying is that we could help the plants to take up more co2 from their root system whilst the dark period is in effect and gain a growing boost similar to an aero grow in soil by say adding a small amount of carbonated drinking water before the lights go out or making sure that the medium is drier at the lights out time so that the root system can convert the oxygen thats trapped in the soil into co2 and supply it to the plant that way.

So i reckon that the best way to achieve this would be to add a sip of carbonated water near lights off time and try to make sure that your medium is fairly dry at the dark cycle.


----------



## silk (Nov 9, 2007)

skunkushybrid said:


> It turns into oxygen gas? And what would be the point of this?
> 
> Can you explain yourself better please?


Plants don't produce CO2, it's an input not an output. The general equation is:

6CO2 + 12H2O + energy -----> C6H12O6 + 6O2 + 6H2O

Photosynthesis produces glucose, oxygen and water not carbon dioxide. I couldn't tell you the point of it, it's just that once the sugar is formed there is excess O2 ,which does not bond and is released into the atmosphere.


----------



## silk (Nov 9, 2007)

natmoon said:


> " I believe that roots actually turn the oxygen into co2 for the plant above." <- That is beyond any basic knowledge.


----------



## natmoon (Nov 9, 2007)

silk said:


> Plants don't produce CO2, it's an input not an output. The general equation is:
> 
> 6CO2 + 12H2O + energy -----> C6H12O6 + 6O2 + 6H2O
> 
> Photosynthesis produces glucose, oxygen and water not carbon dioxide. I couldn't tell you the point of it, it's just that once the sugar is formed there is excess O2 ,which does not bond and is released into the atmosphere.


Plants do produce co2


----------



## silk (Nov 9, 2007)

natmoon said:


> Plants do produce co2


Yes they do during cellular respiration which would generally happen during photosynthesis which in turn uses the co2 while it is aqueous and still within the plant. Why would the roots produce co2 if they were up taking it from a carbonated water solution?


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 9, 2007)

So what do the roots do with the oxygen then? Like I said, this is just a theory, and I couldn't find anything to prove or disprove it.

I understand photosynthesis, but what is actually known about the roots? Why take in oxygen? Why is it that DWC/Aero grows which have access to more oxygen explode in upward plant growth?

Is there any scientific evidence that says roots do not turn oxygen into co2?


----------



## natmoon (Nov 9, 2007)

Roots supposedly do not like pure co2,this is not something that i have tested myself though.
I believe that oxygen and co2 molecules exist in the soil and that the root systems break this down into an absorbable package and delivers it to the plant.

I think the theory has merit because i know that the plant shuts its pores down when its not photosynthesizing and it is entirely possible that the roots are the only way that a plant can absorb co2 whilst it is in the dark period.

I think the theory has merit and needs to be looked into but i don't have other info on it,but its a theory that i think deserves a bit more work and investigation


----------



## silk (Nov 9, 2007)

skunkushybrid said:


> Why take in oxygen? Why is it that DWC/Aero grows which have access to more oxygen explode in upward plant growth?
> 
> Is there any scientific evidence that says roots do not turn oxygen into co2?


This is because the nutrients and oxygen reach the plant faster than in soil, certainly faster than in nature. Assuming you have the optimum mix of nutrients, oxygen and co2 you will have the most efficient plant growth. As far as I was taught, both photosynthesis and cellular respiration occur in the plant cells that have significant chloroplast. This would be found primarily in the leaves but also the stalks/stems/branches of the plant. The roots if at all, have the least amount of chloroplast. 

so to summarize what I have said previously in this thread:

1. I don't think your experiment shows evidence that root system growth is unimportant but it does show that efficient nutrient uptake is possible without a large root system. What you may prove is growing advice about larger containers and larger feeding is unnecessary and a waste. I believe that greenhouse hydroponics already empirically prove this however disproving such cannabis growing mythology is a helpful and positive endeavor.

2. I don't believe there is any significant co2 production from roots due to textbook understanding of photosynthesis and cellular respiration. (basic knowledge).

3. Keep on doing a good job with this thread and your experiment!


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 9, 2007)

silk said:


> 1. I don't think your experiment shows evidence that root system growth is unimportant


Technically it does... at least in some small way. The fact that much less root is needed numbs the importance somewhat. 

I see your point though on the actual development of the root system itself. As it still needs to have a root system, and a developed one... maybe just not as an extensive or far reaching as we first thought. So in this respect alone is where the development loses importance.

I'm still not quite convinced that roots do not convert oxygen into co2, but I must bow to your expert knowledge on the subject. Thankyou for being here.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 9, 2007)

silk said:


> 2. I don't believe there is any significant co2 production from roots due to textbook understanding of photosynthesis and cellular respiration. (basic knowledge).


What happens at night, when the plant is resting... has anyone studied the roots then?

Tell you what, could you just show me a site that can explain all this to me?

Unfortunately, I left school at a very early age. I educated myself through reading literature which offers a broad range of knowledge on a broad range of subjects. I'm more of a creative person than a scientific one.


----------



## silk (Nov 9, 2007)

skunkushybrid said:


> Technically it does... at least in some small way. The fact that much less root is needed numbs the importance somewhat.
> 
> I'm still not quite convinced that roots do not convert oxygen into co2, but I must bow to your expert knowledge on the subject. Thankyou for being here.


I think we are stuck on semantics as opposed to actually disagreeing about the points. Lets just clarify that I am not an expert.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 9, 2007)

silk said:


> I think we are stuck on semantics as opposed to actually disagreeing about the points. Lets just clarify that I am not an expert.


Ok, I'll clarify too... your better knowledge on the subject. Although, do you know of anywhere on the web that would know? I have searched, fairly extensively...and not found anything. I must be asking the wrong questions.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 9, 2007)

silk said:


> This is because the nutrients and oxygen reach the plant faster than in soil,


Why? How do the nutes reach the plant faster? In soil, the roots are everywhere. It doesn't sound logical to me.

When a feed is made up there is equal nutrients to each relative part of water. 

The reason aero and dwc grow so quickly is because of the extra oxygen. The roots NEED oxygen. Why? They don't just need it, but plants thrive when they have it in abundance. Why?


----------



## silk (Nov 9, 2007)

skunkushybrid said:


> What happens at night, when the plant is resting... has anyone studied the roots then?
> 
> Tell you what, could you just show me a site that can explain all this to me?
> 
> Unfortunately, I left school at a very early age. I educated myself through reading literature which offers a broad range of knowledge on a broad range of subjects. I'm more of a creative person than a scientific one.


At night the plant can still grow it's just not creating more of the energy it needs. However it can use the energy it has stored when necessary. Plants have and will continued to be studied. Fundamentally the root system is used to transport water and nutrients. You can read a primer on wikipedia here: Root - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In my experience school only really offers a framework in which to develop your own learning. So without school there is more responsibility on your shoulders because you aren't forced to learn. That doesn't mean you can't be more knowledgeable than myself or anyone else, you just need to put in more effort because you didn't experience the structure.


----------



## silk (Nov 9, 2007)

skunkushybrid said:


> Why? How do the nutes reach the plant faster? In soil, the roots are everywhere. It doesn't sound logical to me.
> 
> Why? They don't just need it, but plants thrive when they have it in abundance. Why?


Because in soil it takes time for h20 to reach the root system, it has to seep through the soil and may not all go towards the root system. In an aero/dwc system it takes little time at all. Also any nutrients available in soil have to also be in contact with the roots, in the above mentioned hydroponic solutions the o2/h2o and nutrients are sprayed directly onto the roots. Whatever is not absorbed falls back into the reservoir and can be used later. In a container grow, the excess of what the media or roots cannot absorb will exit the container.


----------



## Weedhound (Nov 9, 2007)

root/shoot ratios and media/biomass ratios are different in hydro than in soil.

What does this mean? I have no clue. But I got this info from someones who knows his shit and when I told him what you were doing he said yes....quite possible in hydro due to the statement above. Went on to say he used to keep moms in 6 inch Cultilene (which I don't know what that is) and the biggest problem he remembered was the plants tipping over. 

I notice you've just started an expirement for seeds Skunk. 

I have NO idea if this statement helps or not but there it is.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 10, 2007)

Weedhound said:


> root/shoot ratios and media/biomass ratios are different in hydro than in soil.


Yes, this is something I have noted too. My sole reason for growing DWC was to study root development. The roots in a dwc grow actually seem much thinner than on a soil grow.

Although why they would be different in coco, I have no idea. As in coco, the roots are covered the same way. The soil we use, only has nutes to last a certain amount of time, so it can't be that soil contains anything special... maybe it's the density of soil that forces them to grow thicker (to push their way through the soil), as coco coir doesn't seem as heavy as soil. Although i'd have to weigh an equal amount by volume to be sure.

Ah, well that would explain the media/biomass ratios. Soil is actually heavier.


----------



## natmoon (Nov 10, 2007)

Its an old problem really.
I think that plants as like all other living things are all different and constantly changing,forever escaping our boxes so to speak.
I think we should try everything and see what happens


----------



## wafflehouselover (Nov 10, 2007)

how about taking hydroponics to the next level and having our roots suspended in ph'd nutrient hydrogen injected with optimal oxygen chamber(careful i think that can cause a explosion). And then having the top part of the plant submerged in light nutrient water that is carbonated and a light system that is out of this world!


----------



## natmoon (Nov 10, 2007)

wafflehouselover said:


> how about taking hydroponics to the next level and having our roots suspended in ph'd nutrient hydrogen injected with optimal oxygen chamber(careful i think that can cause a explosion). And then having the top part of the plant submerged in light nutrient water that is carbonated and a light system that is out of this world!


If a plant is wet a lot then it produces very little resin


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 10, 2007)

silk said:


> Because in soil it takes time for h20 to reach the root system, it has to seep through the soil and may not all go towards the root system. In an aero/dwc system it takes little time at all. Also any nutrients available in soil have to also be in contact with the roots, in the above mentioned hydroponic solutions the o2/h2o and nutrients are sprayed directly onto the roots. Whatever is not absorbed falls back into the reservoir and can be used later. In a container grow, the excess of what the media or roots cannot absorb will exit the container.


When I grew in soil, the feed used to pour through the bottom of the pot in seconds... this water is also saved on a tray below.

No matter the medium, the roots will head to the outer edges... whereas inside the centre of the medium will be a network of millions of tiny connector roots. If you scroll back a couple of pages you''ll see where I tore apart a 27 day flower root mass. A single starter root will cover any space and medium you give it, and also supply a network of other roots that greatly differ in size to do different jobs around the media, ie collect nutrients AND collect oxygen. This network of roots are all connected to just the single, main root.

Again, why do the roots need oxygen? And why when it is in abundance, aero/dwc does the upward growth of the plant excel? Access to nutrients is only part of the equation. The other part, and also the reason aero outdoes DWC is because of the oxygen or AIR.

The plant above takes in Co2 and breathes out oxygen... it doesn't seem so far fetched to me that the roots could convert oxygen into Co2 for the plant.


----------



## wafflehouselover (Nov 10, 2007)

i don't know about that, my plants were in 60-70% humidity and they still produce a very nice amount of resin, but i didn't get to see their full streghth because i had to harvest at 5th week due to mold problems so maybe that stuff about low humdity produce more resin is a fraud.


----------



## natmoon (Nov 10, 2007)

wafflehouselover said:


> i don't know about that, my plants were in 60-70% humidity and they still produce a very nice amount of resin, but i didn't get to see their full streghth because i had to harvest at 5th week due to mold problems.


That doesnt surprise me in the least,the mould that is.
To damn wet and humid dude lol.


----------



## wafflehouselover (Nov 10, 2007)

yea thats what happens when u live in the south in the summer stupid weather, every yr it gets hotter and hotter and especially if you live by the coast all that humid.


----------



## natmoon (Nov 10, 2007)

wafflehouselover said:


> yea thats what happens when u live in the south in the summer stupid weather, every yr it gets hotter and hotter and especially if you live by the coast all that humid.


I live by the sea and its wet here a lot,i use a dehumidifier and a fan


----------



## wafflehouselover (Nov 10, 2007)

electricity cost and the way i have my setup(pulling free air/co2 in from the outside) its hard to use a dehumidifier.


----------



## natmoon (Nov 10, 2007)

wafflehouselover said:


> electricity cost and the way i have my setup(pulling free air/co2 in from the outside) its hard to use a dehumidifier.


My dehumidifier was a pound and the fan was 6.99=7.99
Losing a load of bud to mould==-799 pounds


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 10, 2007)

It cannot be denied that oxygen plays a major role in upward plant development... nor that when it is in abundance and readily available to the root system that the upward growth of a plant goes into overdrive.

The same thing happens when Co2 is given to the plant above.

We know that oxygen is not what helps the plant grow, as the plant breathes this out. We know that a plant can grow just as well with a smaller root system... so the oxygen can't have anything or much to do with the root development. We know that roots actively search for oxygen, hence the addition of perlite in soil/coco grows. It was believed (at least, by me) that roots use the oxygen to grow big and healthy, for THEMSELVES, so that they continue collecting nutes and do it better, etc. But this doesn't make sense.

What does make sense is that somehow the roots do the opposite to the plant above, they turn oxygen into co2, only they don't breathe it out but rather pump it up into the plant above.


----------



## wafflehouselover (Nov 10, 2007)

i think of it not as a lost but almost even out because i dont get the full potential of my buds, if i harvest early i don't get the benefit of a full grown plant thats all there is.


----------



## wafflehouselover (Nov 10, 2007)

skunkushybrid said:


> It cannot be denied that oxygen plays a major role in upward plant development... nor that when it is in abundance and readily available to the root system that the upward growth of a plant goes into overdrive.
> 
> The same thing happens when Co2 is given to the plant above.
> 
> ...


Agreed, and now we all know that its the plants health development that ALLOW the plant to develope the most resin it can possibly can.


----------



## Weedhound (Nov 10, 2007)

wafflehouselover said:


> how about taking hydroponics to the next level and having our roots suspended in ph'd nutrient hydrogen injected with optimal oxygen chamber(careful i think that can cause a explosion). And then having the top part of the plant submerged in light nutrient water that is carbonated and a light system that is out of this world!


My friend has also done this....as an expirement.....02 pumped in under pressiure (3x amount the plant would receive normally in a hydro app) WILL cause explosive growth (ha ha pun intended)In fact he said the plants just went NUTS with growing. But since he used to grow for hydroponic food applications he found that the system was not really practical or cost effective on a larger scale.


----------



## silk (Nov 10, 2007)

skunkushybrid said:


> When I grew in soil, the feed used to pour through the bottom of the pot in seconds... this water is also saved on a tray below.
> 
> No matter the medium, the roots will head to the outer edges... whereas inside the centre of the medium will be a network of millions of tiny connector roots. If you scroll back a couple of pages you''ll see where I tore apart a 27 day flower root mass. A single starter root will cover any space and medium you give it, and also supply a network of other roots that greatly differ in size to do different jobs around the media, ie collect nutrients AND collect oxygen. This network of roots are all connected to just the single, main root.
> 
> ...


I answered your questions and you restated your questions. So I can only think to believe that you disagree with me but yet won't bother to investigate further. That's fine by me, but if you are trying to investigate this process than you should actually bother to learn what I am talking about in order to discuss the topic. If you can give a plant all the elements and condition it needs to thrive then it will thrive. Going from that point you need to use the scientific method to isolate something as specific as "roots may create co2".

This is why your line of questioning is spiraling into oblivion. A plant converts Co2 into sugar during photosynthesis. It is true that when the plant uses this energy in cellular respiration some co2 is produced and is also used by the photosynthesis process. However, if you are correct, the plant would be making co2 only to convert it again into a usable form of energy... This is not logical from a scientific base or general reasoning. 

I have only good intentions here, I don't want to come off as condescending. You are a much more skilled grower than I, however I think your abilities and experience are result driven and not primarily based on understanding science. I hope I was helpful in this post.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 10, 2007)

silk said:


> I answered your questions and you restated your questions. So I can only think to believe that you disagree with me but yet won't bother to investigate further. That's fine by me, but if you are trying to investigate this process than you should actually bother to learn what I am talking about in order to discuss the topic. If you can give a plant all the elements and condition it needs to thrive then it will thrive. Going from that point you need to use the scientific method to isolate something as specific as "roots may create co2".
> 
> This is why your line of questioning is spiraling into oblivion. A plant converts Co2 into sugar during photosynthesis. It is true that when the plant uses this energy in cellular respiration some co2 is produced and is also used by the photosynthesis process. However, if you are correct, the plant would be making co2 only to convert it again into a usable form of energy... This is not logical from a scientific base or general reasoning.
> 
> I have only good intentions here, I don't want to come off as condescending. You are a much more skilled grower than I, however I think your abilities and experience are result driven and not primarily based on understanding science. I hope I was helpful in this post.


Yes, you have been... very helpful. And you are quite correct, as I've already stated I'm more creative than scientific, although i do have a high IQ so am able to understand things fairly easily.

So, what if the roots (by the way, from what i have read so far roots are very little studied) convert the oxygen into co2 and the plant then converts this into sugars like usual. How is this statement illogical?


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 11, 2007)

I've gone back down to 2 feeds per week. This is all they need. Amazing, but that's it. 

This heavy feeding schedule i anticipated has not happened. Basically there's a tray, sitting on the tray are around 11 plants. 6 of which are the main plants. They are on 12litres of feed a week between all 11. Obviously the front 6 will receive the most feed, the tray is also slanted slightly so that the excess water is given priority by the top 6 plants. So let's say that the top 6 are on only 8litres of feed a week between them.

This doesn't sit right, entirely in my mind. Unless the larger pots are just generally much more wasteful... Growth rate has not slowed, nor budding. So far they seem on target, so I must be worrying about nothing.

The last pic' is of the background plants.


----------



## newbutpersistent (Nov 11, 2007)

lets think about this logically, in the photosynthesis equation given a cuople of pages back, there is only CO2 and H2O and energy need to photsynthesize. the plant then uses the sugars produced from the photosynthesis to grow. what if that isn't the only process used to create useful sugars for the plant? If all you need is carbon, oxygen and hydrogen, coudn't there be another process that uses O2, carbon and H2O to photosynthesize? 
This may be implausable, it's been a while since I took chemistry.

However, the empirical data is that plants do better with more O2 provided to the roots. Now knowing this, regardless of knowing HOW the plant uses the oxygen. Is it not concievable (at least as a grounds for some experimentation) that a plant which has CO2 available to the root system, if not taking the CO2 directly to the upward growth, could bond the CO2 to something which will take the Carbon atom, and result in O2 as a byproduct? This very well could be one of the myriad of processes that a plant undergoes, just happening to reult in useful O2. Nature's kind of good at multi-tasking like that.

On a side note, what are the results of H2O2 being added to the soil (or hydro/aero solution)? Could the "free" O atom be neccesary (or at least useful) for some process in the roots? 

Basically, I don't think there's enough data either way to prove or disprove this theory. Fourtunately, we don't absolutely need to know all the internal working of our plants. We only need to know what works. I think until we se some tests and results, we really can't solve this question. When I get my new grow room up and running, I might do a sideXsideXside comparison of CO2,H2O2, and plain H2O added to the soil.

Oh, and the plants are diong pretty good, budding seems to become along alot better than my last grow, and so far I haven't seen any signs of problems from the roots' close quarters. Hopefully pics in the next couple of days. I've got a friends digi for a few days so I'll try and take some good pics whlie I got it.

Good luck.


----------



## silk (Nov 11, 2007)

skunkushybrid said:


> So, what if the roots (by the way, from what i have read so far roots are very little studied) convert the oxygen into co2 and the plant then converts this into sugars like usual. How is this statement illogical?


Well the statement isn't illogical just the premise. The best way I can explain is by asking you a question: What leads you to believe that the roots convert oxygen into co2? Carbon needs to be fixated to the o2 to become co2. But what the plant does is remove the carbon from the co2 and fixates it to what will be glucose. 

So if your theory is correct than a plant will create co2 by adding carbon to o2 then it will then take the carbon back to create glucose. I think if this was the case it would have been discovered by Calvin and/or Benson. Check out some reading on the Calvin cycle also called the Calvin-Benson cycle. The branch of study is called "light independent reaction. I think if you investigate this further it will help you with many of your questions.


----------



## DND (Nov 12, 2007)

newbutpersistent said:


> lets think about this logically, in the photosynthesis equation given a cuople of pages back, there is only CO2 and H2O and energy need to photsynthesize. the plant then uses the sugars produced from the photosynthesis to grow. what if that isn't the only process used to create useful sugars for the plant? If all you need is carbon, oxygen and hydrogen, coudn't there be another process that uses O2, carbon and H2O to photosynthesize?
> This may be implausable, it's been a while since I took chemistry.
> 
> However, the empirical data is that plants do better with more O2 provided to the roots. Now knowing this, regardless of knowing HOW the plant uses the oxygen. Is it not concievable (at least as a grounds for some experimentation) that a plant which has CO2 available to the root system, if not taking the CO2 directly to the upward growth, could bond the CO2 to something which will take the Carbon atom, and result in O2 as a byproduct? This very well could be one of the myriad of processes that a plant undergoes, just happening to reult in useful O2. Nature's kind of good at multi-tasking like that.
> ...


I hate when someone posts an intelligent post and does not use spell check. LOL, just busting your balls... nice post.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 12, 2007)

silk said:


> Well the statement isn't illogical just the premise. The best way I can explain is by asking you a question: What leads you to believe that the roots convert oxygen into co2? Carbon needs to be fixated to the o2 to become co2. But what the plant does is remove the carbon from the co2 and fixates it to what will be glucose.
> 
> So if your theory is correct than a plant will create co2 by adding carbon to o2 then it will then take the carbon back to create glucose. I think if this was the case it would have been discovered by Calvin and/or Benson. Check out some reading on the Calvin cycle also called the Calvin-Benson cycle. The branch of study is called "light independent reaction. I think if you investigate this further it will help you with many of your questions.


Excellent, thankyou. This may be just the ticket.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 13, 2007)

I still haven't clicked your link silk, sorry about that... but I have been thinking a lot about where the carbon molecule comes from after it enters the roots.

My original theory derived from the human lung... I have done bits of reading on this... and all life on this planet is carbon based. Maybe a plants root system works a little like the human lung? The plant needs oxygen just like we do to survive, only it's lungs are under ground...

I've tried to find out (just, briefly) how oxygen gets a hold of the carbon molecule in the human lung... I believe you'd know, and this is a short cut to searching myself (the way I've always treated this site, if I can get away with it. ). Plus, this will help anyone else checking the thread learn at the same time. what i did read, also said something about the oxygen pushing the blood around the body. Maybe this works the same way for the plants and Co2 is acquired from this process, whereby it is not expelled out of the plant, but rather just the unneeded oxygen is?


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 13, 2007)

When we breathe in oxygen this helps to convert food into energy for our cells. Co2 is a by-product of this process. It is my belief that roots act in exactly the same way as our lungs, only the co2 is actually used by the plants too. the excess oxygen of this whole process is then ejected from the plant as the process continues.

Despite this, I can still see the question... why? why would the plant go to all this trouble... my only answer is, survival.

An abundance of oxygen to the roots causes massive growth rates, indeed can lead to suffocation of the plant if there isn't enough. The same can be said for an abundance of Co2 to the actual plant (in that it causes massive growth rates).


----------



## silk (Nov 14, 2007)

skunkushybrid said:


> My original theory derived from the human lung... I have done bits of reading on this... and all life on this planet is carbon based. Maybe a plants root system works a little like the human lung?


No the roots and veins in a plant are a vascular system which means they are more like our veins not our organs.


what i did read, also said something about the oxygen pushing the blood around the body. Maybe this works the same way for the plants and Co2 is acquired from this process, whereby it is not expelled out of the plant, but rather just the unneeded oxygen is?[/quote]

I think where you are going wrong is because you have observed oxygenated water in hydroponic systems. The purpose of oxygenating the water is to keep the nutrients and water from becoming stale and making them as most efficiently available to the plant without harming the plant.


----------



## silk (Nov 14, 2007)

skunkushybrid said:


> Despite this, I can still see the question... why? why would the plant go to all this trouble... my only answer is, survival.


If that was the case then a plant should be able to survive without absorbing co2 from the atmosphere. If there is no direct input of co2 a plant will dies just like if we don't have direct 02 we will dies.

An abundance of oxygen to the roots causes massive growth rates, indeed can lead to suffocation of the plant if there isn't enough. The same can be said for an abundance of Co2 to the actual plant (in that it causes massive growth rates).[/quote]

Yes the abundance to the plant... This would be outside of the plant not being created in the plant. In our bodies our nutritional profile is much more complicated. However if you were to look at one variable that would show you a significant trend in growth it would be calcium intake. People with regular access to dairy products are taller than those that do not.


----------



## daddychrisg (Nov 14, 2007)

*However if you were to look at one variable that would show you a significant trend in growth it would be calcium intake. People with regular access to dairy products are taller than those that do not.*

Man I hear ya loud and clear buddy,_ I just poured some Organic lowfat milk into my Res. We will find out if your theory is correct or not...Wish me luck!_


----------



## silk (Nov 14, 2007)

daddychrisg said:


> *However if you were to look at one variable that would show you a significant trend in growth it would be calcium intake. People with regular access to dairy products are taller than those that do not.*
> 
> Man I hear ya loud and clear buddy,_ I just poured some Organic lowfat milk into my Res. We will find out if your theory is correct or not...Wish me luck!_



You must be new to the internet! Good luck!


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 14, 2007)

silk said:


> If that was the case then a plant should be able to survive without absorbing co2 from the atmosphere.


Yes... this was how i imagined it. Like a fail-safe for low co2...

Have plants been tested in just a pure oxygen environment before?


----------



## Evil Buddies (Nov 14, 2007)

carbon is a waste product u burn wood u get carbon we breath oxygen and exhale co2. Seems to me u take the nutes out of things and u get carbon.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 14, 2007)

Well today is a good day for this experiment... I've made it to the skinny cola stage and the plants are about to enter what I like to call the fattening. Over the next 3 weeks these guys will/should swell right up. After all, this is what has happened every time I've grown this strain before... no difference, as of yet.

I'll post pic's later, along with the feed schedule for this week.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 14, 2007)

The first pic, you can see the skinny cola I was referring to. The second pic is an attempt at taking a pic of all the plants at once. The third pic' is of my final background plant. Which will be harvested at 42 days.

Here's the feed for this week into 9litres of water.

Sensi Bloom A, 32.5ml (3.61ml per litre)
Sensi Bloom B, 32.5ml (3.61ml per litre)
MET Bloom, 19ml (2.11ml per litre)
Fulvic Acid, 19ml (2.11ml per litre)
Barricade, 2ml (0.22ml per litre)
Carboload, 10ml (1.11ml per litre)
Cannazym, 22.5ml (2.5ml per litre)
B52, 32.5ml (3.61ml per litre)
Overdrive, 32.5ml (3.61ml per litre)

EC, 2.0

I've started the overdrive a little sooner than planned as I've run out of Big Bud. It's only 3-4 days out, so I don't think it'll make much difference.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 14, 2007)

As we can see from the pic's the outside of the medium is covered in dense thick root, while inside tells a different story.

It's as though the roots have deliberately searched out the sides of the pot... maybe because of their natural instinct to stretch out in search of food...

Although, at what point is it that roots realise that they don't need to search anymore? That they settle down like a tamed animal and just allow themselves to be hand fed?


----------



## newbutpersistent (Nov 14, 2007)

silk - 
You must be new to the internet! Good luck! 

lol, you're a funny dude

skunk -

I'm not so sure about the plants needing oxygen like humans. Nature tends to create symbiotic relationships wherever possible. think about it, all animal life on earth (excluding some recently discovered micro-organisms) requires oxygen to live, and they expel CO2; where as all plant life requires CO2 and expels oxygen. Neither one can sustain independently, they need each other to survive. Now this is not saying that the plants don't need oxygen, i believe that the different experiments we've been talking about shows that it does play some role in the plants development. I would tend to believe that it is some other process, not necessarily the same process (at least not exactly the same, although possibly related) as what the plant does with CO2. Now saying this, could the plants roots uptake CO2 directly? If so, this could be a cheap and easy alternative for some one like me who doesn't have the funds or the space to put a CO2 system in the grow room. Same thing with H2O2, this may be an easy way to get oxygen to the roots. From what I've read, one of the reasons that rainwater is so good for the plants is because it naturally has H2O2 in it. I think I'm going to pick up some seltzer today and do my own experimentation. Also, I don't know too much about it and I think it may be off the market, but they used to make this stuff called "solidox" which was used for welding, supposedly it was solid oxygen in some form. I don't know if it would be possible to use (even if it's still available), it's likely that it requires energy or some other physical reaction to free to oxygen molecules. But that would be great, a form of oxygen that could fed to soil-grown plants (or even hydro).

p.s. spell check, ohhhh yeeeaaahhhhh.


----------



## daddychrisg (Nov 14, 2007)

Milk- It does a buddy good!

Hey Skunk, I noticed that you have some curling on your lower Shade leafs. Is that heat stress? I could not see the problem on the newer growth so it made wonder what was up. Mabey they just need alittle 2% in there diet, about 2 mil per liter for foliar, and 30ml per gal per feed.


----------



## newbutpersistent (Nov 14, 2007)

Okay, I'm honestly not trying to be a dick or anything.
Was that a joke post (the milk one) or is that a serious idea? 
i haven't heard anything about milk being an additive, but if there's merit to it could you explain a little more, help me understand.


----------



## daddychrisg (Nov 14, 2007)

Well @ different stages of growth you will have to use different fat levels of milk starting with your clones you will want a thinner solution, so 1% works well. Later you will graduate up to whipping cream. *NOOOOOooo *dude please don't feed any dairy products to your plants! I am just being a wise guy, now please don't listen to my humor with out taking just as that, a joke. I thought Skunky could use some comedic relief during this wonderful experimental grow. Hope all your fingers are sticky like mine!


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 14, 2007)

I noticed that myself... but assumed it happened while the plant was shorter. I had the light too close and the big fan was left off at first lights on for too long a couple of times. I have them all on auto now.

...i'm drinking the milk now.


----------



## daddychrisg (Nov 14, 2007)

Nice..add some chocolate to that milk...


----------



## silk (Nov 14, 2007)

skunkushybrid said:


> Yes... this was how i imagined it. Like a fail-safe for low co2...
> 
> Have plants been tested in just a pure oxygen environment before?


Yes, and various unnatural atmosphere mixes; animals have been too. Pure oxygen will kill anything including coach roaches and Twinkies.

So back to the calvin cycle. The research basically tracked how carbon entered the plant and how it moved throughout the plant system. So if a plant was not recieving Co2 than it would have to get carbon from another source which would be from it's very structure or the glucose it has made from photosynthesis. However the plant can't photosynthesize without co2... and light and water.


----------



## daddychrisg (Nov 14, 2007)

And Cancer preserves cells...What a strange twist..


----------



## silk (Nov 16, 2007)

Cross posting madness!!!

https://www.rollitup.org/357645-post131.html

You'll see pics of my retard grow. Funny how the largest plant is also in the biggest container...


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 16, 2007)

What i also see is that the plants are in different environments... the plants in the smaller pots are further from the light.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 16, 2007)

I also have background plants that are further from the light, they are in the same sized pots, but aren't as big. Quite a large difference in fact.


----------



## silk (Nov 16, 2007)

skunkushybrid said:


> What i also see is that the plants are in different environments... the plants in the smaller pots are further from the light.


Good point they have been raised. I wouldn't conclude anything from my grow, just some bud.


----------



## natmoon (Nov 16, 2007)

Why don't you trim your fan leaves?
I always trim as i belive that the plant puts out to much as it is geared to lose so many over the course of its life in a natural environment.
In my cupboard it has no predators or weather to deal with and a constant supply of food and water,so imo anyway they don't need so many leaves.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 16, 2007)

The only reason you should ever trim fan leaves is if they aren't getting enough light or if you want to help lower down the plant get more light. Fan leaves are also called sun leaves by a lot of people they are there to catch the light. They also store and collect co2...


----------



## daddychrisg (Nov 16, 2007)

The never ending debate! To trim or not to trim...I think only females should be trimmed..


----------



## BIGMIKE13 (Nov 16, 2007)

daddychrisg said:


> The never ending debate! To trim or not to trim...I think only females should be trimmed..


shaved......

skunk, looking good man. if i can only get these papaya clones to root faster
ill be growing in 2/3 gal. pots under a 600hps.

so im watching closely.....


----------



## natmoon (Nov 16, 2007)

BIGMIKE13 said:


> shaved......
> 
> skunk, looking good man. if i can only get these papaya clones to root faster
> ill be growing in 2/3 gal. pots under a 600hps.
> ...


The mycorihazea fungus is great for rooting clones fast,undisputed


----------



## silk (Nov 16, 2007)

natmoon said:


> The mycorihazea fungus is great for rooting clones fast,undisputed


Do you use any specific products? Or are you just talking about sticking cuttings in dirt? (that's my method)


----------



## natmoon (Nov 16, 2007)

As i have been growing from seed mostly i have never used the mycori myself,but i know of many others who have and they say it is great.
You can actually see the difference in the root if you use just a little to help germinate seeds.
Works on clones to,trust me this stuff does work for real and only costs 2.99 a packet.
I am going to buy some of this myself for the next grow
Mycorrhizal fungi, rootgrow, rootgrowprofessional, plantworks


----------



## newbutpersistent (Nov 16, 2007)

Okay, I began my experiment. Yesterday morning i fed 2 of my plants carbonated water. I'm testing it on one of the flowering plants and one of the veg plants. I'll see at the end of one week if there's any difference in growth.


----------



## silk (Nov 16, 2007)

natmoon said:


> As i have been growing from seed mostly i have never used the mycori myself,but i know of many others who have and they say it is great.
> You can actually see the difference in the root if you use just a little to help germinate seeds.
> Works on clones to,trust me this stuff does work for real and only costs 2.99 a packet.
> I am going to buy some of this myself for the next grow
> Mycorrhizal fungi, rootgrow, rootgrowprofessional, plantworks


I know it works, it's just the concept of the thread is that root development isn't that important and I might not agree with that and thanks for the link.


----------



## newbutpersistent (Nov 16, 2007)

is that stuff only available in UK? Is there any other product in the US with that in it?


----------



## natmoon (Nov 16, 2007)

silk said:


> I know it works, it's just the concept of the thread is that root development isn't that important and I might not agree with that and thanks for the link.


No the concept of the thread is not that roots are not important just that if you maintain a small efficient root system you can still wield good results and that a large root system may not be necessary to maintain healthy growth on a plant that is harvested in a relatively short amount of time.
The fungus helps your roots efficiency no matter how big the pot or the plant is.
You can grow a small fully budded plant in a pot the size of a coffee cup


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 17, 2007)

It is also an investigation, of sorts, into root behaviour. It has been seen how they will immediately spread to the outside of the medium, almost as though setting up sentries to protect the core root. As though they mark out their turf.

Roots are important, where they lose their importance is in how much space we need to give them to grow a similar sized plant. Which is very important to us as indoor growers. Quite simply, even at this stage of my investigation, I've proved that we have been growing in too large containers. My containers are no bigger than 500ml (some are smaller), the plants are 3.5ft and 5.5 weeks into flower with bud development on a par with the same plant grown in a container 6 times the size. With less nutrients.

Which suggests to me that the very root network itself takes sustaining from nutrients. In fact the main hormone responsible for photosynthesis cytokinin is heavily situated in the roots. We know the roots take in oxygen to help pump the feed into the plant... but also the feed must be used to help sustain the root system itself, and to build the hormones needed to adequately photosynthesise the plant above.

Which also suggests that a larger root system is needed for a larger plant, although what those parameters exactly are, is more to the point in this investigation.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 17, 2007)

I also believe that the roots desire to spread is more instinctual than actually necessary. Nature is a bitch, she likes to keep things running smoothly, ticking over nicely. So even plant life find themselves fighting over land.

Cannabis, when planted in the ground, can grow a very extensive root system in a very short time. Why? Why need to spread that far to find nutrients that should be in adequate supply to sustain it for just one year in a smaller space? What other plant life is capable of this? A tree?

We all know how adaptable cannabis is... maybe this is why it has no classification, as it can quite happily adapt to all of them.


----------



## pccdrom (Nov 17, 2007)

brilliant thread. will follow it all the way


----------



## tahoe58 (Nov 17, 2007)

yea but I think we're talking about plants...hehehehehe j/k....love this thread! so much to learn! 


daddychrisg said:


> The never ending debate! To trim or not to trim...I think only females should be trimmed..


----------



## silk (Nov 17, 2007)

natmoon said:


> No the concept of the thread is not that roots are not important just that if you maintain a small efficient root system you can still wield good results and that a large root system may not be necessary to maintain healthy growth on a plant that is harvested in a relatively short amount of time.
> The fungus helps your roots efficiency no matter how big the pot or the plant is.
> You can grow a small fully budded plant in a pot the size of a coffee cup


Thanks for clarifying.


----------



## ccodiane (Nov 18, 2007)

In my experience with root/bud ratios, it is consistently strain dependant. I have grown monster buds and when I chopped and threw the soil I could hardly believe how scrawny the roots were. I have also transplanted plants from veg to final bud containers and thought that because of the extensive root system the buds would be plentiful and huge, not always so. I do however pick my males for breeding based on root development in part. Monster roots=monster plants and hopefully monster buds.


----------



## natmoon (Nov 18, 2007)

ccodiane said:


> In my experience with root/bud ratios, it is consistently strain dependant. I have grown monster buds and when I chopped and threw the soil I could hardly believe how scrawny the roots were. I have also transplanted plants from veg to final bud containers and thought that because of the extensive root system the buds would be plentiful and huge, not always so. I do however pick my males for breeding based on root development in part. Monster roots=monster plants and hopefully monster buds.


I always pick the males according to their smell.
If they smell really strong then chances are they are good to use.


----------



## ccodiane (Nov 18, 2007)

Breeding males priority list (mine):
1- bad ass sisters
2- fast
3- great smelling
4- tight node spacing
5- big ass root system/plant
6- purple
So yeah, I agree


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 19, 2007)

I forgot to add this yesterday... the mid-week feed changed a little bit as the math in my head works out this feed to be just past the mid-flower point. So I lowered the ec to 1.8

Sensi Bloom A, 29.25ml (3.25ml per litre)
Sensi Bloom B, 29.25ml (3.25ml per litre)
MET Bloom, 16ml (1.77ml per litre)
Fulvic Acid, 16ml (1.77ml per litre)
Barricade, 1.5ml (0.18ml per litre)
Carboload, 9ml (1ml per litre)
Cannazym, 20ml (2.22ml per litre)
B52, 20ml (2.22ml per litre)
Overdrive, 32.5ml (3.61ml per litre)

Plants are fine, starting to swell... I honestly cannot see any problems. Except the insects of course... my plants are tied, so i cannot take them down... they seem to have gotten worse (moth worms) as even my top leaves are being attacked now. You'll be able to see on the pic's I post on wednesday (6 weeks flower, 3.5 weeks to go). I hope the temps (as it snowed here) drop last night might have done something to kill them.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 19, 2007)

I need to point out also that 1.5-2litres of this feed is given to the ex chronic mom. She's doing well (except for the insects) too. I haven't counted her main colas but there are quite a lot of them. At least 20. The ex indica mom (la conf x mystery haze, although heavy indica pheno) is now gone. I'd been pilfering colas and turning them into oil for a while now, and I finally took the last 3 today. I always like to pour the gas through fresh bud, then allow the frozen waste to dry (while it is frozen it is much easier to crumble and dries quicker, although i only do this in the tray i'm drying in, as crumbling frozen bud could make trich's fall off!) and do it again. It works for me. 

I've mentioned this, well for one thing i'm mega stoned on the oil, boredom and... ah, yes... i'll probably end up doing the same thing with the chronic mom... hopefully she will last me in the form of oil till harvest day.


----------



## daddychrisg (Nov 19, 2007)

*I always like to pour the gas through fresh bud, then allow the frozen waste to dry (while it is frozen it is much easier to crumble and dries quicker, although i only do this in the tray i'm drying in, as crumbling frozen bud could make trich's fall off!)

*_I think I understand what you are saying here, but can you elaborate on the topic alittle more?_


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 20, 2007)

yeah... I was a bit mashed while writing that yesterday. I put the gas through fresh bud, and make oil. Then the frozen bud is allowed to dry normally (after crumbling quite a bit), then I make some more oil out of it. The fresh run doesn't produce as much, but it provides enough. 

That's why I agreed with fdd' about the trich's. While smoking the indica oil, at even just 4 weeks flower it provided me with a couch-lock buzz. Not uppitty like it should. In fact, i've just had a couple of tokes now, and its definitely a couch-lock buzz... and to mind just as strong as smoking the buds when fully flowered, if not stronger. Same buzz. What I did note though was that the oil from 3 weeks wasn't very potent... potent enough, but not as potent as the 4 week mark. weeks 4 and 5 I didn't really notice a difference in strengths. It's the 5.5 week oil i'm smoking now. It would normally flower for 54-56 days. Yup, i've waked and baked again.


----------



## daddychrisg (Nov 20, 2007)

Got it.
So I pulled out 9 males out of the garden the other day and thought of you Skunky. They grew in 5" net pots and reached a hight of about 1 meter before I pulled them. They lived in this net pot nestled into a 3 gallon bucket full of Clay. Here is the interesting part. the root mass barely extended past the net pot, they could have been growing in a 1 liter container and would have been doing fine. I think growing in 3 gallon buckets is most likely a was of space, and medium.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 20, 2007)

daddychrisg said:


> Got it.
> So I pulled out 9 males out of the garden the other day and thought of you Skunky. They grew in 5" net pots and reached a hight of about 1 meter before I pulled them. They lived in this net pot nestled into a 3 gallon bucket full of Clay. Here is the interesting part. the root mass barely extended past the net pot, they could have been growing in a 1 liter container and would have been doing fine. I think growing in 3 gallon buckets is most likely a was of space, and medium.


yes, thankyou that is very interesting. 

Yes. I cut down to 3litres a while ago, and I just wanted to see how far I could push it and achieve the same results. I started in 2 gallons... then down to a gallon, then 3 litres. All with the same (actually improved, as my growing skills got better) results.

These 0.5 litre pots. I honestly feel I'll accomplish a good yield relative to the veg time I gave and not the actual container size. thanks for joining in.


----------



## daddychrisg (Nov 20, 2007)

I can see now the progressive steps you have been taking. I think I am on my way to cutting back on root space myself. I don't really like spending the money to wash up clay every month, nor do I like my back hurting afterwards! I have been thinking about trying a hybrid idea of growing in Coco in a flood and drain bucket system, and if I could use alot less Coco in a smaller container then the 3 gallon buckets I have now, I would be stoked. Stoked meaning thrilled, or mildly ecstatic..LOL, see ya Skunky


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 21, 2007)

Just the one pic'... my camera is running low on batteries so I thought it best to just take something of an over-all pic'. They had the same feed as last time... I'll change at the mid-week feed.

I'll take root pic's tomorrow after I take out the final background plant. There's still 3.5 weeks to go, and I see no problems


----------



## daddychrisg (Nov 21, 2007)

Lookin great for there age!


----------



## ccodiane (Nov 23, 2007)

Wow, beautiful plants. I have read the thread before but can't remember if you mentioned your watering schedule, frequency, etc. If you have I''l find it. What kind of gas do you use for the oil? gasoline? sounds interesting!


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 23, 2007)

Thanks for the compliments, although they'd look better if not for the thrips. They're actually starting to put holes in the leaves now... so my yield may not end up as good as I hoped... although it will still be a decent representation.

my feeds are nowhere nearas frequent as I imagined they would be. I have 6 good plants, and two half-good plants left on the tray. The 6 good plants are good, because they are getting the best of the light. Right now they're on 15litres a week between them. That's it.

I use butane gas to make my oil. The stuff you buy to fill up lighters.


----------



## ccodiane (Nov 23, 2007)

Thanks skunkushybrid


----------



## daddychrisg (Nov 23, 2007)

Man the Oil that I just made kicks my ass! I have found myself standing with my bubbler in my hand and not knowing how long I have been standing there! LOL


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 24, 2007)

Yeah, the oil can certainly take you on a journey...

There's something cleaner about oil too, even when I'm smoking it it tastes, and feels different to smoking bud. I mean you can still taste the bud, but it's like a cleaner version. More hashy.


----------



## newbutpersistent (Nov 24, 2007)

A quick question about oil.
I tried a few weeks ago (when I was low on "supplies") to clean out the tube connected to my hitter piece on my bong. It's one of those metal ones that just screw on. However it was completely different from the resin that I scrape out of my bowls, which is real thick and hard, very easy to work with w/o losing too much of the resin. This stuff was like real thin tar or a very low (high?) viscosity oil. Very difficult to work with. I was wondering if there was any way to clean this out and collect the oil. I was thinking of soaking it in some type of alchohol and then letting the alchohol dry off so I could just use the oil. I also have been making filters out of cotton balls and putting them at the end of my blunts, after the blunt is smoked you should see these things, light to dark brown (depending on size of blunt) from the resin. Could I soak these in alchohol to extract the oil? 

My other problem is when I extract the oil and let the alchohol evaporate, will I be left with the real sticky hard to work with oil again? If so, how do I use it or can I make it thicker and easier to work with? Maybe by mixing bowl resin or sifted-kief in with the oil?

Anyway thanks for in advance for your replies.

p.s. before I forget, I've got some REEEAAAALLLLLYYYYYY strange growth on one of my plants, I'll post a pic later to show you.


----------



## silk (Nov 24, 2007)

I'm still convinced your work is showing the power of the nutrient mix. So much so I bought an Advanced nutrients pack and Sensizyme. I'll be cultivating a crop to find a few mothers in 3.5 square pots under T5. Look what you have done skunkushybrid !


----------



## tahoe58 (Nov 24, 2007)

hey skunk....this continues to be a real treat to sit and read when I have the time...and I did have the time again this morning. and a thought came through my mind....but I can't remember if it has been raised anywhere in the last thirty pages or not so I'm gonna through it out there....

I remember how fascinated I was when I first learned about jungle and tropical forest environments, and the complete lack of top soil and the manner of root develoment, literally at the surface. I had understood at the time that the volume of available moisture, and the nutrients from the continuous massive foliage shedding and heat/moisture degration recycling processes, provided the necessary environment to grow these humungous behemoths of trees. Where the stability of the tree became the risk due to the lack of roots. I realize this is sort of the fundamentals of hydroponic and all its variants. and I then also recall fdd's comments about his flushing and watering/nutirfying the humungous tree that he built, and his experiences with smaller rooting structures.

This all came through my mind when you were talking about roots seeming to seek out the sides of pots, and instinctual root development. Now unfortunately, I am not taking from any experience....I have none. But thinking about how nature loves a void and tries incessantly to fill it, and relating that back to nature generally being very efficient in the way it goes about its business, it would seem to me that the root growth could (should?) be expected to mimic the specific needs (and of course are a function of the genetics)....so if you are able to achieve this balance the availability of all the nutrients (water included), then the root will grow according to other variables - and not be responding to the need to "seek" out the source of its sustenence.

But then....ok ok ok...I know I'm sortof talking out of my brain directly here...but...then....that takes me to how incredibly intricate the connections and reliances and feedback loops are all dependet upon eachother. I have often viewed this in my brain as a massive collective of interconnecting cogs that changing the teeth on any one of them has the potential to have even a minute change to every other cog in the process.

So the extent of root development is not just a function of one or three or ten variables, but all the intricate aspects that are present when a plant grows. its like saying the current attempts to model climate have taken everything into account - in my view - impossible. we have grown in love with our modeling capacity. And my personal experience includes the following example....one of the things that I will do on a regular basis is habitat modeling for wildlife. we development habitat maps depicting areas where all the factors that we consider important to a particular species come together and create the ideal habitat for that species. Then we go an talk to the native elders, they look at the map and say...hmmm...interesting....never actaully ever seen a moose over there.....we actually hunt over here....pointing to the map.

I guess I 'm not sure what I'm really trying to say...I love these experiments and it is the only way that we can actually gain insight into what/why/how/when/where things happen as they do. so.....what am I trying to say? I don't know any more...another ones gone, another ones gone....and another one bites the dust! I really felt like I was going somewhere with this....but.....I'll try this....we are trying to understand the drivers to root development and its relationship with aboveground production - and based on the scary thinking that I all tried to put down above - I am not sure that we can separate the two in that one is dependent upon the other, and it is a circular process. Adjusting the variables and keeping others constant (at least the ones we know about) means you will adjust the output and the needs of others (i.e., these are not indepedent variables), and may actually be almost infinite. it would seem that I am suggesting that we are wasting our time...but experimenting is NEVER a waste of time....and this is not what I want to say. So maybe I should just shutup....and think so more.....


----------



## newbutpersistent (Nov 24, 2007)

Not sure if any one has seen this before. 

This plant had a rough childhood. It was the last of the 3 out of 4 seeds that germinated. I put it in the soil and when it didn't pop up in a couple of days I investigated. Just as I had expected, the thing was upside-down, with the root growing up and the plant growing down. Not good. So I carefully flipped it over and put some more soil on top. In a couple of days it had popped the surface, however for the first week or two, it was growing very slow, much behind the 2 other seeds I planted at the same time (within a couple of days). then this happened, the first two sunleaves are HUGE! 3 1/2" long.
Well, you can pretty much see from the pics. If anyone has seen this let me know, I don't think it's a problem, just means more leaf area for photosynthesis, but I just had to show you guys. Look at how big they are compared to the rest of the plant, they're also very smooth, don't really look like marijuana leaves.


----------



## tahoe58 (Nov 24, 2007)

like fdd...says to me when I raised a similar question....you've been on here for over a year and you have to ask if too big is a problem...hehehehehe.....I dunno...but I've come to the conclusion that is not a prob.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 24, 2007)

As soon as you bring a plant indoors it comes into an environment of your design.

We already play god, we can make ligers... probably even half man half pig if we wanted to.

Nature is a fight for life, which is the driving force behind evolution. The plant has evolved this way because of environmental factors. That is all. In the wild there are many places the roots will not be able to go due to other larger plants, or ones with good defences or attacks.

The fight is not just above ground but under it... even roots must fight for their bit of space. I believe this is the reason roots instinctually spread. They hit a barrier, they go somewhere else. By putting the roots into a pot, we are merely providing our own barriers. The plant does not realise that we are not nature, it just knows its root boundaries. Once a plant knows these boundaries, and settles down, and is getting enough nutes, who knows how much root space they really need?


----------



## newbutpersistent (Nov 24, 2007)

well, from what I got from Tahoe's post. Not sure on most of it, but yes I think that what happens above ground probably does affect the roots in some way. And no, none of these variables are independent, they all affect each other and are all symbiotic, both within individual organisms and with interacting with other organisms.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 24, 2007)

newbutpersistent said:


> Not sure if any one has seen this before.
> 
> This plant had a rough childhood. It was the last of the 3 out of 4 seeds that germinated. I put it in the soil and when it didn't pop up in a couple of days I investigated. Just as I had expected, the thing was upside-down, with the root growing up and the plant growing down. Not good. So I carefully flipped it over and put some more soil on top. In a couple of days it had popped the surface, however for the first week or two, it was growing very slow, much behind the 2 other seeds I planted at the same time (within a couple of days). then this happened, the first two sunleaves are HUGE! 3 1/2" long.
> Well, you can pretty much see from the pics. If anyone has seen this let me know, I don't think it's a problem, just means more leaf area for photosynthesis, but I just had to show you guys. Look at how big they are compared to the rest of the plant, they're also very smooth, don't really look like marijuana leaves.


Yeah it's normal. Nice looking plant... reminds me of vortex. Is it an indica?


----------



## newbutpersistent (Nov 24, 2007)

Not to steer the subject away, I have been having a little(<---- sarcasm) problem with my plants. They get these light brown/copper colored spots on some of the leaves, not all just a few. Then the spots in a few days get bigger and end up covering the whole leaf, then the leaf dries up and falls off. Not sure if it's some kind of fungus or mold, but I need to do something ASAP! 

That's why I'm posting it here, I know it belongs in the plant problems section, however, I know there are A lot more knowledgeable people subscribed to this thread and time is of the essence.

The first 3 pics are of my flowering plants. One of which had this problem a couple of weeks ago but it had gone away, now it is back and meaner than ever! The 4th pic is of one of my plants still in veg. It has picked up the problem too. The other 2 plants I have in veg (they are in the flower room, just haven't started flowering yet) haven't shown signs of it, however I'm afraid they will pick it up too if I don't correct the situation. 

Fortunately it hasn't affected the bud production (yet!!!), as you can see in the last pic.

*PLEASE HELP: SITUATION CRITICAL! ALERT! ALERT!*


----------



## newbutpersistent (Nov 24, 2007)

not sure, random bag seed, just like the other ones. Other than this problem they seem to be doing good. I'm going to start them on molasses today. Actual I'm going to feed one molasses and one "Green Light" Super Bloom (12-55-6). And see how the bud production and esp. trichome production pics up.

Yeha, I wasn't real worried about the big leaves, just hadn't seen it before. Thanks.


----------



## newbutpersistent (Nov 24, 2007)

okay, another quick question, my mother/clone room is set up, I don't have a whole lot of lights in there (actually only one small cfl) which I figured would be fine, however while it does keep the plant alive, the growth is very slow. I'm going to put the good (no spots) vegging plant from my flower room in there so hopefully i will get some clones sooner. Also, if it is a mold or something on the other plants maybe this will protect it till I can get it figured out. I'm going to put another cfl in there, so hopefully that will help a bit too with the growth. My only problem is that until I checked today, there were no signs of sex, but when I just went to go check one last time, i saw those beautiful first set of pistils. I'm planning on still turning it into a mother, it's not too late right? it should revert pretty smoothly I would assume, considering that it's only been in flower cycle for one day. And at least this way I know it's a mom and not a dad.


----------



## silk (Nov 24, 2007)

newbutpersistent said:


> not sure, random bag seed, just like the other ones. Other than this problem they seem to be doing good. I'm going to start them on molasses today. Actual I'm going to feed one molasses and one "Green Light" Super Bloom (12-55-6). And see how the bud production and esp. trichome production pics up.
> 
> Yeha, I wasn't real worried about the big leaves, just hadn't seen it before. Thanks.


That's a nutrient burn from potassium toxicity. Please don't forget your manners and address your issues in the proper forums. There is also live chat... I'm there now...


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 25, 2007)

The feed for this week. They'll get it again on wednesday.

Sensi Bloom A, 26.25ml (2.91ml per litre)
Sensi Bloom B, 26.25ml (2.91ml per litre)
MET Bloom, 16ml (1.77ml per litre)
Fulvic Acid, 16ml (1.77ml per litre)
Barricade, 1.5ml (0.16ml per litre)
B52, 20ml (2.22ml per litre)
Carboload, 8ml (0.88ml per litre)
Cannazym, 18ml (2ml per litre)
Overdrive, 32.5ml (3.61ml per litre)

EC, 1.6 (1120 PPM)

I've been thinking that I won't need to flush as much in these tiny pots...


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 25, 2007)

Here's a couple of branches (that have just been turned into oil) from the mom plant at 6.5 weeks flower... 3 weeks to go. These branches were hanging loose from the rest, almost inviting me to harvest them, so I did...


----------



## tahoe58 (Nov 25, 2007)

hahahaha...calling out to you...please liqufy me...please liquify me...hahahahaha....looking sweet!


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 25, 2007)

Root pic's...

I'll leave the pic's to do the talking...

I must add that this is from a plant flowering for dead on 6 weeks. I just waited till today to get it out of the pot and take pic's.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 25, 2007)

Side by side pic's. Week 4, 5 and 6... in that order.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 25, 2007)

What truly amazes me though, is that there is so little substantial root on the inside of the medium...


----------



## tahoe58 (Nov 25, 2007)

hey skunk...thanks for this...that is wholly interesting....


----------



## BIGMIKE13 (Nov 25, 2007)

skunkushybrid said:


> What truly amazes me though, is that there is so little substantial root on the inside of the medium...


that is exactly what i was thinking...


----------



## tahoe58 (Nov 25, 2007)

and ya know skunk....in the transplant....same thing, almost none in the center....and lots all the way to the outside and down....I was amazed at the amount of root that had migrated that way....and that was completely the opposite to "my logic" ..... go figure??


----------



## silk (Nov 25, 2007)

skunkushybrid said:


> What truly amazes me though, is that there is so little substantial root on the inside of the medium...


Supposedly the roots will keep growing out over time to find nutrients to sustain the size of the plant. Clearly you can see the roots have taken the shape of your container. I would suspect that over longer periods of growth you would find more density in the center of the medium.


----------



## newbutpersistent (Nov 25, 2007)

yeah, I've noticed that since the big roots reached the bottom of the pot about 3 weeks ago, there hasn't really been any new big roots growing down there. Not sure if you've noticed this or not (may be hard to notice with your medium) but my soil was fairly loose and granular, easy to take a bit of it. In the last week or so, I've noticed that there are really small roots pocking up through the surface every now and then. Also, the soil itself is acting differently, it stays together like its one piece, almost like coco coir or rockwool (at least what I assume their texture is from the various pictures), I can only assume this is from an extensive system of vary small roots that act to hold the soil together in one clump. I assume this is a good thing, it means that even after the roots reached their maximum space to expand, they've continued to thrive.


----------



## pandabear (Nov 28, 2007)

ok gents i have been struggling with this issue, i fiannly bit the bul]let and put my super hot babes under 20/4 light instead of 24/0

this is mainy cuz i dug up this thread from the beginning times of riu posted by Mr rollitup himself. would like your opinions on it if possible:

The magic chemistry of plant growth starts at the roots. Roots send nutrients (in exchange for sugar) up through leaf stems to the leaves for final processing. They are also large storage sites for excess energy from the leaves, which is stored as starch. The roots and their capacity to store starch will decide how well a plant will grow and how much the plant will yield.

*Root size : *
A research Rye plant in a 12-inch pot had 14 billion root hairs that, if placed end to end, would have stretched 6,200 miles (almost 10,000 kilometres). The root hairs alone would have covered a square area of 180 ft by 180 ft (about 55 m by 55 m) ! The more extensive the root system, the better the plant will grow. This is because roots storing much energy are able to exchange lots of nutrients up to the leaves, and so the leaves can send down more sugar, etc. Thus, root growth is directly affected by moisture, oxygen, temperature, and sugars sent down from the leaves.

*Root medium* is important for plant growth. The less energy the roots use to absorb water and nutrients from their surrounding medium, the more they can use that energy to grow and to help send nutrients up to the plant. Most of a plant's water is taken in by the root hairs. 99% of the water taken in by a plant is transpired out through the leaves. A plant will fall over and wilt as a result of its roots not being able to extract any more water from the surroundings.

*Air roots :* in a plant's natural life in the earth, its roots get moisture
from rainfall. After rain, the soil water soon sinks down and the topsoil dries quickly. For this reason, the top 1/3 of plant roots are air specialized and the bottom 1/3 are water roots. One must be careful not to keep the air specialized roots constantly wet or the plant will drown. The bottom section of roots can be constantly wet provided that the water has oxygen in it. Stagnant water will soon kill the plant. The roots should always look crisp and white. If the roots develop brown tips or general browning, the problem is usually lack of oxygen, and infection will soon follow.
A plant can function quite well with its roots exposed to light as long as they do not dry out. However, the light encourages alga growth, which causes odours, and the alga competes with the plant for nutrients in the light period and oxygen in the dark period.

Oxygen is the most important root requirement because the roots need oxygen to convert sugar to energy. The more oxygen available to the roots, the more energy they can transfer to the plant.
Temperature also affects root growth and function. The roots do a
great deal of their storage developing at night when the green sections of the plant are not being pressured by the light to produce and distribute the day's excess sugar to the roots. Roots function more efficiently when they are warm, so roots in warm dark period develop better structures than those grown in cool dark period. As an illustration, a cycle of warm dark 77°F (25°C) and day 59°F (15°C) would develop better roots than a cycle of cool dark 59°F (15°C) and day 77°F (25°C). In essence, plants will grow better with a high average 24-hour root temperature that is constant rather than fluctuating.

*Supercharged roots* : the root hair zone is relatively small and starts just behind the growing root cap. This zone advances with the growing roots and as the new hairs near the tip emerge, the older hairs die off. Here is where most water and nutrients are absorbed. So for supercharged growth, plant roots must not be allowed to become rootbound but be kept healthy and advancing at maximum throughout the entire life of the plant. When growing in pots that are too small, it is better to have the roots trim themselves by coating the inside of pots with a special copper paint rather than letting the roots circle and girdle themselves. In general, pots are not oxygen efficient for super plant growth. Remember that plant yield is proportional to root size


this was originally posted by Mr ROLLITUP


----------



## tahoe58 (Nov 28, 2007)

This is a very interesting post....and in particular....

_"a cycle of warm dark 77°F (25°C) and (_Ed._ cool?) day 59°F (15°C) would develop better roots than a cycle of cool dark 59°F (15°C) and (_Ed._ warm?)day 77°F (25°C). In essence, plants will grow better with a high average 24-hour root temperature that is constant rather than fluctuating."_

This would suggest that soil (allowing for a more moderated temp regime) would potetnially provide better growth results than hydro....unless it was possible to vary the air/water temp differentially in the hydro setup....as I am totally unfamiliar with hydro setups....I may be only showing my total ignorance here?


----------



## fdd2blk (Nov 28, 2007)

did you guys see this sh*t?...........


----------



## tahoe58 (Nov 28, 2007)

exactly fdd.....exactly....


----------



## fdd2blk (Nov 28, 2007)

tahoe58 said:


> exactly fdd.....exactly....


i was sleeping next to that all summer. lucky it didn't eat me.


----------



## tahoe58 (Nov 28, 2007)

make a freakin' horror movie outta that! that would be funny...especially if you could do it in the old like thirty's style flickering and B/W...that'd be a hoot! 


fdd2blk said:


> i was sleeping next to that all summer. lucky it didn't eat me.


----------



## LoganSmith (Nov 28, 2007)

That is a huge fu_king root. How old was that plant?


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 28, 2007)

pandabear said:


> Remember that plant yield is proportional to root size
> 
> 
> this was originally posted by Mr ROLLITUP




And what are these proportions? What does this mean? That you can stick one in a 3 gallon container, one in a 5 gallon container, veg' them for the same time and achieve bigger yields from the 5gallon?

It doesn't really matter who it was posted by as science has not gone far enough to determin what these ratios are. If you put a plant in a 5 gallon container, and one in a 3 gallon, veg for the same amount of time who's to say where the most extensive root system is? Who's to say that the root systems are not just as extensive, merely one confined to a tighter space?


----------



## tahoe58 (Nov 28, 2007)

construction of a tree fort 



LoganSmith said:


> That is a huge fu_king root. How old was that plant?


----------



## LoganSmith (Nov 28, 2007)

Thxs Tahoe


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 28, 2007)

Sensi Bloom A, 24ml (2.66ml pl)
Sensi Bloom B, 24ml (2.66ml pl)
MET Bloom, 14.5ml (1.61ml pl)
Fulvic Acid, 14.5ml (1.61ml pl)
Barricade, 1.5ml (0.16ml pl)
Carboload, 6ml (0.66ml pl)
Cannazym, 15ml (1.66ml pl)
Overdrive, 29ml (3.22ml pl)
B52, 15ml (1.66ml pl)

EC 1.4-1.6

Aside from the thrips everything is going well. I'll post pic's tomorrow. Also root pic's of a 7 week flowerer.


----------



## tahoe58 (Nov 28, 2007)

thanks man...look forward to the pics - FYI - I'll be posting my pics later this afternoon as well.


----------



## Wavels (Nov 28, 2007)

Nice thread skunky...
I have grown plants to harvest in tiny 16 ounce containers many times, they produce fine buds. I think that all things being equal that a plant will produce a larger yield in a larger container (generally)

Here are some pics of clones that were cut from the same mother and rooted and vegged and flowered at the same time. Same nutes---the smaller containers need to be watered much more frequently.

The little containers are apx 22 ounces the large one is .71 gallon.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 28, 2007)

Interesting. thanks wavels. My question now is, how long were they vegged? Also, are they in soil?


----------



## Wavels (Nov 28, 2007)

They were grown is soil, (cloned indoors under floro tubes), put outdoors for about a week or so after showing roots and transplanting to these containers. I induced flowering by moving indoors for twelve hrs darkness. They vegged for a week to ten days only because I did not want to get them too large.
I have grown five foot plants outdoors using same .71 gallon containers


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 28, 2007)

Wavels said:


> They were grown is soil, (cloned indoors under floro tubes), put outdoors for about a week or so after showing roots and transplanting to these containers. I induced flowering by moving indoors for twelve hrs darkness. They vegged for a week to ten days only because I did not want to get them too large.
> I have grown five foot plants outdoors using same .71 gallon containers




Wow, wavels... you hang out in the politics section too much. lol. Excellent. Would you say there is a minimum root space allowance to achieve a minimum sized plant? As an indoor grower, I'm trying to achieve the right balance.


----------



## Wavels (Nov 28, 2007)

LOL....thanks skunky!!!
I very seldom use anything larger than .71 gal container for indoor growing nowadays.
I have found this size to be a good "balance"...I like to veg indoors about a month or so. These smallish containers provide excellent yielding plants.
I only transplant once from a 16 oz styro cup into the .71s.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 28, 2007)

Wavels said:


> LOL....thanks skunky!!!
> I very seldom use anything larger than .71 gal container for indoor growing nowadays.
> I have found this size to be a good &quot;balance&quot;...I like to veg indoors about a month or so. These smallish containers provide excellent yielding plants.
> I only transplant once from a 16 oz styro cup into the .71s.




That's interesting too. The pots I grew in before these were 3litre (around .7gal). They provided me 2 oz dry per plant, mostly. lol. After just 12 days veg' from clone. they were 3.5 ft tall. My plants now are also 3.5ft tall, and fattening nicely. Sometimes I look and think they're going to make it to the 2oz per plant, sometimes I think they won't. although i do have 2 more plants. So things may well even out. I've still got 17-18 days left of flower, and I'd say they are easily on the 1oz per plant mark. I'll post pic's tomorrow, i still haven't done the batteries.

Also, something else that might interest you, I've been told that what I'm doing couldn't be accomplished in soil. My clones had an 18 day veg' and are in 500ml containers.


----------



## Wavels (Nov 28, 2007)

skunkushybrid said:


> Also, something else that might interest you, I've been told that what I'm doing couldn't be accomplished in soil. My clones had an 18 day veg' and are in 500ml containers.


Many years ago, out of sheer laziness, I grew out loads of plants in 16 ounce styro cups (soil)....only because I was too lazy to transplant them to larger containers. 
Well, other than having to water/feed them much more often than plants in larger containers, they grew fine. If I remember I got 10 to twenty grams out of each of those dwarf plants. I still grow out my "leftover" plants in 16 oz cups, I have even done this outdoors.
16 ounce is the smallest I've ever used. 
500 ml is apx 16 ounces, I think!
Cool.


----------



## nongreenthumb (Nov 28, 2007)

I think restricting root growth throughout the point up until you want it to bud is great for the plant, i've noticed that the plants are actually preferring it and growing much better, i noticed also that during the first two weeks of flower, having the plants in nothing other than 2 4x4x3 rockwool cubes kept the stretch down really well, they just made solid fresh growth without stretching too badly at all.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 28, 2007)

Wavels said:


> Many years ago, out of sheer laziness, I grew out loads of plants in 16 ounce styro cups (soil)....only because I was too lazy to transplant them to larger containers.
> Well, other than having to water/feed them much more often than plants in larger containers, they grew fine. If I remember I got 10 to twenty grams out of each of those dwarf plants. I still grow out my &quot;leftover&quot; plants in 16 oz cups, I have even done this outdoors.
> 16 ounce is the smallest I've ever used.
> 500 ml is apx 16 ounces, I think!
> Cool.




Good news. I class 10-20g in soil as 20-40 in hydro. I should be ok. I take it you've never had a problem with the roots uptaking nutes due to being rootbound, then.


----------



## Wavels (Nov 29, 2007)

skunkushybrid said:


> I take it you've never had a problem with the roots uptaking nutes due to being rootbound, then.


You are correct! The plants will grow quite well. I never experienced any difficulties in producing stinky, sticky, potent buds from the tiny containers.
Just proportionately smaller yield.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 29, 2007)

Wavels said:


> Just proportionately smaller yield.




It's those proportions that I'm concerned about. What exactly is the most you could yield per plant, with an excellent set-up (as mine is more make do, than professional), in a 500ml container from clone after a normal veg' period?

I've taken pic's of them today. I'll post them in a minute.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 29, 2007)

As you can see from the pic's I had a slight overnute problem... also the thrips have started to take heavy tolls with the leaves. Personally, I think these plants will do just fine. Still 17 days to go, and i'm sure all they'll do is pack on more weight. They still have 2 nute feeds to go, as I will only flush twice with these smaller pots. Probably only need to flush once, but better to be safe than sorry.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 29, 2007)

These pic's are very interesting. It seems to me that the roots have started to degrade. There's a couple of things worth noting about this plant. It's been the closest to the lights so far than all the other background plants up till now, and it has been easily bigger than them too...

Is there a point that roots start to degrade? Or is it simply that this plant has been closer to the light?


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 29, 2007)

Here's a couple more...


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 29, 2007)

Weeks 4, 5, 6 and 7 of flower... in that order.


----------



## fdd2blk (Nov 29, 2007)

nongreenthumb said:


> I think restricting root growth throughout the point up until you want it to bud is great for the plant, i've noticed that the plants are actually preferring it and growing much better, i noticed also that during the first two weeks of flower, having the plants in nothing other than 2 4x4x3 rockwool cubes kept the stretch down really well, they just made solid fresh growth without stretching too badly at all.




i like this thought. using pot size to reduce stretching.


----------



## jackinthebox (Nov 29, 2007)

damn I just found this thread, and its 35 pages long = (

Well im on page 4 now, might have to break this down into a 4 part read, but i fear by then it will be 50 pages long.

I just saw the first pictures you posted tho skunk, and they look pretty darn good = )

Admiting that I have not read through the whole thing yet, NGT I am interested in the 18/6 vs the 24/0 , Is there a thread with more information on this?


----------



## jackinthebox (Nov 29, 2007)

page 24, im going to have to stop here.

Good information so far. Just curious about somethign however. Skunk is there a plant with a bigger pot in the grow room? To compare growth?


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 29, 2007)

jackinthebox said:


> page 24, im going to have to stop here.
> 
> Good information so far. Just curious about somethign however. Skunk is there a plant with a bigger pot in the grow room? To compare growth?


Yes, there's a mom plant in there in a 3litre container... but she has around 20 heads, and I haven't taken much care of her. she's almost falling over with the weight of her branches, I've turned her around in the hope she'll make it under her own steam back to upright. if not i'll have to tie her up tomorrow.

I also have limited space in my flower area, so to get the mom from the back would mean a lot of messing around.


----------



## Your Grandfather (Nov 29, 2007)

skunkushybrid said:


> Is there a point that roots start to degrade? Or is it simply that this plant has been closer to the light?


Do you plan on comparing later?


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 29, 2007)

Your Grandfather said:


> Do you plan on comparing later?


Yes. i have a final background plant to take on the 8 week mark. 

It's strange, because after week 6, I expected much more root. What I find instead are roots that look like they came froma 4 week plant.


----------



## Your Grandfather (Nov 29, 2007)

Could it be that the root "knows" that it's functionality is kaput and adjusts accordingly, keeping enough 'viable' in case there is a change. 

Maybe this is why some finished plants can be 'brought back' to veg and others can not.

IMHO, I think people should take more specific measurements of the progress, so they have something more solid than their memory_and we are dealing with people who smoke, so you place your own value on their memory 

Without any metrics, it is like trying to sail a ship from New York to England without a map. I think the results many people get_myself included_are more to do with the plants ability to adapt to the environment we have placed them in.

*These are my opinions and I am probably wrong


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 29, 2007)

Yes, I think the plant merely adapts and makes the most out of what it gets. 

Not sure on the roots... this isn't something i expected. After the week 6 pic's I was a little worried, and I expected much more root around the outside of the medium at week 7.

The side by side pic's I have taken show a steady progression of root development up until the 7 week flower point. The annoying thing is that i took plants from furthest from the light first.

We all know that roots die, maybe these small pots only house enough root for one grow. I've reasoned before that for cannabis to become a perennial tree it would need an extensive root system. 

Maybe this is more of a survival mechanism for the winter. The plant sheds roots towards the end of the flower period, alongside fruit/seed... so it has less root mass for less plant, maybe the plant even survives off the dying root (we know it does when alive) throughout the winter period. I don't believe for one second that cannabis ever considers dying.


----------



## Wavels (Nov 29, 2007)

skunkushybrid said:


> What exactly is the most you could yield per plant, with an excellent set-up (as mine is more make do, than professional), in a 500ml container from clone after a normal veg' period?
> quote]
> No worries skunky....Your plants should fatten up nicely as harvest date approaches!
> 
> ...


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 29, 2007)

Thanks wavels... williams wonder is not something I've heard of before, before my time maybe?

I notice you have an old strains from the 70's thread running. I'd love to join in, but I can't. I didn't even start smoking till late 80's early 90's... and then I was too young to know the difference in strains anyway.

Yes the NL comes up over and over again. I think my next grow will be either NL or Hash Plant. I'm going to keep these pots, they seem just right to me.

thankyou, yes the buds are looking nice and tight. they're easily over 3.5 foot now. I haven't measured them since the final stretch, but they still keep growing up.

I have a large set of scales. I'll weigh it wet, then divide by a 5th to estimate dry weight. As by the time it dries some of it will be gone.


----------



## Wavels (Nov 29, 2007)

skunkushybrid said:


> Thanks wavels... williams wonder is not something I've heard of before, before my time maybe?


 
Back around '85 or '86 I ordered some seeds from SSSC (Super Sativa Seed Club) thru an ad I noticed in High Times Mag....well once I grew out some of these seeds I quickly came to recognize Williams Wonder as being truly wonderful....very gooey resinous buds which will glue you to the couch if you are not careful!!! Indica dominant which I think has been resurrected recently by Reservoir seeds.


Northern Lights is well worth trying.....tight sweet resinous buds....delicious!


----------



## tahoe58 (Nov 29, 2007)

William's Wonder BX#2 A Reservoir Seed Extremely Limited Release The second BX to the William's Wonder Mother,I made these for my own breeding pro...
William's Wonder IX-1 (The first sibling WW incross) Like William's Wonder? This is perfect William's Wonder. Flowertime of 55-65 days,insane yi...


Interesting....I like to learn more about these older strains....although I was smoking in the 70's I certainly didn't have the interest in what it was specifically....now things are different. thanks for shaing that.



Wavels said:


> Back around '85 or '86 I ordered some seeds from SSSC (Super Sativa Seed Club) thru an ad I noticed in High Times Mag....well once I grew out some of these seeds I quickly came to recognize Williams Wonder as being truly wonderful....very gooey resinous buds which will glue you to the couch if you are not careful!!! Indica dominant which I think has been resurrected recently by Reservoir seeds.
> 
> 
> Northern Lights is well worth trying.....tight sweet resinous buds....delicious!


----------



## Your Grandfather (Nov 29, 2007)

Northern Lights !?! 

Let's see, the very last time I had some NL was in 1989/1990. The taste was killer, so was the buzz, but the taste was awesome.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 4, 2007)

Almost at the 8 week point... I'll take pic's of the plants tomorrow along with pic's of the final background plant which will be harvested tomorrow.

I didn't give a feed at the mid-way point this time, but let them dry right out, waiting till today to feed them, which is 6 full days. Remember these are only 500ml pots. On saturday or sunday next, I shall start the flushing process.

Here's their final nutrient feed:

Sensi Bloom A, 23ml (2.55ml pl)
Sensi Bloom B, 23ml (2.55ml pl)
MET Bloom, 14ml (1.55ml pl)
Fulvic Acid, 14ml (1.55ml pl)
Barricade, 1.25ml (0.13ml pl)
Carboload, 10ml (1.11ml pl)
Cannazym, 22.5ml (2.5ml pl)
Overdrive, 28ml (3.11ml pl)
B52, 15ml (1.66ml pl)

EC: 1.4

You may notice that every nute/additive has dropped in level aside from carboload and cannazym. After the last root pic's it seems that a lot of roots may start dying off towards the end of flower, so I've upped the cannazym to aid in this if it is indeed true.

I've also upped the carboload, more in hope that it will be excessively used as the plants (which are already very resinous) create yet more and more trich's.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 4, 2007)

Your Grandfather said:


> Northern Lights !?!
> 
> Let's see, the very last time I had some NL was in 1989/1990. The taste was killer, so was the buzz, but the taste was awesome.


I got my seeds today... how's that for service? Ordered them yesterday, and here they are.

The second pic' are from their white label; master kush, afghan kush, sensi star, white widow and super skunk.

Still waiting on my light though... but I ordered that late yesterday afternoon, so it should get here by tomorrow.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 4, 2007)

I just noticed, that the sensi star pack has 11 seeds in it... a freebie.


----------



## wafflehouselover (Dec 4, 2007)

Mines Mines Mines!


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 5, 2007)

The final background plant taken today at 8 weeks. There was a fair sized cola on this plant so I decided to save it and let it dry naturally. I turned the bottom of the plant into oil. The total wet weight of the plant was 72g. By the time I'd removed the lower buds and trim the cola was down to 49g.

The height of the plant was 31.5"... with the lower buds to tip of cola coming in at 18.5". The main cola itself measuring 11".

I'm expecting to get from 10g to 14g dry weight off the cola that I have drying.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 5, 2007)

Here are the main 6 plants with 9 days to go... in the first pic, you can just make out the mother plant in the background, she's all bent and leaning this way and that. I didn't bother too much with her because I thought she'd be oil by now.

But she's hanging on. I got enough oil now for the next couple of days. so she might just survive till harvest.

I've lost interest in this grow since picking up my NL seeds, I also got my UV light today. Another 7 days to go and I can germinate the NL seeds... lovely.


----------



## wafflehouselover (Dec 5, 2007)

wtf do u feed them bitches!


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 5, 2007)

Here's the root pic's...

I'm not sure if you'll be able to see them the same way I do from the pic's... but I see a definite downgrade from week 6. Not so much since week 7.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 5, 2007)

Weeks 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8... in that order.


----------



## daddychrisg (Dec 5, 2007)

That is just fuckin amazing! I would have to say that you have been able to keep your root system so healthy "99% perfection" that the need for further root development is not necessary, bottom line! Nice work Skunk, you have opened my eyes to the underground world of plants. Given the correct nutrients, at the correct levels, the plant DOES NOT need excessive space be healthy.


----------



## daddychrisg (Dec 5, 2007)

Question, why did you use Cannazym, rather then Sensizym?


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 6, 2007)

Thanks for the compliment DCG...

I use cannazym because it is made from organic materials, so has a very long shelflife. Sensi zym, is pretty much touch and go in my country. My hydro store did a side by test... and sensi zym didn't actually work at all, whereas cannazym ate away the roots in a couple of days.

Sensi zym used to be, and I imagine still is, a good product. It just has a very short shelf life, so by the time it gets to my country and sits around for a couple of months, the active ingredients go off.


----------



## fdd2blk (Dec 6, 2007)

so do you feel it all went as planned? 

did we learn anything?

i did.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 6, 2007)

I'll find out on the final weigh in. With this amount of veg time, per plant i should get 1.5-2.0 oz per plant. I divide by a 5th usually of the wet weight of the plant just after removal of the fan leaves, before the final trim.

On this occasion the plant weighed in at 72g (so I'd call this a half oz plant), but the plant still had 9 days to go, and never received the best of the light. I turned quite a bit of it into oil, and just left the 11" cola to dry. 

The colas on the other plants are around 18". I'll do full measurements next week, saturday, and weigh-ins. For these guys I'll take pic's while they are on the scales.

I've learned a lot from this, but I'll save the summing up for after the harvest.



fdd2blk said:


> so do you feel it all went as planned?
> 
> did we learn anything?
> 
> i did.


----------



## daddychrisg (Dec 6, 2007)

*
Sensi zym used to be, and I imagine still is, a good product. It just has a very short shelf life, so by the time it gets to my country and sits around for a couple of months, the active ingredients go off.
*_Thanks for the info..._


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 7, 2007)

I've given the flush, and they'll sit in that for the next couple of days. Which gives them plenty of time to dry out before harvest. Also to help with the flush i have used Final Phase.

Final Phase, 22.5ml (2.5ml pl)


----------



## SnowWhite (Dec 7, 2007)

I read a while back in this thread about you trying this from seed as well....what happened to that? or are all these plants from clones?


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 7, 2007)

I don't need to do the seed version. Wavels has already done it, and I'm confident that the same thing could be achieved, both from seed... and in soil.


----------



## wafflehouselover (Dec 7, 2007)

can someone sum this thread up into one simple sentence i got tired of reading. =)


----------



## tahoe58 (Dec 7, 2007)

the Coles Notes version....that'd take some doin'


----------



## Wavels (Dec 7, 2007)

LOL

This is a really boffo thread!! 
I always wondered why I never read much about the small (soil) container growing of ganja. I have known that it *can* work quite well for years!

I never really focused on all of the plants I grew out in small containers; I simply considered them to be my "red-headed, freckled face step daughters"!

I have decided to see what I can do with my leftover plants in the 16 oz styro cups from my next indoor grow (starting in a week or so).
I am now motivated to see what I can do to max out the yield with constant TLC.
One of my plans will be to not cut off any of the lower branches, and to try and align them sideways to the light to force fat buds on ALL of the lower branches.
This is gonna be a gas!


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 7, 2007)

Thanks wavels... i'm sure with your experience you'll pull it off. Like you said, as they were in smaller pots you tended to think of them as smaller plants, maybe never giving them the attention that you give to the bigger plants.

Also, i bet you chose the biggest and best looking plants for the potting up. 

I spoke to another guy not too long ago that carried a plant through to harvest in a small pot, but he insisted the plant was smaller than the bigger pots. After a little more questioning I found out the reason this plant was in a smaller pot is because it was a runt. He still got around 1/2 oz off the plant too.

I got around the frequent waterings by sitting the plants in a gravel tray (no gravel in it), left the pots standing in there (no elevation). And fed through the top, then pour the rest of the feed in the tray where it would sit till they'd drank it. I found I only needed to water twice a week doing it this way. I also had an air stick in there, but this only worked obviously when the gravel tray was fairly full with feed.

I have no special tools like co2, or even an exhaust sytem. All I have is the lights, the nutes and two 18" desk fans. I also have a smaller 7" desk fan that i used to create some more movement in the feed when the tray was full.


----------



## Wavels (Dec 7, 2007)

skunkushybrid said:


> Also, i bet you chose the biggest and best looking plants for the potting up.
> .


 
Yes that is quite true, I would select the more vigorous or robust looking seedlings for potting up. I also leave any that I think look like probable males in the little cups.
 I have obtained pollen for breeding from males flowering in 16 oz cups.

I will *try* and keep some superior looking plants in the small containers and see how it goes.

Now I need to decide what to grow.......


----------



## pccdrom (Dec 7, 2007)

skunkushybrid said:


> I've given the flush, and they'll sit in that for the next couple of days. Which gives them plenty of time to dry out before harvest. Also to help with the flush i have used Final Phase.
> 
> Final Phase, 22.5ml (2.5ml pl)


Do you think Final Phase actually helps with the flush? 
Am i right in thinking it helps the plant use up stored nutrients


----------



## SnowWhite (Dec 8, 2007)

Well I can't make up mind on this one, so I'm just going to have to try it out for myself....

You cited FDD's grows as part of your inspiration and I don't get it. Yeah he has massive plants in realtively small pots....but how do you explain his Warlock being the biggest bitch of them all this season? By a long way from what I could see, and that was in the ground?

I'm currently vegging in 6.5 litre pots. When I flower I will repot at least 1 girl (assuming I have more than one) up into an 11l pot. I will keep any others in the 6.5 litre pots and I'll see how they compare. It will mess up my watering schedule, but I think it will be worth it to see the results. I really want the 6.5l to do their thing and perform the same, but at the moment I'm just not convinced.

Interesting thread though man. Thanks.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 8, 2007)

I'm not sure. It says that if you add it to a res' that has nutes in it, it'll merely dilute the feed... not eat it away. Which is pretty much what water will do too. I'm not sure if it'll do it any better than water, but a lot of growers swear by this stuff.



pccdrom said:


> Do you think Final Phase actually helps with the flush?
> Am i right in thinking it helps the plant use up stored nutrients


----------



## SnowWhite (Dec 8, 2007)

Also, if you look at the greeshouse seed grows on YouTube, they grow MASSIVE plants in MASSIVE containers. I think 45l or something, I can't quite remember. But I don't think there is ANY way you could achieve the same results in 0.5-1l pot. Seriously....is that what you're saying here??


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 8, 2007)

How long do you veg' for in those pots?

how are you going to give them the same environment if you also have plants in an 11litre pot?

fdd's warlock? Why would I need to explain that? 

You think I did all this to convince you? No, I did it to convince myself. Growing, and finding the truth is important to me... I don't make things up.



SnowWhite said:


> Well I can't make up mind on this one, so I'm just going to have to try it out for myself....
> 
> You cited FDD's grows as part of your inspiration and I don't get it. Yeah he has massive plants in realtively small pots....but how do you explain his Warlock being the biggest bitch of them all this season? By a long way from what I could see, and that was in the ground?
> 
> ...


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 8, 2007)

I'm not saying anything, figure it out for yourself... if you can.





SnowWhite said:


> Also, if you look at the greeshouse seed grows on YouTube, they grow MASSIVE plants in MASSIVE containers. I think 45l or something, I can't quite remember. But I don't think there is ANY way you could achieve the same results in 0.5-1l pot. Seriously....is that what you're saying here??


----------



## LoganSmith (Dec 8, 2007)

I'v been looking for that video for days. Thx.

Skunk you are so funny.... I love you man....


----------



## SnowWhite (Dec 8, 2007)

skunkushybrid said:


> How long do you veg' for in those pots?
> 
> how are you going to give them the same environment if you also have plants in an 11litre pot?
> 
> ...


Around 6 weeks veg in these pots,then I would normally repot and veg for another week. They will be in the same room under the same light, so therefore have the same environment. With the excpetion of one having more space for root growth. I am only talking about 3-4 plants here. I have 2 plants that are growing VERY similar so far. If they both turn out to be female (i'm really hoping so) then they will make ideal test candidates for me.

It's just his Warlock was his biggest plant. and it had unrestricted root growth in the ground. So it makes me question everything about root growth vs plant size. Just my take on it.

I know you did this for your own satisfaction and I find this thread very interesting, so thanks for all the good info. I do really appreciate you documenting all this. Now I just need to try and figure it out for myself. I find this topic very interesting and I want to find out more....that's all.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 8, 2007)

I have to disagree... the plants will be in different environments as one plant will be higher and therefore have greater access to the light. Also to try and judge seed plants in this manner is asking a lot more than they merely look similar during veg'. Even now, one will be more favoured than the other.

fdd's tree had access to more light... in the pic's I saw it was standing alone and had full access to the sun's rays. His other plants were more huddled together, therefore shading each other out somewhat.



SnowWhite said:


> Around 6 weeks veg in these pots,then I would normally repot and veg for another week. They will be in the same room under the same light, so therefore have the same environment. With the excpetion of one having more space for root growth.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 8, 2007)

How much do you normally yield, dry-weight snowwhite from a 7 week veg' in soil?


----------



## SnowWhite (Dec 8, 2007)

skunkushybrid said:


> I have to disagree... the plants will be in different environments as one plant will be higher and therefore have greater access to the light. Also to try and judge seed plants in this manner is asking a lot more than they merely look similar during veg'. Even now, one will be more favoured than the other.
> 
> fdd's tree had access to more light... in the pic's I saw it was standing alone and had full access to the sun's rays. His other plants were more huddled together, therefore shading each other out somewhat.


Yeah, but I will rasie the smaller pots up to bring the plants up to the same height away from the light. I have done this before. I don't have a mother and clones yet, so trying this from seed is the best I can do for now. It should give some idea, but I realise it is not a perfect comparison. But if you want to try this from seed and compare results, what else can you do.

Plus, FDD's tree also had more root space 



skunkushybrid said:


> How much do you normally yield, dry-weight snowwhite from a 7 week veg' in soil?


I got 2oz per plant off my first soil grow this year, so that is what I strive to match or beat. They were finished in 15l pots as at the time, I thought bigger was better. I just don't know now and that is what I want to find out.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 8, 2007)

then explain why having more room for roots to spread out achieves a bigger plant?

Why do roots stretch out in the first place? They stretch out to find their markers... this is why they don't just stop when they find food. I've grown in DWC, the water level was an inch below the pots, yet the roots stretch right out and down as far as they can go. They will keep growing as much as you allow them to grow. Allowing the roots plenty of room, simply means you must give the plants an adequate veg' time to adequately account for the root space. I feel that you would have achieved the same, if not better results from a container a 3rd of the size.

Also, once you switch to flower, the roots will not go down further... the roots will develop and swell, but will not drop further into the medium. I'm not sure at which point this happens in flower... but on one of my dwc grows we had 3 clones in a 90litre fish tank, we only gave them a 12 day veg, and when we harvested, only half the container was filled. The lower half had no root in it whatsoever. It seems that the roots response to the triggering of flower is to stop the search for nutes, and the hope must be that the plant has supplied an adequate network of roots to gain adequate enough nutes to see the plant through flower.



SnowWhite said:


> Plus, FDD's tree also had more root space
> 
> 
> 
> I got 2oz per plant off my first soil grow this year, so that is what I strive to match or beat. They were finished in 15l pots as at the time, I thought bigger was better. I just don't know now and that is what I want to find out.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 8, 2007)

Again, we must go to the primary purpose of the root. It is true that the roots must stretch out in search of nutrients and water, but they do not stop when they find it because they like to plan ahead. Once the season changes I believe root stretch is over, and the roots will swell up with stored water and nutrients to be pumped into the plant. The plants with the better access to the right amount of nutrients (or the ones that were allowed to concentrate more on the survival trait that is root development by getting less light, maybe shaded by other plants) will then have as a good a chance of survival as a plant with better access to light (whose root system will not need to be as fully developed).

swings and roundabouts

All life wants to live, to do this it must be vibrant and strong despite the adversity it faces... and it has many tricks up it's sleeve to accomplish it.

By placing my plants in smaller pots did it stunt growth? No. Will I be moving to larger pots? No.


----------



## tahoe58 (Dec 8, 2007)

I think this is an important aspect of the work that we do. objective observation and identification and leveling of the variables. in any science work, the critical point is to manage the process to acheive "comparable" circumstances. this is in many circumstances, very difficult, and can lead to misidentification of roots (no pun intended.....) and causes....


skunkushybrid said:


> Thanks wavels... i'm sure with your experience you'll pull it off. Like you said, as they were in smaller pots you tended to think of them as smaller plants, maybe never giving them the attention that you give to the bigger plants.
> 
> Also, i bet you chose the biggest and best looking plants for the potting up.
> 
> ...


As above, the separation of the variables, and how we influence them, and subsequently how they influence the outcome is critical....and in biology and other disciplines, rarely if ever are these variable true independent variables, thus making the deduction of cause/effect more complex. 


Wavels said:


> Yes that is quite true, I would select the more vigorous or robust looking seedlings for potting up. I also leave any that I think look like probable males in the little cups.
> I have obtained pollen for breeding from males flowering in 16 oz cups.
> 
> I will *try* and keep some superior looking plants in the small containers and see how it goes.
> ...


in the case of fdd's monstrosity, that root system was large, but was it proportionately as large as you might have exepcted it to be comnsidering the above ground biomass? In my view it was not. the root system pics that he showed did not seem disporportionately largeconsideraing he harvested something like over 4lbs of product from that plant. and I believe this was a direct function of the manner in which he fed that plant. and this was in a circumstances where the "vege" time was left to nature.....so in this case I would see that this plant did exactly what it did for its purposes of survival and was not restricted with imposed limitations of light and space. But that also was fdd's objective....to grow a tree fort....his intent from the beginning was to provide the circumstances to grow the biggest that he could, and so the manner in which he managed that grow was with that in mind. 


SnowWhite said:


> Yeah, but I will rasie the smaller pots up to bring the plants up to the same height away from the light. I have done this before. I don't have a mother and clones yet, so trying this from seed is the best I can do for now. It should give some idea, but I realise it is not a perfect comparison. But if you want to try this from seed and compare results, what else can you do.
> 
> Plus, FDD's tree also had more root space
> 
> ...


I think what this work in general has clearly demonstrated is that there is a threshold of root development that beyond which additional benefit in aboveground production is not realized. and I do not feel that this is that unusual to expect. the capacity of biological systems have certain limitations and threshold in their performance capacity....enhancements can be made, but those limitations are the "physical and chemcial" realities of the biological process that are carried out to make us our beloved bud. 

I believe the comment you make regarding the continuation of root growth upon flowering is hugely instructive. this is to me another piece of supportive evidence, that as a biological system, it must partition its resources and energy, as we know these systems rearely do things for shits and giggles....there is a purpose and a drive and they execute it to their best benefit.


skunkushybrid said:


> then explain why having more room for roots to spread out achieves a bigger plant?
> 
> Why do roots stretch out in the first place? They stretch out to find their markers... this is why they don't just stop when they find food. I've grown in DWC, the water level was an inch below the pots, yet the roots stretch right out and down as far as they can go. They will keep growing as much as you allow them to grow. Allowing the roots plenty of room, simply means you must give the plants an adequate veg' time to adequately account for the root space. I feel that you would have achieved the same, if not better results from a container a 3rd of the size.
> 
> Also, once you switch to flower, the roots will not go down further... the roots will develop and swell, but will not drop further into the medium. I'm not sure at which point this happens in flower... but on one of my dwc grows we had 3 clones in a 90litre fish tank, we only gave them a 12 day veg, and when we harvested, only half the container was filled. The lower half had no root in it whatsoever. It seems that the roots response to the triggering of flower is to stop the search for nutes, and the hope must be that the plant has supplied an adequate network of roots to gain adequate enough nutes to see the plant through flower.


This is such an important debate and discussion. it certainly has helped me beter understand how we can do a better job of growing our weed!


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 8, 2007)

I have also watched 2 (1 from each tank, on a much smaller dwc grow) plants slowly strangled to death by other cannabis plants. Almost like they were just pushed out of the way of the light up above the medium... cannabilistic, you might say was the roots behaviour below. I chopped the plants and left the root in there.


----------



## SnowWhite (Dec 8, 2007)

skunkushybrid said:


> then explain why having more room for roots to spread out achieves a bigger plant?


I just believe that there is a link between root size and plant size. I mean a big plant needs a big root system to support itself, physically I mean, to actually stand up.

I imagine FDDs monster, sorry to keep going on about it as my reference, but I imagine it in exactly the same spot in his garden, but in a 4 gallon container, and I just don't think it would of grown as big as the root system could not of grown to support it.

Also, as I mentioned before about the greenhouse seed co grows on YouTube

e.g. YouTube - Green House Super Silver Haze Grow with Italian Subtitles

This plants grows HUGE and I don't see a plant this big coming out of anything other than a BIG pot.

But I'm no expert here and I'm just trying to learn. I really want to try some experiments with pot size myself just to see how things work out. It should be interesting.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 8, 2007)

I support my plants from the second week of flower, around day 14. The root system does not need to support the plant. I do it. If I were to untie my plants they would fall over... therefore the tiny root system of my plants are not relative to the 3ft plant above it.


----------



## fdd2blk (Dec 8, 2007)

now i know why my ears have been burning.


----------



## Wavels (Dec 8, 2007)

These are some pics of outdoor plants in relatively small containers.

Most of these are two gallons or less....the A-11 is in a three gallon container.
I think that I could have gotten them larger with more veg time but then they would become *too large* to move easily.
I like to move my outdoor plants throughout the day to get them the most direct sun possible.


----------



## Token (Dec 8, 2007)

I can not believe what this thread is teaching, come on skunk and everyone else that says root size doesn't matter root size=yeild more roots=more nutes picked up.


----------



## Tanuvan (Dec 8, 2007)

I think what skunk is probably saying is that the law of diminishing returns might be at work here with regards to the relationship of root size vs overall yield. 

This in my opinion is perhaps one of the most intriguing post on this forum.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 9, 2007)

I really love it when people get the point. Thankyou. I feel that very often so much of what I say is misinterpreted. I think it's because I'm english.

This is so much the point. I see people growing in 15litre containers and only vegging for 6 weeks (from seed). WTF? You could do the same thing in a 1 gallon. I know, because I've done it. Eventual yield is more relative to veg' time than it is to container size. 

As indoor growers, most of us don't have massive amounts of room to allow our plants to get to 6'+. I only have flowering room for 3ft-3.5ft plants. I have used 2 gallon containers in that space, that was where i first discovered the nightmare that is lst. It worked, I just didn't think the results were worth the effort. So I moved down to 1 gallon... vegged for the same amount of time and bettered my yield by quite a margin. So I did the same again but this time in 3 litre containers. Bettered my yield again. So i thought fuck it... let's see how far I can push it. Went down to 500ml. I'm doing good... and I won't move back up pot sizes. I'm happy with 500ml and growing a 3ft plant that will yield me a 1.5oz per plant (6 under 1 400w).



Tanuvan said:


> I think what skunk is probably saying is that the law of diminishing returns might be at work here with regards to the relationship of root size vs overall yield.
> quote]


----------



## SnowWhite (Dec 9, 2007)

Token said:


> I can not believe what this thread is teaching, come on skunk and everyone else that says root size doesn't matter root size=yeild more roots=more nutes picked up.


I don't think of it as 'teaching', more of an investigation. People can take from it what they like. As Skunk said before, he's not doing it for anyone elses benefit, just himself. But I am glad he has gone to the trouble of doumenting his findings. It has made for an interesting read and has given me plently to think about. Now it's up to me/us to experiment for ourselves, if interested, and draw our own conclusions. I'm just still not convinced yet.

But I do know Skunky has managed to grow some fat ass colas out of some TINY pots, so very much respect for that


----------



## Lacy (Dec 9, 2007)

_Interesting. was wondering about this_
_normally grow 18/6 but timer failed _
_2 1/2 weeks growing with 24/7 & never did it before_
_was too late to switch to 18/6 cycle_
_growing nice _



nongreenthumb said:


> I've read that with 24 hour lighting the plant is given more energy and provides more sugars to help it grow. The article also said that if you use 18 hour lighting then you are losing 25% of your growth so a plant on 18 would take 5 weeks veg where as a plant on 24 would take 4 weeks veg.


----------



## Lacy (Dec 9, 2007)

_makes sense to me_
_plus smaller pots...more light per plant_
_as long as they get all their nutes & have enough space, its all good_



skunkushybrid said:


> I really love it when people get the point. Thankyou. I feel that very often so much of what I say is misinterpreted. I think it's because I'm english.
> 
> This is so much the point. I see people growing in 15litre containers and only vegging for 6 weeks (from seed). WTF? You could do the same thing in a 1 gallon. I know, because I've done it. Eventual yield is more relative to veg' time than it is to container size.
> 
> ...


----------



## Lord Dangly Bits (Dec 9, 2007)

trapper said:


> i have an outdoor that gets shultz 10 54 10(price 3.99)and mollases,i have one that get gh three parts plus carboload and guano,there is no differance in growth,but maybe the differance will be in potency.im tempted by all the advertisements,about beast buds and so forth,and i have put the money in,i find that growing is a great hobby and theraputic,and i am very limited by health,so im home alot,but the hype of this gram per watt i find misleading,and is desighned for people to spend money on products,im not saying a gram per watt is not achievable,it is,ive just never personally met any one who has and ive known quite a few who also knew quite a few,and the one who claims to have has also cought a 200 pound sturgeon fish.very few people can have the perfect growing inviroment indoors,it is very expensive.


Trapper. Sturgeons do not stop growing until they die, and they do not die from old age. They only die from disease, infections, or sickness. A crew of scientist went down in a diving bell on the Chehalis River in Washington state. When they brought them up they were in Shock. They said there was sturgeons down there big enough to swallow a man whole. They said 25-30 feet long, weighting close to 2,500 lbs. In the old days, men used to hook the big ones in a small boat, then run to shore and leash them to a team of horses to pull them in. You can only keep sturgeons between 3 and 6 feet. The reason is, when a sturgeon is young it is one sex, then it changes to the other. I can not remember which sex comes first. I think it is female. So some peoples out landish claims might be true...


----------



## Cannabian (Dec 9, 2007)

skunkushybrid said:


> Here's the plan. Roots are merely a mechanism for the plant to uptake nutrients... therefore, so long as the plant is getting fed regularly enough... a small root system should be capable of sustaining a large plant.
> 
> I have 18 plants in 0.5litre containers. So far they've been vegging for 13 days. Made a couple of mistakes... I treated this like a sog grow, when it isn't, I also allowed them to stretch a little.
> 
> ...


I tried this methodology by applying these principles in a bubbler set up where roots have unlimited room to grow and the same set up with root trimming. 3 week old clone in veg

Results after 3 weeks (6 total) were :

Untouched roots: plants were 6" taller and leafier, 4 more nodes than trimmed

trimmed: very tight nodes but short plant not as leafy and started to look gangly before I left it alone to grow again. my 2c


----------



## tahoe58 (Dec 9, 2007)

hmmm....just so I am clear, you are saying you have two essentially identical situations, but in one your physically trim the roots and in anotehr you leave the roots untrimmed...? my apologies if I have misunderstood what you have put forward?


----------



## Cannabian (Dec 9, 2007)

tahoe58 said:


> hmmm....just so I am clear, you are saying you have two essentially identical situations, but in one your physically trim the roots and in anotehr you leave the roots untrimmed...? my apologies if I have misunderstood what you have put forward?


Yeah thats right same bubbler just trimmed one. Wont do that again, then agian I didnt use any chemicals either perhaps it could have helpled, but would have had to use sep bubblers.


----------



## tahoe58 (Dec 9, 2007)

thanks for ur reply....I do not know this for a fact....however, it seems to me that any physical damage to root structures will reduce their effectiveness as they try to heal. this is not that same a placing the plant in a restricted growth area...i.e., smaller pot. the physical damage is something that the plant will desperately try to repair. the restricted space will be an limitation, but only once it has reached the threshold of development and then will no longer be able to grow any further.

Again, my apologies if I am misunderstanding your intent.


----------



## daddychrisg (Dec 9, 2007)

I am voting this thread as "This months most Ground Breaking Thread"


----------



## Tanuvan (Dec 10, 2007)

I believe this thread deserves a good summation and a sticky. My hat is off and beer raised to skunk for his efforts!


----------



## Puffin Afatty (Dec 10, 2007)

I find this an interesting discussion...I do a regeneration in a flood and drain system...I notice the plant grew better in generation 2 and 3 than in gen 1...I attributed this to the idea that the roots took 3 gens to completely fill the container...Now I wonder if the cannazyme or even root trimming would benefit Snow White in future gens??


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 10, 2007)

I find regeneration an interesting discussion... Do you use mychorrhizal fungi to help in the regeneration?


Puffin Afatty said:


> I find this an interesting discussion...I do a regeneration in a flood and drain system...I notice the plant grew better in generation 2 and 3 than in gen 1...I attributed this to the idea that the roots took 3 gens to completely fill the container...Now I wonder if the cannazyme or even root trimming would benefit Snow White in future gens??


----------



## Puffin Afatty (Dec 10, 2007)

I use GH nutes and the Lucas Formula...I add floralicious plus and green fuse bloom...that's it...I dont change the res at all, since seedlings, 4 gen and counting...I just add rod water and/or nutes to keep ppm at 900 and ph to 5.5-5.8...all I do is flip lights from 12 to 24 and harvest Snow White every 10-11 weeks(including reveg)...


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 16, 2007)

*PLANT #1*

Total height of the plant: 36"
Length of Cola: 16"
Wet weight: 177g


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 16, 2007)

*PLANT #2*

Height: 33"
Cola: 17"
Weight: 154g

This is the smallest of the lot, and this has much to do with the mistake of instigating stretch right at the start of veg'. I picked the wrong plant for the position, this plant's position should have gone to the last background plant i took at 8 weeks.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 16, 2007)

*PLANT #3*

Height: 36"
Cola: 18"
Weight: 173g


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 16, 2007)

*PLANT #4*

Saved the biggest till last, and these were harvested today, as opposed to the other 3 being harvested yesterday. I also accidentally deleted the weight pic' on this one so you'll just have to take my word for it.

Height: 37"
Cola: 19"
Weight: 200g


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 16, 2007)

*PLANT #5*

Height: 39"
Cola: 19"
Weight: 203g


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 16, 2007)

*PLANT #6*

Height: 40"
Cola: 19"
Weight: 214g


The total for the six plants comes to 1121g. Which divided by a 5th comes to an estimated 224g dry weight. Or around 8oz.


----------



## nongreenthumb (Dec 16, 2007)

Nice harvest there, I'm still waiting on mine


----------



## Wavels (Dec 16, 2007)

Outstanding!!!!
Bravo!


----------



## tahoe58 (Dec 16, 2007)

excellent effort.....awesome results! good for you skunk...you have my mail address right? hehehehehehe


----------



## SnowWhite (Dec 17, 2007)

very nice x-mas harvest there mate  Great job!! You making lots of oil for x-mas then?? I know you like ya oil


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 17, 2007)

Thanks guys. Yes I will be making lots of oil out of the trim. I'm smoking some right now.

I do think there is a difference between using the bigger pots and the smaller ones. With the smaller pots, I do get slightly less bud per plant... but the slight loss per plant is outweighed by the two extra plants I could squeeze in.

I used less medium, less nutients... and gained more bud. Remember this was not a SOG grow, but a normal grow in small pots.


----------



## SnowWhite (Dec 17, 2007)

skunkushybrid said:


> Thanks guys. Yes I will be making lots of oil out of the trim. I'm smoking some right now.


Nice...I've just ordered a honey bee extractor and 3 cans of butane so I can make my first ever oil this x-mas. I really need to do this to keep me in smoke anyway and I've got some trim from my snow white and satori grows, so it just has to be done.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 17, 2007)

That's one decision you won't regret. You'll get hooked. Everyone does.


----------



## fdd2blk (Dec 17, 2007)

i love honey oil!!!


----------



## 000420 (Dec 17, 2007)

that's it I'm smoking some honey......................I like dropping it on a hot charcoal and sucking the smoke up through a tube...gives me the tingles....


----------



## SnowWhite (Dec 18, 2007)

all being well with the x-mas post, my Honey Bee Extractor will turn up today 

Just a couple of questions for you guys in the know if you don't mind.

Aprox how much butane do you put through each batch of trim? Or is it just obvious when no more 'oil' is coming out of the extractor.

Is it worth doing 2 x separate extractions on one batch of trim, or do you find 1 extraction enough?

Also, I've been looking at vids on YouTube for this technique and one guy pours his butane extraction into warm water which helps the evaporation and the oil forms a film on top of the water, making it easy to collect! ....looks so nice and gooey. Ayone ever try this method?

Check it out if you fancy some pure THC porn!!

YouTube - THC-EXTRACTION : HONEY OIL

Thanks!


----------



## closet.cult (Dec 18, 2007)

wow, skunk! well done! i'm going to have to read thru each page of this thread to appreciate all the lessons learned. i am already applying similar techniques to my hydro-organic hybrid system. 

it's great to see such successful results. enjoy it!


----------



## closet.cult (Dec 19, 2007)

one question: if the roots are mearly a vehicle to transport nutrients and water, at what point is the pot too small? at what limit does it get rootbound? you can't have a tree in a bucket, can you?

it took 5 weeks for the majority of my 18 seedlings to get rootbound in 16 ounce cups, at 6 inches tall. how are your plants fine in 1/2 gllon pots, at 18" height?


----------



## 000420 (Dec 19, 2007)

closet.cult said:


> one question: if the roots are mearly a vehicle to transport nutrients and water, at what point is the pot too small? at what limit does it get rootbound? you can't have a tree in a bucket, can you?
> 
> it took 5 weeks for the majority of my 18 seedlings to get rootbound in 16 ounce cups, at 6 inches tall. how are your plants fine in 1/2 gllon pots, at 18" height?



they get root bound searching for nutes, i flower in 1 gallon pots and yield 2-3 ounces per plant...but i feed every single day...they don't get rrotbound because they don't need more roots..i'm bringing the nutes to them every day so they don't need to go find them, same with water.......it's more work growing in small containers but i find it very rewarding.....

also i find in my small pots i get less roots but they are big and fat, but in larger ones they are tiny and stringy but there is tons of them.........if you do it right in small pots they will develop large strong roots.....


----------



## daddychrisg (Dec 19, 2007)

Hey 420, I have looked at those carbon scrubbers before, and wondered about them. Do you own one? PM me if you would, and let me know what you think...


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 20, 2007)

closet.cult said:


> one question: if the roots are mearly a vehicle to transport nutrients and water, at what point is the pot too small? at what limit does it get rootbound? you can't have a tree in a bucket, can you?
> 
> it took 5 weeks for the majority of my 18 seedlings to get rootbound in 16 ounce cups, at 6 inches tall. how are your plants fine in 1/2 gllon pots, at 18" height?


My plants were in 500ml containers. That's an 1/8 gallon pots. 

Plants also get root bound... although I believe natmoon's term would describe the situation best... pot bound. 

If you were to repot the plants after this occurs then the roots would have difficulty moving into the new space. The roots would still be capable of uptaking nutrients.

I did get less per plant, slightly... but I believe this was more down to the thrips, and squeezing in more plants. I usually only grow four under 1 light.

Squeezing in more plants allows less light for side branches, so they don't grow as healthily. Also, during veg'... I was a little confused (being a stoner) as to what i was doing myself, and treated it like a SOG grow. The good thing this did was give me plenty of background plants, which provided me with plenty of oil and a chance to study the root development.

I first got onto this through a combination of things, the first thing was on a DWC grow I did, I allowed the roots to become exposed to light for long periods, and they rotted and died. In fact quite a substantial part of the roots disappeared (with help from cannazym) and the plant above remained almost perfectly healthy, and i could still bring it through for a decent yield after now covering the roots from all light. Honestly, it was like the plant above didn't even notice. The other thing was fdd's tree in the ground... the way the roots seemed to just shoot straight outwards... and of course his immense outdoor plants/trees in relatively tiny pots.

I've used way less medium and less nutrients for a better yield.


----------



## closet.cult (Dec 20, 2007)

000420 said:


> they get root bound searching for nutes, i flower in 1 gallon pots and yield 2-3 ounces per plant...but i feed every single day...they don't get rrotbound because they don't need more roots..i'm bringing the nutes to them every day so they don't need to go find them, same with water.......it's more work growing in small containers but i find it very rewarding.....
> 
> also i find in my small pots i get less roots but they are big and fat, but in larger ones they are tiny and stringy but there is tons of them.........if you do it right in small pots they will develop large strong roots.....


i gave them top quality organic nutrients at every feeding. plus superthrive at times. are you saying they weren't receiving enough nutrients and that's why the roots grew untill they ran out of space? 

i suppose i could up the nutes.

skunk, does this sound right to you?


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 20, 2007)

How low can you go? I don't know... 

...but the fact is, if the fine art of bonsai was a simple matter of using small pots then it wouldn't be a fine art.


----------



## 000420 (Dec 20, 2007)

closet.cult said:


> i gave them top quality organic nutrients at every feeding. plus superthrive at times. are you saying they weren't receiving enough nutrients and that's why the roots grew untill they ran out of space?
> 
> i suppose i could up the nutes.
> 
> skunk, does this sound right to you?


this could be the cause, it's not easy growing in small pots but it works great.....at some point even if you are feeding every day, the pot may be so small that you either need to make the doses stronger or up the frequency......because the pot can only hold so much, at some point it becomes basically like hydro-ponics with soil as a medium..in my case, they will react quick to fertilizer, if i miss a feeding they show it the next day already starting to show deficiencies, if you grow in small pots, you really have to be on top of it, things can go bad quick.....


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 20, 2007)

closet.cult said:


> i gave them top quality organic nutrients at every feeding. plus superthrive at times. are you saying they weren't receiving enough nutrients and that's why the roots grew untill they ran out of space?
> 
> i suppose i could up the nutes.
> 
> skunk, does this sound right to you?


No, from what i know of root behaviour, is that they will seek out the boundaries of any given grow space. They will always grow till they run out of space. They hit a boundary and they go somewhere else. The plant doesn't know that a plentiful supply of food is on the way, so it's the roots' instinct to spread as far as they can. In nature this would be essential for survival. The roots should not outgrow the pots, really this is impossible for them as they cannot grow in the light.

I don't believe nutrients have much to do with it, and to push your nutes past usual ec levels is asking for trouble.


----------



## 000420 (Dec 20, 2007)

skunkushybrid said:


> No, from what i know of root behaviour, is that they will seek out the boundaries of any given grow space. They will always grow till they run out of space. They hit a boundary and they go somewhere else. The plant doesn't know that a plentiful supply of food is on the way, so it's the roots' instinct to spread as far as they can. In nature this would be essential for survival. The roots should not outgrow the pots, really this is impossible for them as they cannot grow in the light.
> 
> I don't believe nutrients have much to do with it, and to push your nutes past usual ec levels is asking for trouble.


Nutrients don't have much to do with it?...may be because your hydro you don't up the EC, in soil it's a major factor that I add an extra dose of fish emulsion or guano..if I give a 3 foot tall plant in a 1 gallon bucket a normal dose of fertilizer every feeding it would die, there is not enough soil to hold the nutrient solution that the plant needs, so you must increase the nutrients in the solution, or increase the the frequency of times they get nutrients(like in hydro)..one or the other....or they will die from nutrient deficiency....


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 20, 2007)

000420 said:


> Nutrients don't have much to do with it?...may be because your hydro you don't up the EC, in soil it's a major factor that I add an extra dose of fish emulsion or guano..if I give a 3 foot tall plant in a 1 gallon bucket a normal dose of fertilizer every feeding it would die, there is not enough soil to hold the nutrient solution that the plant needs, so you must increase the nutrients in the solution, or increase the the frequency of times they get nutrients(like in hydro)..one or the other....or they will die from nutrient deficiency....


I don't understand what you mean. I up my ec levels too, that's a standard no matter what sized pots you grow in.

I feed my plants to the limit, I wouldn't add any more ferts to the solution because this would cause an overnute. 

I agree though the frequency of waterings will go up. I had mine sitting in a tray, so they'd sit in the feed for 24 hours anyway.


----------



## 000420 (Dec 20, 2007)

skunkushybrid said:


> I don't understand what you mean. I up my ec levels too, that's a standard no matter what sized pots you grow in.
> 
> I feed my plants to the limit, I wouldn't add any more ferts to the solution because this would cause an overnute.
> 
> I agree though the frequency of waterings will go up. I had mine sitting in a tray, so they'd sit in the feed for 24 hours anyway.



LOL...well I guess I can't say what I mean...long story short I grow the same size plants in 1 gallon pots as I do in 3.5 gallon pots, same yields and I'm not pot bound......also i guess i should say I don't take my nutes into dangerous levels just from a mild soulution to a max strength but never beyond the max strength at that point i increase frequency of dosage....i guess i depends on the point of growth, in the begining i start with milder solution and then gradually build up but never to toxic levels.at the point i can't make the solution any stronger i increase frequency..


----------



## Wavels (Dec 20, 2007)

skunkushybrid said:


> I don't believe nutrients have much to do with it, and to push your nutes past usual ec levels is asking for trouble.


 
I think that this is true.
I feed all of my plants virtually every time I water, the plants in small(16 oz) containers most definitely need many many more frequent waterings than those in larger containers. 
Because I use a fairly dilute fert solution I very rarely have had any problems with over fertilization.....Some of my small plants need to be fed/watered two to three times a day(esp outdoors).
I think that it is entirely possible to realize a harvest of *well* over 28 grams per 16oz container.
I easily obtain harvests upwards of three to four ounces from my .71 gallon containers indoors and out!


----------



## tahoe58 (Dec 20, 2007)

welll...I am intrigued with all this discussion. I have six clones of my Top44 femgirlie that has begun and so far lived in a 5gal pot from day one. The clones I am going to put into 1 gal pots all based on the discussion/debate here. I guess it will be very important to watch nutes and water schedule/cycles....I am still waiting to put these clonesinto soil....prolly next week? thanks again for all this great info!


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 21, 2007)

Hey tahoe, 1 gallon is still a fairly big container and i can't see you having any problems at all. You could quite happily veg' for 2months from seed in that sized container, and in soil you should be looking around 2oz per plant.

Quite happily veg' for a month from clone... and you should achieve the same amount.

I always count soil as being about half of hydro'... maybe a good soil grower would get closer to the hydro' yield, I just go from my own experience. I wasn't very good at organic.


----------



## bongspit (Dec 25, 2007)

whats up skunk? My question is...how are the roots for hydro and soil different? If you let soil get root bound and they grow fine, then if you had a way to contain roots in a hydro system...would they grow as well? Like a smaller reservour maybe...
disclaimer: I have been reading this thread on and off since i have been at RIU, so if this question has been axed nevermind.


----------



## ronbud1963 (Dec 26, 2007)

Skunkushybrid ive got a couple of questions im very surprised that no one has asked.First,usally with using small pots going into flower its the lost of fan leaves if they are root bound that i worry about.If you loose these you get very little bud,imo.But proof is in the pics.This is a amsome thead thanks to everyone that has done grows using Small pots.I cannot disput that this works,i just would be careful about loosing fan leaves.Question;How often did you water comparded to nuting or did you use a light solution with every water?Also how many days before the chop did you stop giving it nutes?Thanks in advance! Stay Safe!And thanks again for this awesome thead even tho it took quite awhile to read it.Ps i believe I will start using much smaller pots.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 26, 2007)

I nuted to the EC levels recommended by Advanced Nutrients. I'd already grown the strain a few times before so i had a good idea what it could take nute-wise. So I nuted every feed, and didn't flush once. I stopped the nutes a week before harvest, and used a product called Final Phase to help flush out the plants more quickly. 7 days was enough, the pots dried right out after 4 days, then i just left them to dry even further before the final day.

I fed only twice a week... the pots were in a tray, so they would sit in the solution for up to 36 hours before the tray was dry. Then maybe another 36 hours for the medium to become dry enough to need another feed.

If you know the week by week ec/ppm levels to give your plants (although this isn't set in stone and you still need to use your common sense to determine exact ratios) then you will never need to flush them till right at the end.

I'm not sure about the loss to the fan leaves, this will happen if the plants are too cramped, and the leaves do not have access to light.

Mine were killed by thrips... but they still managed to survive. I cut them all off on the last day or two anyway.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 26, 2007)

bongspit said:


> whats up skunk? My question is...how are the roots for hydro and soil different? If you let soil get root bound and they grow fine, then if you had a way to contain roots in a hydro system...would they grow as well? Like a smaller reservour maybe...
> disclaimer: I have been reading this thread on and off since i have been at RIU, so if this question has been axed nevermind.



I think you're meaning DWC? I'm a coco coir grower which is classed as hydro too, although to my mind it is the perfect balance between the two. Although I have grown in DWC too, and have thought about a way to do this same thing. It could work... but would be time consuming (at least for me) to put together. There's also NFT.

Many of these systems have already been designed, but with the SOG grower in mind. It is a simple matter to design a system, section off the roots and just veg' the plants for longer. You must bear in mind also that if the plants are too close together then they will lose out on weight relative to the veg' time. I think there's an equation in here somewhere... just need to figure it out.


----------



## bongspit (Dec 26, 2007)

skunkushybrid said:


> I think you're meaning DWC? I'm a coco coir grower which is classed as hydro too, although to my mind it is the perfect balance between the two. Although I have grown in DWC too, and have thought about a way to do this same thing. It could work... but would be time consuming (at least for me) to put together. There's also NFT.
> 
> Many of these systems have already been designed, but with the SOG grower in mind. It is a simple matter to design a system, section off the roots and just veg' the plants for longer. You must bear in mind also that if the plants are too close together then they will lose out on weight relative to the veg' time. I think there's an equation in here somewhere... just need to figure it out.


My reservour is 18 gallons for 2 plants, could I get the same results using say, 8 gallons for 2 plants. Right now at 38 days of flowering my roots look to be same size as the plant.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 27, 2007)

bongspit said:


> My reservour is 18 gallons for 2 plants, could I get the same results using say, 8 gallons for 2 plants. Right now at 38 days of flowering my roots look to be same size as the plant.


18 gallons for 2 plants is a lot of space. What's that in litres? Around 90?

I once grew DWC in a 90litre fish tank. I put in 3 clone plants and gave a 14 day veg'. By the end of harvest, only half the tank was full of roots.

From this, you must draw your own conclusions.

Veg time is more relative to eventual yield than the size of your container. You must also take into account space between plants. As certain strains will have a tendency to heavy side branching that are within range of the light. There are a lot of factors that must be considered.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 27, 2007)

bongspit said:


> whats up skunk? My question is...how are the roots for hydro and soil different? quote]
> 
> Soil roots are thicker because they have a denser medium to push through. Which will also slow down the efforts the plant has for growth.
> 
> To my mind the Plant comes first... and could even evolve to live without roots if the conditions/environment were right.


----------



## SmokerE (Dec 27, 2007)

skunkushybrid said:


> To my mind the Plant comes first... and could even evolve to live without roots if the conditions/environment were right.


 
Then it wouldn't be the same plant.

It appears you are speaking about backwards evolution. Moss, fungi, are species of plants without a defined root system found in early fossil records. The plant "did" come first.


----------



## Evil Buddies (Dec 27, 2007)

skunkushybrid said:


> OK, just wondered... some guy I was speaking to reckons I'm giving my plants too much. I asked him "why, how much do they need then?"
> 
> He couldn't answer me.


I say u know ur plants and how much they like to be fed. My plants branches tend to droop when they need water. 2 hrs after i water them the branches erect. Why do people want tell u what is right or wrong instead of asking how r ur plants and are they responding well to the feed that ur giving them. Im only on my second grow and im learning everyday. So keep up the good work and interesting threads. I may not contribute much but im reading.


----------



## hugetom80s (May 2, 2008)

I apologize if this has already been said, I haven't taken the time to read through all 46 pages of the thread.

It seems that the basic theory is that roots "exist only to take in nutrients for the plant", right?

That's partly true. But that's not remotely the only thing they do. The roots are an important storehouse for the energy created by the leaves (all the cells in a plant store energy in their vacuoles, but a huge portion can be stored specifically in the roots.) This is why growers traditionally focus on generating large root masses - this energy is tapped into during flowering/fruiting to really produce massive results.

The roots also produce the very important hormone, auxin.


I can't imagine how the effort to reduce or limit root mass would be beneficial. If you've got poor quality root mass (weak or dead roots), then getting rid of that with an enzyme treatment would be beneficial, but otherwise you're hurting potential yield.

You can certainly bring a plant through to the end of its lifecycle without a lot of roots, but you're not going to get as much yield from the plant as you would with a larger root mass.

Think about it: how many pro-athletes train strictly with IV-nutrition, bypassing their body's natural digestion system, simply because it's more "efficient"?

If you can boost a plant with foliar feeding, and hydroponics is efficient enough to support the same size plant with a smaller root mass (both of which we know to be true), wouldn't the optimal results come from maximizing everything in balance?


Plants aren't simple structures. Science describes the flowering process as one of the most complicated biochemical processes in nature and they've evolved over a vast amount of time to this form. To properly care for plants we have to not only pay attention to their individual needs, but the balance of those needs. If you increase CO2, you need to make sure you're providing enough light - else you're wasting the extra CO2 because the plant doesn't have the power to use it.


Now I admit I could be wrong. I haven't tested any of this specifically.

But the science just doesn't back up the theory. What we know to be true about plants says they use their roots for much, much more than simple nutrient uptake. The size of the root mass directly impacts the size and quality of the harvest in more ways than just its ability to take in nutrients. The stored energy (starches) are invaluable. That's why the plants store energy in the roots: they're saving up for the leaner months in the fall when they know they're going to be working extra hard to ensure they can reproduce and pass their genes on to the next generation.

Like the salmon in the ocean, storing energy as fat for the long, arduous swim upstream to mate and die - plants store up that energy in their roots so they can go huge on flowering and reproduction.


Anyway, that's the way I understand it. Plants may be able to survive without a lot of roots, but they need a large, healthy root mass to really thrive.


----------



## 5nug (May 4, 2008)

just let your roots grow as big as they can, because if there are more roots the plant can take in more nutrients and it will be a healthier bigger plant.


----------



## skunkkushhybrid (Aug 12, 2008)

> The roots also produce the very important hormone, auxin.


Actually auxins are situated in the very top of the plant and they work their way down to the roots, causing cells to stretch along the way. What you are thinking of is cytokinins, these are heavily situated in root tips, and these work their way up the plant, creating new cells and shoots 

Indeed auxins are heavily involved in a plants shade response, so when you turn down the lights or turn them off, this activates a rush of auxins, causing not only the plant to stretch, but also the roots. This is why roots grow better at night, and also the reason plants stretch 

Now you might say that with less root tips that not as many cytokinins can be produced... but this is wrong, the plant will produce as many as it takes to keep up with demand... once you turn on the lights photosynthesis begins, the leaves start making sugars from the light, and the water is sucked up through the plant with transpiration.


----------



## daddychrisg (Aug 13, 2008)

And the skunk is back! Good to see a response skunky!


----------



## skunkkushhybrid (Aug 14, 2008)

daddychrisg said:


> And the skunk is back! Good to see a response skunky!


Hey there daddyC... long time no see. Hope all is growing well with you.


----------



## daddychrisg (Aug 15, 2008)

Yeah man, everything is going pretty well for me. I have learned quite abit since I last spoke with you, and am now going to give a side by side grow with soil "fox farms ocean forest/light warrior" with of course fox farms organic nutes, vs. Canna Coco/perlite with GH 3 part, floralicious, Cannazyme, Liquid Kool bloom, and two weeks of Kool bloom powder as directed from GH. The watering system for the coco will be a flood n drain in 2.5 gallon buckets. The pic is from the up and coming next harvest, day 48. Mostly Blue Hash but also few strains I am trying out Ogre, Lemon Diesel, Master Kush, Don and a new Lavender. Anyhow, I hope all is well on your side of the world also..DCG


----------



## skunkkushhybrid (Aug 20, 2008)

good to hear things are growing well daddyc... you should fly over and visit me at skunk skool... be great to see some pic's of your grows 

oops... did i just break a rule? oh, hold on... i shouldn't even be here in the first place. ha ha ha

best of luck daddyC!!!!


----------



## daddychrisg (Aug 21, 2008)

Skunk school sounds good, but is there any grants out there to help pay for my tuition? I don't know if I have the funds right now for such a prestiges school.... Cheers to another great day! DCG


----------



## skunkushybrid01 (Feb 15, 2009)

hugetom80s said:


> I apologize if this has already been said, I haven't taken the time to read through all 46 pages of the thread.


well there you go... right away you weigh in with a half informed opinion without even taking the time to read the entire thread. If you're really interested then go back and read. however if you prefer to live in ignorance then who am i to tell you otherwise?



> It seems that the basic theory is that roots "exist only to take in nutrients for the plant", right?



Yes. Oh, and to also exude toxins.



> That's partly true. But that's not remotely the only thing they do. The roots are an important storehouse for the energy created by the leaves (all the cells in a plant store energy in their vacuoles, but a huge portion can be stored specifically in the roots.) This is why growers traditionally focus on generating large root masses - this energy is tapped into during flowering/fruiting to really produce massive results.
> 
> The roots also produce the very important hormone, auxin.


Yes... there are types of a plants root system that can store nutrients and water... this is a survival mechanism for times of low food and drought. Ever get that in an indoor environment?

Also auxins are mainly situated and created in the tops of plants and are then flooded down the plant and to the roots. there are many different types of auxins that are responsible for different jobs, even cell division which is usually primarily down to the cytokinin hormones (which are conversely more heavily situated in the root tips).




> I can't imagine how the effort to reduce or limit root mass would be beneficial. If you've got poor quality root mass (weak or dead roots), then getting rid of that with an enzyme treatment would be beneficial, but otherwise you're hurting potential yield.
> 
> You can certainly bring a plant through to the end of its lifecycle without a lot of roots, but you're not going to get as much yield from the plant as you would with a larger root mass.



You need to try harder 



> Think about it: how many pro-athletes train strictly with IV-nutrition, bypassing their body's natural digestion system, simply because it's more "efficient"?


he he he



> If you can boost a plant with foliar feeding, and hydroponics is efficient enough to support the same size plant with a smaller root mass (both of which we know to be true), wouldn't the optimal results come from maximizing everything in balance?


No... you tip the balance to your favour. Think about this, what all growers should do is support the main stem during flower... this will help divert any energies the plant would use in growing a thicker stem into growing more bud. this tips the balance into our favour... growing roots takes energy too.




> Plants aren't simple structures. Science describes the flowering process as one of the most complicated biochemical processes in nature and they've evolved over a vast amount of time to this form. To properly care for plants we have to not only pay attention to their individual needs, but the balance of those needs. If you increase CO2, you need to make sure you're providing enough light - else you're wasting the extra CO2 because the plant doesn't have the power to use it.







> Now I admit I could be wrong. I haven't tested any of this specifically.



excellent point!



> But the science just doesn't back up the theory. What we know to be true about plants says they use their roots for much, much more than simple nutrient uptake. The size of the root mass directly impacts the size and quality of the harvest in more ways than just its ability to take in nutrients. The stored energy (starches) are invaluable. That's why the plants store energy in the roots: they're saving up for the leaner months in the fall when they know they're going to be working extra hard to ensure they can reproduce and pass their genes on to the next generation.



omg... you don't see what you've just said here do you? saving up for leaner months... when does this happen indoors? do you provide your plants with lean months to ensure you keep up with their natural environment? 



> Like the salmon in the ocean, storing energy as fat for the long, arduous swim upstream to mate and die - plants store up that energy in their roots so they can go huge on flowering and reproduction.



here we go again 



> Anyway, that's the way I understand it. Plants may be able to survive without a lot of roots, but they need a large, healthy root mass to really thrive.


Nope, just a healthy root system that is adequately cared for... but as you say, you've not tested any of this out for yourself so your understanding is at best extremely limited


Here are a few old pic's of mine. the plant in the pic is a bubblegum mother plant and has provided around 80 clones at the time of this pic. the plant never left the pot and was flowered after another 100 or so clones. no root bound, no problem. plant is in a pot around 1/8th of a gallon.


----------



## skunkushybrid01 (Feb 15, 2009)

daddychrisg said:


> Yeah man, everything is going pretty well for me. I have learned quite abit since I last spoke with you, and am now going to give a side by side grow with soil "fox farms ocean forest/light warrior" with of course fox farms organic nutes, vs. Canna Coco/perlite with GH 3 part, floralicious, Cannazyme, Liquid Kool bloom, and two weeks of Kool bloom powder as directed from GH. The watering system for the coco will be a flood n drain in 2.5 gallon buckets. The pic is from the up and coming next harvest, day 48. Mostly Blue Hash but also few strains I am trying out Ogre, Lemon Diesel, Master Kush, Don and a new Lavender. Anyhow, I hope all is well on your side of the world also..DCG


yeah everything is great here... and those are some dank looking plants you've got under that MH... is it a 1000w?


----------



## eza82 (Feb 15, 2009)

Nice thread!....


----------



## Uncle Ben (Feb 15, 2009)

Haven't bothered reading this thread either, don't need to. Just a few thoughts and kudos to hugetom80s for bringing up some good points.

Roots have a function - the uptake of water and elements. The greater the root mass (and root hairs) regarding uptake potential, the better plant health, vigor and production in general. See this link regarding how to create a more efficient, fibrous root mass. Note the health and vigor of the plants. https://www.rollitup.org/general-marijuana-growing/9114-spin-out-chemical-root-pruning.html

Auxins are responsible for cell division and elongation. Auxins collect in the greatest amount in the terminal, apical tips of dominant plant tissue. Doesn't matter if it's a terminal leader or a tap root. Auxins are not flooded anywhere, they are created on site and do not move down the plant inducing stretching as they go. They can and will be redirected regarding production/collection mainly to the dormant buds located directly behind the tip, if the tip is terminated. Again, this applies to above and below ground material. If you terminate the tip of a root or a stem, auxins will induce branching behind that point.

Roots are the primary storage unit for carbos that were manufactured during the day - think carrot, potato, radish. Stems also store "energy" reserves but to a lesser degree than roots.

It's been my experience that root growth occurs most when a plant is allowed to rest. That may be a function of my ability to read a plant such that I will not allow it to be subjected to a light saturation point where "more becomes less." Light saturation is a point of optimum photons reception relative to plant health (ability to process those photons), degree of cell division/elongation, etc.

UB


----------



## skunkushybrid01 (Feb 19, 2009)

Uncle Ben said:


> Haven't bothered reading this thread either, don't need to. Just a few thoughts and kudos to hugetom80s for bringing up some good points.
> 
> Roots have a function - the uptake of water and elements. The greater the root mass (and root hairs) regarding uptake potential, the better plant health, vigor and production in general. See this link regarding how to create a more efficient, fibrous root mass. Note the health and vigor of the plants. https://www.rollitup.org/general-marijuana-growing/9114-spin-out-chemical-root-pruning.html
> 
> ...



yes i was specifically referring to the night cycle when auxins are flooded through the plant carried by ethylene. ethylene is said to speed up the process. exactly like the shade response you just mentioned.

the ethylene is also closely linked to ripening or senessence (sp?). so the dark responses we see are in actual fact merely shade responses. and when a shade response is in activation, auxins are flooded to the part of the plant that needs them. during the night when the whole plant is dark, auxins are flooded to the roots, which is why roots grow during the night and plants stretch... and they flow from the top of the plant to the bottom, elongating the plant as they go.

this is also the reason roots are active at night as the energy/growth hormones are being heavily diverted there...


btw, i said the majority of the auxin hormones are situated in the top of the plant, as this is the main growth tip. obviously they are in other places too. and once darkness falls auxins are flooded through the plant and down to the root tips.


----------



## iloveit (Mar 13, 2009)

Excuse me for my lack of knowledge but what are"Auxins"? I checked in Wikipedia but Id prefer somebody explain it in layman's terms.


----------



## Brick Top (Mar 13, 2009)

iloveit said:


> Excuse me for my lack of knowledge but what are"Auxins"? I checked in Wikipedia but Id prefer somebody explain it in layman's terms.


 

Auxin is a plant hormone that regulates the amount, type, and direction of plant growth.


----------



## iloveit (Mar 13, 2009)

Brick Top said:


> Auxin is a plant hormone that regulates the amount, type, and direction of plant growth.


Are their any methods, chemicals (organic or otherwise) to control it?


----------



## Uncle Ben (Mar 14, 2009)

iloveit said:


> Are their any methods, chemicals (organic or otherwise) to control it?


You can regulate plant growth (which is what hormones do) with synthetic hormones, but such applications are unpredictable. I won't do it.

You can physically change the collection and distribution of auxins and other hormones by topping, etc. See my Topping thread in Advanced.

UB


----------



## iloveit (Mar 14, 2009)

Uncle Ben said:


> You can regulate plant growth (which is what hormones do) with synthetic hormones, but such applications are unpredictable. I won't do it.
> 
> You can physically change the collection and distribution of auxins and other hormones by topping, etc. See my Topping thread in Advanced.
> 
> UB


Thank you.


----------



## eza82 (Mar 15, 2009)

iloveit said:


> Are their any methods, chemicals (organic or otherwise) to control it?


check out thread in sig ; Hormones/ pgrs/ vitimins REASEARCH THEAD ONLY it will give you details.. I LOVE HORMONES!!


----------



## iloveit (Mar 15, 2009)

eza82 said:


> check out thread in sig ; Hormones/ pgrs/ vitimins REASEARCH THEAD ONLY it will give you details.. I LOVE HORMONES!!


? 
sig ; Hormones/ pgrs/ vitimins REASEARCH THEAD ONLY

which category is that in?


----------



## eza82 (Mar 15, 2009)

iloveit said:


> ?
> sig ; Hormones/ pgrs/ vitimins REASEARCH THEAD ONLY
> 
> which category is that in?


signature....


----------



## iloveit (Mar 15, 2009)

eza82 said:


> signature....


 Oh! He he.


----------



## bdonson (Mar 16, 2009)

Hi Uncle Ben 

I haven't been able to get Spin Out unless I buy 2.5 gal @ $65 per gallon but I did order a gallon of MicroKote. I was told that the person who developed it also developed Griffin's SpinOut which was purchased by a company called Sepro. Here is what the MicroKote people have to say. I would appreciate anything you may add Cheers..
*ps info is from www.nipanllc.com*


*MicroKote&#8482; 
Improving micronutrient nutrition and root development


**MicroKote&#8482; is designed to improve nutrition and root development of plants grown in containers. MicroKote contains calcium, copper, iron, magnesium, manganese and zinc bound in a latex coating to provide delayed release of the nutrients when the roots reach the sides of the container. Typically, container-grown plants develop circled and matted roots, a condition known as "root bound". Once transplanted, this can lead to poor root regrowth into the surrounding soil unless the root bound condition is corrected by mechanical root pruning prior to transplanting. Unfortunately, root-pruning causes transplant shock; where up to 80% of the root system can be damaged resulting in slower growth and sometimes death. MicroKote promotes the development of a fibrous root system, which requires little to no mechanical root pruning at transplanting. Other benefits such as improved growth in height, branches, and caliper and flower number due to improved nutrition and fibrous root development can occur. To fully achieve these benefits, the product must be properly applied and used at key stages of nursery production. 

Building a better root system to support better growth**.

Published information on using coatings that contain copper to improve root development has generally focused on using products at one stage of nursery production. As a stand-alone product, MicroKote will not always improve plant growth unless used in at least one shifting or transplanting step. When plants grown in MicroKote-treated containers are transplanted to larger containers, or lined out in the field, the improved root structure supports quicker root regeneration, which ultimately supports better growth. This improved root regeneration results from building a more fibrous root system with more intact root tips that have a higher regeneration potential. MicroKote prevents the "cage root" condition where roots are only present on the outside of the root ball. Instead, the roots explore and utilize all the available potting media. An improvement in root distribution can lead to an improvement in the nutrient status and health of the plant which will support quicker growth when upcanned or transplanted. 

**Start Early

**To maximize the benefits of MicroKote, start early in plant production. MicroKote can be used at any stage of plant development from seedlings and cuttings to large trees in 100-gallon pots. The micronutrients in the coating will improve the health of cuttings supporting a stronger initial flush when transplanted. Improving root development in the propagation phase will greatly reduce the development of girdling roots as the plant ages. Seedlings and cuttings started in treated containers or cell packs, develop fine, fibrous roots with many root tips. This prepares a new plant for better growth compared to plants with sparse, unbranched roots. Cuttings rooted in MicroKote treated pots will also initiate more roots directly from the callus on cuttings. A plant with a more evenly developed root system will be able to support better growth in the nursery and transplant well to the landscape. 

**Time in the container

It is true that a plant can be left in a MicroKote-treated container for a longer period of time compared to non-treated containers. However, MicroKote is NOT a substitute for upcanning. Since plants in MicroKote-treated containers are able to exploit all the soil in a container and utilize a reservoir of micronutrients, it is possible to delay shifting for a few months in most climates. In climates with long growing seasons, this time may be shorter, especially for vigorous species. Plants kept in MicroKote-treated containers past full root development will not grow as quickly when shifted as plants shifted at the proper time. Plants shifted before they become root bound will have the best root regeneration and growth potential. Improved root regeneration combined with multiple growth "flushes" will delay the development of dormant buds until late in the growing season. This growth effect has been demonstrated using red oak seedlings grown under an accelerated program where plants are shifted at an optimum stage*


----------



## bdonson (Mar 16, 2009)

I visited http://www.horticulturespecialties.com/ I talked to a nice guy named Jay who had no problems selling me a gallon of MicroKote. I should have it by this time next week for my next grow.


----------



## Uncle Ben (Mar 17, 2009)

bdonson said:


> Hi Uncle Ben
> 
> I haven't been able to get Spin Out unless I buy 2.5 gal @ $65 per gallon....


Unless you could devvy it up with a bunch of friends, that's alot of money. I noticed that firm has alot of different Spin-Out products, treated pots, fabric, etc.



> .... but I did order a gallon of MicroKote. I was told that the person who developed it also developed Griffin's SpinOut which was purchased by a company called Sepro. Here is what the MicroKote people have to say. I would appreciate anything you may add Cheers..
> *ps info is from www.nipanllc.com*


This is really interesting but I'm confused as to how this product works. It seems to be a nutritional product. Does it also terminate root tips?

UB


----------



## bdonson (Mar 17, 2009)

> This is really interesting but I'm confused as to how this product works. It seems to be a nutritional product. Does it also terminate root tips?
> 
> UB


In Jay's opinion it does the same thing only better. I'll try it on a few pots and let you know. All it takes is time. the Sepro people are kind of a pain in the ass to work with as far as getting small amounts of spinout to use. I would have tried the spinout coated buckets except that I wanted at least the 5 gallon size. According to the label Spinout contains 7.6% Copper Hydroxide as you well know. MicroKote contains 10% copper derived from copper carbonate along with the other trace elements listed. I am not nearly educated enough in plant biology or chemistry to know the difference between the two coppers and how they affect root development.


----------



## Uncle Ben (Mar 17, 2009)

Thanks for the info. I'll check it out.

Copper hydroxide versus carbonate might make a big difference regarding root tip termination effectiveness which is the bottom line.

UB


----------



## born2killspam (Mar 17, 2009)

I really don't think there would be any difference between the actions of those two copper forms.. Neither is really water soluable, so action would be far too slow to notice the pH differences caused by the hydroxide vs carbonate, and root systems are loaded with those ions anyways..


----------



## Uncle Ben (Mar 18, 2009)

born2killspam said:


> I really don't think there would be any difference between the actions of those two copper forms.. Neither is really water soluable, so action would be far too slow to notice the pH differences caused by the hydroxide vs carbonate, and root systems are loaded with those ions anyways..


They both should slough off Cu ions. Griffin's uses the hydroxide form which I would think would be more active than the carbonate form, maybe not. The issue here is whether or not this coating terminates root tips, which is what Griffin's is designed to do. How can you terminate root tips and still translocate nutrional elements? With Griffin's the copper ions reside within one cm of the painted wall and are not translocated into the root as there is no root tissue available at that point to do the translocating. If Cu was translocated the plant might die of Cu toxicity. The root tip enters into the Cu impregnated zone, is terminated which induces secondary and lateral branching behind the tip, reason why the rootball is so fibrous. Check it out, about half way down the page - https://www.rollitup.org/general-marijuana-growing/9114-spin-out-chemical-root-pruning.html

It's "topping" but done underground, chemically not mechanically.

This would take a quick phone call to a tech if you're up to it bdonson.

Tio Bendejo


----------



## bdonson (Mar 18, 2009)

> This would take a quick phone call to a tech if you're up to it bdonson.
> 
> Tio Bendejor


 

Just talked to Jay @ www.horticulturespecialties.com 734-878-1814. Nice guy,, seems to know what he's talking about. In his opinion MicroKote works better than Spinout He says if chemically pruning roots and promoting secondary root growth is the goal then MicroKote will work great. Another big factor is that Jay will sell and ship a gallon at a time. I haven't been able to find anyone to do the same with spinout. Spent over a couple of weeks emailing back and forth with Sepro, finally called and asked to buy a gallon because event Sepro couldn't find anyone to sell me one, was tranferred to a voicemail that never called back. really irritating, still kind of pissed about it. In any event a gallon of Microkote should be here by Monday at the latest. Cheers


----------



## born2killspam (Mar 18, 2009)

Its actually the Cu2+ ions that are doing the work.. I meant carbonate/hydroxide ions are already loaded into the soil..
And they're both roughly equally soluble in water, so its likely that they perform/migrate similarily.. Copper metal itself is MUCH more soluble, thus the risk of copper toxicity.. Ppl use mix a mixture of the two, or one, or the other with paint (Probably latex, but I don't know for sure), and paint the interiors of their greenhouse pots.. 
Most likely this accomplishes the same exact thing as the Griffin's.. Like I said, neither are water solubale so I would expect them to stay relatively in place with no proprietary stabilizer.. I can't say with certainty that Griffin's is as plain jane as a diy concoction, but that claim about the copper not dissolving/migrating, kind of sounds like Dasani advertizing that their bottled water is wet..
I have no qualms with the application though, 'topping' for the roots is a cool way to describe it


----------



## Uncle Ben (Mar 18, 2009)

born2killspam said:


> //// I can't say with certainty that Griffin's is as plain jane as a diy concoction, but that claim about the copper not dissolving/migrating, kind of sounds like Dasani advertizing that their bottled water is wet..


Nope. The copper ions should not migrate past a cm from the painted surface. The last thing you want is them "loaded into the soil." If you don't terminate the root tips, you don't understand the concept.

bdonson, sounds like hooey. I'll give the guy a call.



> Applied to the inside of containers as a coating to provide supplemental micronutrients when media nutrients are depleted. Coating provides Calcium, Magnesium, Manganese, Iron, Copper, and Zinc.




What does the action of copper ions which terminate root tips have to do with nutrition? 

Apples and _orangutans_


----------



## Uncle Ben (Mar 18, 2009)

It's a supplement. 

http://nipanllc.com/_wsn/page2.html


----------



## born2killspam (Mar 18, 2009)

I realize thats what you want.. My point is that the immobility is to be expected with copper hydroxide/carbonate.. They're really insoluble.. Making those stay put is no braggable task, they pretty much do that by themselves..
And I suppose they could toss some more mobile things like micros into the mix.. They could migrate into the soil while the majority of copper in OH/CO3 form would stay put.. I don't know if I'd want micros in that or not.. Alot of ppl have issues with Ca & Mg imbalances as it is.. Too many multitasking garden products are bound to conflict..


----------



## bdonson (Mar 18, 2009)

I'll post some comparison pictures with and without in a few months.. Cheers


----------



## Uncle Ben (Mar 19, 2009)

Doesn't make sense to me for several reasons - 

1. No root tip termination occurs,

2. What is so magical about these elements that any normal plant food (or decent soil) doesn't already provide? It's a given that P supports good root production, but these micros? 

Excuse me but I question the hell out of things before taking the plunge, it's just my nature.  

bdonson, ya gotta do a control group for us, eh.

Good luck,
UB


----------



## bdonson (Mar 19, 2009)

I'm sure it would be better for you, Uncle Ben to talk to Jay at Horticulture Specialties because for starters you two can understand somuch better what each other is saying as well as ask pertinent questions. I have much to learn about plant biology and rely on those more learned for my info. Jay told me that yes it does terminate root ends just like spinout only in his opinion it did a better job. The why or how is beyond my level of understanding at this point. Long story short Please give the guy a call and report back what you think. Yup I'm going to give it a try but I would love to hear your thoughts as well. Plus it seems to be so much more readily available to many of us who would try a gallon instead of a 2 1/2. Cheers.


----------



## Uncle Ben (Mar 19, 2009)

bdonson said:


> I'm sure it would be better for you, Uncle Ben to talk to Jay at Horticulture Specialties because for starters you two can understand somuch better what each other is saying as well as ask pertinent questions. I have much to learn about plant biology and rely on those more learned for my info. Jay told me that yes it does terminate root ends just like spinout only in his opinion it did a better job. The why or how is beyond my level of understanding at this point. Long story short Please give the guy a call and report back what you think. Yup I'm going to give it a try but I would love to hear your thoughts as well. Plus it seems to be so much more readily available to many of us who would try a gallon instead of a 2 1/2. Cheers.


Will do........


----------



## bdonson (Mar 19, 2009)

You know Unk, based on your recomendation I got copy of Jorge's Growers Bible. Sure enough there you are. So much great info. But when I think about all that I've put into this little hobby of mine, trying to grow the sweetest Lizard weed on the planet I think of the person who had it all together when he spaeketh the famous words and I quote " Hey, It's just a fucking weed". LMAO every time. Cheers ps. got to go check my ph and then water.


----------



## Uncle Ben (Mar 20, 2009)

bdonson said:


> You know Unk, based on your recomendation I got copy of Jorge's Growers Bible. Sure enough there you are. So much great info.


Thanks, but not everything Jorge has in that book is 100% accurate but all in all it's a great book. For example if you take a look at what he said Griffin's does, he got it all wrong. Root tips do not turn up. I wrote him about it. At least he got my photos right.  The section on lighting is worth the price of the book. It's the most comprehensive chapter I've ever seen, and the real life tests are great. Jorge was cool enough to autograph the book before it was released and mail it to me free gratis. 



> But when I think about all that I've put into this little hobby of mine, trying to grow the sweetest Lizard weed on the planet I think of the person who had it all together when he spaeketh the famous words and I quote " Hey, It's just a fucking weed". LMAO every time. Cheers ps. got to go check my ph and then water.


Keep dem fuckin' weeds happy, ya hear!

Tio


----------



## bdonson (Mar 30, 2009)

Okay I got my gallon of MicroKote and painted all my 1gallon pots except one. great looking stuff, easy to apply, latex so easy to cleanup as well. I should get an idea of how well it's going to work when I transplant to 5 gallon buckets. 1gallon cost me less than $70 including shipping. 1 gallon will last me for years.


----------



## Brick Top (Mar 30, 2009)

born2killspam said:


> I realize thats what you want.. My point is that the immobility is to be expected with copper hydroxide/carbonate.. They're really insoluble.. Making those stay put is no braggable task, they pretty much do that by themselves..
> And I suppose they could toss some more mobile things like micros into the mix.. They could migrate into the soil while the majority of copper in OH/CO3 form would stay put.. I don't know if I'd want micros in that or not.. Alot of ppl have issues with Ca & Mg imbalances as it is.. Too many multitasking garden products are bound to conflict..


 
If you have any concerns you can always use one of the different types of pots that basically do the same thing just in a different way. Like the Rootmaker pot that air-prunes roots. The way it is done is different than using chemicals but the result is the same. 

I will not say if one is better or more efficient but the same general action is performed so there are options to chemicals if someone has concerns about any imbalance occurring of possibly even health concerns.


----------



## born2killspam (Mar 30, 2009)

I have no qualms paying BIG bucks for anything that returns the investment, but only if a really cheap solution doesn't do as good a job.. I can make loads of copper hydroxide..


----------



## Uncle Ben (Mar 31, 2009)

I am real skeptical about containers that use air to root-tip prune as the right RH conditions must be present for this method to be effective. Roots are tenacious and will keep on growing and only die off as a last resort due to low RH.


----------



## pothed1 (May 13, 2009)

natmoon said:


> LOL i have many years of exp of basically growing untechnically in mud,many people here i am sure know a damn site more than me.
> 
> One thing i do know is how to grow a great plant from a pot of mud and about helping to keep plants healthy and trained for your situation,i am fairly good at identifying problems with the plants as i have had so many problems myself over the years.
> 
> ...


dude exepert or not u cud defintly help me lol im a new soil growa and was have transpanted once in to 10inch by 10inch pots. i dnt no hw many litrs that is...im in 4th week of flowering and just noticed that roots are showing at the bottom ....is it too late to transplant??? do i need to transplant??? plants r betwen 3 n 4 feet tall indica supe skunk ... 250 wat hps on 5 girls...any help wud be much appreciated


----------



## johnnysacoseeds (May 14, 2009)

born2killspam said:


> ... I can make loads of copper hydroxide..


How do you do that?


----------



## born2killspam (May 14, 2009)

Electrolysis of water with copper electrodes is easiest.. NaOH/KOH would be the best electrolyte, but baking soda would also be fine.. It will form as a blue-green precipitate.. (Green addition would actually be copper carbonate..
In anycase, if its in precipitate form in unsaturated water then it should stay immobile if mixed into a latex paint..


----------



## johnnysacoseeds (May 14, 2009)

Time to do some studying. Thanks for the direction!


----------



## skunkushybrid01 (Sep 12, 2009)

I've also since accomplished this same experiment in a 500ml bubbler.

Part 2 will be explosive.


----------



## skunkushybrid01 (Feb 1, 2010)

SWC_SoG...


----------



## StlSoldier531 (Nov 9, 2011)

Pot size DOES NOT matter 

I just to show that HUGE plants can be grown in small containers ...

Not my plant by the way .. it was a random pic I came across and I thought about this thread when I saw it


----------



## Uncle Ben (Nov 9, 2011)

StlSoldier531 said:


> Pot size DOES NOT matter
> 
> I just to show that HUGE plants can be grown in small containers ...
> 
> Not my plant by the way .. it was a random pic I came across and I thought about this thread when I saw it


Huge plants can be grown in small containers, that's not the issue. Doesn't mean the plant's full potential could not have been realized in a larger container. There's a lot of yellowing fan leaves in the shot shown. 

UB


----------



## StlSoldier531 (Nov 9, 2011)

Uncle Ben said:


> Huge plants can be grown in small containers, that's not the issue. Doesn't mean the plant's full potential could not have been realized in a larger container. There's a lot of yellowing fan leaves in the shot shown.
> 
> UB


1.) Yellowing leaves are not a bad thing when a plant is close to harvest because the plant isn't growing anymore and it is about to DIE anyways .. lol .. Green leaves up to the Harvest date are good but are NOT needed .. besides .. there are like 12 yellowing leaves (most of the others are still green) .. and how many leaves are on the whole plant?? Easily a 1000 or more ... and that plant is close to the end of the season ..

2.) Flushing a plant a few weeks before harvest will cause leaves to turn Yellow because the plant begins to use the remaining nutrients inside of it's leaves when there are no more nutrients in the root zone .. This also causes stress to the plant which can cause it to produce MORE trichs .. 

3.) FULL POTENTIAL??!! A plant reaching it's full potential involves A LOT more than a specific Pot size .. Even plants grown in ground under full sun light do not always reach their full potential .. lol .. I have seen SMALL plants that are UNHEALTHY in LARGE pots, and have also seen plants in small pots that are BIG, HEALTHY and HAPPY .. any experienced grower will tell you that .. and if you have eyes you can clearly see that example just by searching the forums, doing grows and talking to other growers .. Environment plays the BIGGEST part in "FULL POTENTIAL" .. you as a grower should know that much .. 

So STOP TROLLING!!!


----------



## StlSoldier531 (Nov 9, 2011)

I'm not trying to attack you but .. WHAT WAS THE POINT OF YOUR COMMENT??


----------



## Uncle Ben (Nov 10, 2011)

StlSoldier531 said:


> 1.) Yellowing leaves are not a bad thing when a plant is close to harvest


Don't fall for the bullshit. Yellowing leaves is a grower problem usually brought on by low N bloom foods.



> 2.) Flushing a plant a few weeks before harvest will cause leaves to turn Yellow because the plant begins to use the remaining nutrients inside of it's leaves when there are no more nutrients in the root zone .. This also causes stress to the plant which can cause it to produce MORE trichs ..


Flushing is another stupid noob paradigm. Give me some real proof of any "MORE trichs". Trike production is relative to a healthy plant and genetics. Stress is not a good thing if it affects carbo production via the process of photosynthesis. A yellow leaf is a non-productive leaf.....period.



> 3.) FULL POTENTIAL??!! A plant reaching it's full potential involves A LOT more than a specific Pot size .. Even plants grown in ground under full sun light do not always reach their full potential .. lol .. I have seen SMALL plants that are UNHEALTHY in LARGE pots, and have also seen plants in small pots that are BIG, HEALTHY and HAPPY .. any experienced grower will tell you that .. and if you have eyes you can clearly see that example just by searching the forums, doing grows and talking to other growers .. Environment plays the BIGGEST part in "FULL POTENTIAL" .. you as a grower should know that much ..
> 
> So STOP TROLLING!!!


Go tell your friend that if he wants to use small pots then he should use a complete food like Dyna-Gro and or something like Rootmaker pots. This might help. http://riddlem3.com/index.php/topic,3838.msg70114.html#new

UB


----------



## StlSoldier531 (Nov 10, 2011)

> Don't fall for the bullshit. Yellowing leaves is a grower problem usually brought on by low N bloom foods.


I agree .. lol .. But those plants were a roughly a month away from being harvested .. if those 12 yellowing leaves were green instead of yellow .. I don't think the yield would have been much different



> Flushing is another stupid noob paradigm. Give me some real proof of any "MORE trichs". Trike production is relative to a healthy plant and genetics. Stress is not a good thing if it affects carbo production via the process of photosynthesis. A yellow leaf is a non-productive leaf.....period.


Again I agree .. a yellowing leaf is not productive .. but again those are OLD plants .. NOT young seedlings in the vegetative stage .. leaves at that age and that close to harvest do not have as much use anymore .. the end yield would have been the same even if they were all green .. maybe he could have gotten a couple of grams more .. lol .. but when we are talking about a 1 pound plant .. a few grams doesn't make a difference 



> Go tell your friend that if he wants to use small pots then he should use a complete food like Dyna-Gro and or something like Rootmaker pots. This might help.


Agreed!! Root pruning pots are extremely effective ... 

And I will have to check out that Dyna-gro and see how good it is .. I personally have never used the stuff .. but .. I like to try NEW things 

The point I am making is .. Smaller pots have the advantage of using less medium which is the reason some like to use them instead of larger pots .. and in case you haven't checked recently .. Soil is very very expensive these days .. lol ..
BIG plant + Less soil = Better 
Same size plant + larger pot + more money spent = BAD


----------



## Uncle Ben (Nov 10, 2011)

You need to learn some basic botany. Yield is directly affected by the quality of the root system and foliage. THC content and cannabanoid profile is dependent on getting a plant to a certain stage of development, late. If you aint got a bunch of healthy green leaves close to or at harvest, it aint gonna happen. You'll end up with ditch weed quality.

Big Bud and other "cannabis specific" bloom crap aint gonna do it either. In fact, such foods actually work against the grower, but don't tell anybody. 

I don't buy commercial potting soil so I wouldn't know how much it costs...... not that cost is an issue. If you can't afford another 3 bucks to fill up a 5 or 7 gallon pot rather than a 3........

Don't get me wrong, those are beautiful plants and who doesn't like eye candy but they are far from harvest. Rather than using a cherry picked photo I'd like to see what they looked like at harvest. The guy made a poor call regarding his choice of pot size.

UB


----------



## StlSoldier531 (Nov 10, 2011)

Uncle Ben said:


> You need to learn some basic botany. Yield is directly affected by the quality of the root system and foliage. THC content and cannabanoid profile is dependent on getting a plant to a certain stage of development, late. If you aint got a bunch of healthy green leaves close to or at harvest, it aint gonna happen. You'll end up with ditch weed quality.
> UB


I thought THC content was dependent on genetics ... I mean YES .. Health of the plant is a factor .. but if that was the only factor then why are growers constantly looking for a "potent" strain to grow .. lol .. why not just grow any strain??


----------



## Phaeton (Nov 10, 2011)

I am not arguing a case here, this is just what happened with my strain in my climate.

I have grown 17 oz plants in 3 gallons of rockwool. I did this a few times and then started bringing the plant size down. Quality changed, plant health changed, things grew different.
I played with it, been growing since 1998 and have lots of room, kids are gone. Anyway, I tried lots and lots of combo's and a few things stayed the same.

Sativa, the strain I grow, develops health annoyances when yield exceeds 3 oz per gallon of rockwool. Obviously the plants don't quit as I grew over 5 oz/gallon for awhile. But the plants are more stable and keep those green leaves right through cut time with that ratio.

I was so careful in the wording there because I aquired an indica that those numbers do not fit, still working them out.


----------



## Uncle Ben (Nov 10, 2011)

StlSoldier531 said:


> I thought THC content was dependent on genetics ... I mean YES .. Health of the plant is a factor .. but if that was the only factor then why are growers constantly looking for a "potent" strain to grow .. lol .. why not just grow any strain??


Since when is a "strain" any better regarding culture or potency than bagweed? You keep falling for the profit and romance-the-weed motivated hype.......


----------



## cannawizard (Nov 10, 2011)

*bagseed = random phenos from unknown genos (buying expensive commercialized "strains" doesnt ensure squat; its a gamble either way)


----------



## Uncle Ben (Nov 11, 2011)

It is a gamble. You just have to learn to handle the different phenotypes that will come with that packet of 10.


----------



## skunkushybrid01 (Dec 9, 2011)

Nice to see this thread still going...

I have i think 3 years experience growing plants in 4" pots now... i keep mother plants in them and grow plants from seed through to full harvest in a 4" pot. I think that there may be some loss to a plant's capacity to bush out during veg when roots are constricted and it may slow down growth a tad, but i used extremes. growing a seed plant through to full harvest in a 4" pot is pretty extreme i think and barely manageable with twice daily waterings. the smaller the medium the harder it is to maintain too, you need to be far more aware of salt build ups.... too many salts will slow K transport and this hurts yield. you may not even see it, plants look great, but the salts in the medium slow K transport and plants respond by producing less flowers to compensate. I know that plants take from the stores in the leaves... but there is a balance that must be achieved if a plant is to grow at full potential. there needs to be an adequate supply at the root zone or the plant will respond by slowing growth.

The roots job is nutrient transport, root mass is not so important in the grand scheme of things, if there is a loss to growth then it is minimal... from my own grows and those of people like fdd and the other guy that posted the pic a few posts back, we've all seen that cannabis doesn't seem to suffer from root bound. Seems to have an intelligent root system... a root system capable of changing the pH by a whole point, a system capable of rejecting nutrients, a system capable of shutting down whole sections at a time yet still run at full capacity.

Honestly, what I got from it was an economical way of growing... a single bag of coco 50litres would see me through 3 grows, grows of an lb each and more. A lot of the time i grew SoG, but i also grew plenty of seed plants too, both straight to 12/12 and with a 4 week veg, etc, etc... also done hydro. I grew a 3/4oz plant in a hydroponic set up with a root space of just 500ml, around a pint. It's good to push the limits, and doing that shows people that they don't need to get a 7 gallon container and veg a seed plant for 4 weeks before flip... just overkill. 

I'm going back to large plants and 1 gallon containers now... lol. 1 gallon is large to me. 14 seed plants... 2 bags of coco, OMFG!


----------



## Uncle Ben (Dec 10, 2011)

Root mass is everything. It is the foundation that the plant builds on and from.


----------



## skunkushybrid01 (Dec 10, 2011)

Uncle Ben said:


> Root mass is everything. It is the foundation that the plant builds on and from.


I don't see how that is possible when the plant continues growing regardless of root mass. if what you are saying is true, then restricting the root mass to a specific area would result in a plant only growing so big... and yet, i have had a 6ft plant in a 4" pot. I noticed minimal differences growing a seed plant in a 4" pot through to full harvest and that of a similar plant in a 1 or even 2 gallon container.

the roots are just a part of the plant and in evolutionary terms actually came second. so you could argue that the plant is the foundation the roots are built on and from, which is exactly the case. Place the stem of a plant in the dark and it will turn to root. the leaves and stems are just as capable of absorbing nutrients, atmospherically. Indeed it is possible to feed and perhaps even water a plant bypassing the root system completely.


----------



## Uncle Ben (Dec 11, 2011)

I'll try this again.......

If a plant does not receive water and nourishing salts, it dies. If the plant is in a large root tip pruning type pot whereby a very large network of fine roots with thousands of roothairs are produced, it can then grow to it fullest potential. 

Just because you are fixated on small pots doesn't mean you're giving your plants the best conditions.

Leaves are not functionally capable of the efficient uptake of water and salts as are roots, by design.

UB


----------



## skunkushybrid01 (Dec 11, 2011)

Uncle Ben said:


> Leaves are not functionally capable of the efficient uptake of water and salts as are roots, by design.
> 
> UB


leaves may not be capable of taking water and nutrients from the ground, which is why plants invented roots... but they're certainly capable of taking atmospheric nitrogen in the form of various nitrogen oxides, and also foliar applied nitrogen too. Plants can also take atmospheric sulfur and utilise it. If all nutrients are provided in a foliar feed then this is even more effective than feeding through the roots. foliar feeding is often used to bring an under fertilised plant back quickly... 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foliar_feeding

The water thing is up in the air, but there are plenty of species of plants that survive just fine utilising water gained from morning dew and rains. It would be an interesting experiment to try and feed both water and nutrients, by-passing the root system completely.


----------



## skunkushybrid01 (Dec 12, 2011)

If we also look to aeroponics... aeroponic growers regualrly grow huge beasts of plants, 8oz per plant is not unusual... and the root balls of those plants are very tiny in comparison to similar soil-grown plants. The plant literally does not need to grow an extensive root system as everything is provided for it.

You can mimic this same thing in coco or soil by growing in a more restrictive space. So long as everything is provided, water, nutrients and upward support then the plant does not need an extensive root system. Obviously in a plant's natural habitat iot needs an extensive root system because of competition for nutrients. Tame the plant and you can also tame the root system. Just like with pigs, plants have a certain degree of adaptation, once we bring the plant indoors or even place it into a pot outdoors we are taking control of that plant's world, looking after it, mothering it... and plants will lose the wildness, particularly an intelligent (highly adaptive) plant like cannabis.

I'm not suggesting for one second that growers go the extremes i have these past 4 years. I thought it was only three, but the start of this thread dates back 4 years. If you're going to veg' a seed plant for 4 weeks then i'd suggest you use 1/2 gallon containers, certainly no larger than 1 gallon. Using containers that are too large results in huge wastes of medium, water and nutrients. I'd also suggest that you pot up a stage at a time, purely to avoid waste of materials.


----------



## Evil Buddies (Dec 16, 2011)

you to getting deep man hheheheehe it's nice to follow the discussion and good to see u back skunkushy hope your good


----------



## skunkushybrid01 (Dec 16, 2011)

Blast from the past.... good to see you again EB.


----------



## Uncle Ben (Dec 17, 2011)

skunkushybrid01 said:


> leaves may not be capable of taking water and nutrients from the ground, which is why plants invented roots... but they're certainly capable of taking atmospheric nitrogen in the form of various nitrogen oxides, and also foliar applied nitrogen too. Plants can also take atmospheric sulfur and utilise it. If all nutrients are provided in a foliar feed then this is even more effective than feeding through the roots. foliar feeding is often used to bring an under fertilised plant back quickly...
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foliar_feeding
> 
> The water thing is up in the air, but there are plenty of species of plants that survive just fine utilising water gained from morning dew and rains. It would be an interesting experiment to try and feed both water and nutrients, by-passing the root system completely.


Again, it's an issue of efficiency. If you want to provide all your plant's nutrition via the leaves, good luck.

Given a properly aerated/structured soil, plants grown outdoors in the ground will always be more robust, healthier and productive than plants grown in small pots. Dr. Carl Whitcomb, horticulturist, professor and inventor didn't design his RootMaker line of containers based on whims expressed by gimmick addicted stoners. His methods and container materials are based on basic botanical principles after years of research. I'm currently using his Rootbuilder material and have used Griffin's Spin-Out to increase root mass for increased water and salts uptake. Daniels has an excellent thread going on Rootmaker products. http://riddlem3.com/index.php/topic,4357.0.html



> Dr. Carl Whitcomb, Inventor
> 
> Dr. Whitcomb, inventor of Rootmaker® Products, holds a Ph.D. from Iowa State University and was a professor at Oklahoma State University for 13 years. An expert on plant root systems, he has been published in hundreds of trade and technical magazines. He is the author of four books, including "Know It and Grow It" and "Plant Production in Containers."
> 
> ...


UB


----------



## skunkushybrid01 (Dec 17, 2011)

Uncle Ben said:


> Again, it's an issue of efficiency. If you want to provide all your plant's nutrition via the leaves, good luck.


I'm not sure I understand exactly what you mean by this statement. Are you saying it is less efficient to feed a plant through the leaves? If so, can you explain in what way? Just making a statement like that without an explanation makes the statement redundant.



Uncle Ben said:


> Given a properly aerated/structured soil, plants grown outdoors in the ground will always be more robust, healthier and productive than plants grown in small pots.


What do you mean by small pot in relation to the ground? by definition, any pot would be small compared to the ground.

i've seen plenty of outdoor plants that look like shit. Travel to scotland or anywhere in Northern England and find me a good outdoor plant. It doesn't happen, can't even grow potent weed in this country anyway... It doesn't have anything to do with soil, or roots... it's the light and food that are important with plant growth. 




Uncle Ben said:


> Dr. Carl Whitcomb, horticulturist, professor and inventor didn't design his RootMaker line of containers based on whims expressed by gimmick addicted stoners. His methods and container materials are based on basic botanical principles after years of research. I'm currently using his Rootbuilder material and have used Griffin's Spin-Out to increase root mass for increased water and salts uptake.
> 
> UB


hard to take seriously a guy making money from products based on his own 'research'. Biased perhaps? How about some information from this guy.. bit lonely in this post just mentioning his name and products with no other facts that are included in the books of his you've read.

Plants make roots on their own. give them enough light and enough nutrition, and the roots will grow as a natural course. Most of the nutrients the plant needs for growth are left stored in the roots and the rest of the plant, because the plant can only grow so much based on the relationship of everything in the environment. Plants work very hard to keep nutrients out, and to only let in what they need for actual growth. increasing the root mass will not increase upward growth. how can it? The only way that can work is in a natural environment, because the root system needs to travel to find nutrients, this is where the misnomer comes from. Yes, outdoors, in the wild, a larger root sytem is needed, obviously to locate nutrients in an attempt to keep up with the growth promoted by light, but if you contain the root system, therefore taming it, then a much smaller root system can achieve the same work of an outdoor big one. This is also obvious when you take the fact that plants are capable of shutting down entire sections of the root system and still grow with 100% efficiency.

roots will grow regardless, make the space big enough and they will attempt to fill it. If you like lots of roots then that is fine, i suppose if they make you feel better than who am I to tell you different? I just know different. I haven't just grown in 4" pots and i also haven't just experiemnted in this area with coco, i've also done hydro too. 

I'm aware that I could be blinded by my efficient use of space and materials and have gone back to 1 gallon containers for a grow. If i veg for 4 weeks and only achieve one oz per plant then i will go back to 4" containers and do the same thing. I see no difference aside from having to be aware of medium management... although i've also reveg'ed plants and harvested them a second time all in the same 4" pot. Plenty of other growers can achieve the same thing too and have done since.

All a plant needs is a root system capable of pulling enough nutrients to support upward growth. A guy with a small mouth can be fatter than a guy with a big one. It's not about how much you take in one bite, it's how much you take period.


----------



## skunkushybrid01 (Dec 18, 2011)

What I'm doing here is called root restriction. Ths is very much the same as air pruning, which is bullshit anyway. You don't need to air prune the roots as the roots from a restricted root system are more highly active than a lesser restricted system. I agree that plants will grow smaller, but they will still yield the same. This is my whole point, the crux of it all. It comes down to yield for me. 



> *ROOT RESTRICTION OF APPLE AND PEACH WITH IN-GROUND FABRIC CONTAINERS*
> 
> 
> *Author:*S.C. Myers*Abstract:*
> ...





> Fruiting and nonfruiting `Washington' peach trees were grown in 2.4 (small) or 9-liter (large) containers to determine the influence of root confinement and fruiting on vegetative growth, fruit growth and quality, CO, assimilation (A), and carbohydrate content. Shoot length, fruit diameter, A, and leaf carbohydrates were measured weekly. Thirteen weeks after transplanting, trees were divided into roots, shoots, leaves, and fruit for dry weight measurement. The dry weight of all organs except fruit was reduced by root confinement, and only the weight of stems formed the previous season was not reduced by fruiting. Fruit dry weight was 30.0 g/tree for large- and small-container treatments, causing the yield efficiency (g fruit/g total dry wt) to be 50% higher for confined trees. Fruit red color, weight, and diameter were unaffected by root confinement, but higher flesh firmness and a more green ground color of the fruit surface from root-confined trees suggested that confinement delayed maturity. Vegetative growth was not reduced by lack of nonstructural carbohydrates in confined trees. A was reduced by root confinement on only the first of 11 measurement dates, whereas fruiting increased A on 5 of 8 measurement dates before fruit harvest. Fruit removal reduced A by 23% and 31% for nonconfined and confined trees, respectively, within 48 h of harvest. Leaf starch, sucrose, sorbitol, and total carbohydrate levels were negatively correlated with A when data were pooled, but inconsistent responses of A to carbohydrate content indicated that factors other than feedback inhibition were also responsible for the reduction in A on nonfruited trees. We hypothesized that a physiological signal originating in roots of confined trees reduced vegetativegrowth without reducing fruit growth.
> http://journal.ashspublications.org/content/120/2/228.short


Indeed too, you speak of root air pruning when this is very often mentioned in the same sentence as root restriction. Air pruning is just another method of root mass restriction. whether you bind the roots or cut them off it's all the same thing.


----------



## thc&me (Dec 18, 2011)

I believe that root mass (albeit healthy) is directly related to harvest weight. It really depends on how you choose to grow. If you're growing SOG than root mass is not really important, but for growers who have limitations placed on how many plants they can grow, root mass will be crucial. I've actually measured and compared root ball diameters between my plants and found that the larger the root system the greater the yield.


----------



## Uncle Ben (Dec 18, 2011)

skunkushybrid01 said:


> I'm not sure I understand exactly what you mean by this statement.


I gave you a link bozo. 



> Air pruning is just another method of root mass restriction. whether you bind the roots or cut them off it's all the same thing.


Wrong, has nothing to do with restriction, quite the opposite. Do your homework. 

UB


----------



## skunkushybrid01 (Dec 19, 2011)

Uncle Ben said:


> I gave you a link bozo.


I checked the link. it leads to a site that you need to be a member of to view the thread... and i have no intention of making an account just to look at some guy's thread. If you have anything real to share then please do. here is that question again:
* Are you saying it is less efficient to feed a plant through the leaves? If so, can you explain in what way?*




Uncle Ben said:


> Wrong, has nothing to do with restriction, quite the opposite. Do your homework.
> 
> UB


I have done my homework, obviously a heap more than you have as you seem to concentrate in one area and on one man, yet struggle too to provide any substantial information for me to digest. You go from mentioning one guy to mentioning another... You take the time to respond yet fail to provide anything substantial. What I read sticks in my head and i have no problem reiterating that information in my own words. Your words promise much and deliver nothing. I'm disappointed as I've been trying to prove myself wrong for a few years now.. this is why i've gone back to big pots for a grow. I just need to see it one more time.

I like the reading though too... i tend to do things myself first and then find the explanations for what i'm seeing. Just like anybody else though I could be wrong, making connections that are not there based on other connections that are loose fitting, etc, etc...


Pruning the roots or trimming them is still just a way of maintaining a certain-sized root system, or restricting it. As i've stated, there are many journals out there where root pruning is mentioned as just another system of root restriction. Although I will agree that there are separate repercussions from one or the other. With root pruning for example the plants are encouraged to build new roots, concentrate on new root growth... whereas actually just constricting the roots encourages the plant to utilise that system more intensely. It is documented that a constricted root system will increase efficiency to compensate for being smaller.


----------



## Uncle Ben (Dec 19, 2011)

skunkushybrid01 said:


> I checked the link. it leads to a site that you need to be a member of to view the thread... and i have no intention of making an account just to look at some guy's thread. If you have anything real to share then please do. here is that question again:


Hard headedness leads to ignorance.



> * Are you saying it is less efficient to feed a plant through the leaves? If so, can you explain in what way?*


Are you kidding me? Of course it's less efficient. Leaves don't have root hairs, there are no nutrients in the air. Someone needs to learn something about mama natur's ecosystem and botany. I'm not here to spoon feed anyone.

*Root tip* termination aka "root pruning" via air or copper hydroxide is not restricting shit, apples and oranges. Root TIP pruning induces a massive output of fine roots which results in 10 times the potential uptake of water and nutrients based on a 4" rule that applies to root output and elongation, as explained by Dr. Carl Whitcomb.  You need to register at Riddle and read the thread if you're truly interested in getting an education, or at least get a book on indoor plant culture.

Here, I'll spoon feed you one time....that's all the patience I have...

https://www.rollitup.org/general-marijuana-growing/9114-spin-out-chemical-root-pruning.html


----------



## skunkushybrid01 (Dec 19, 2011)

Uncle Ben said:


> Hard headedness leads to ignorance.


and you say this because i refuse to make a whole account for something you could cut n paste (as you obviously struggle yourself)? I'm prepared to learn, you're just having difficulty sharing. If you know it you will say it in your own words, if you don't cut n paste it... wtf?





Uncle Ben said:


> Are you kidding me? Of course it's less efficient. Leaves don't have root hairs, there are no nutrients in the air. Someone needs to learn something about mama natur's ecosystem and botany. I'm not here to spoon feed anyone.


Obviously leaves don't have root hairs, by definition a root hair would need to be on a root unless it fell off and landed on a leaf, then a leaf could have a root hair. This is how you explain why it is less efficient to foliar feed? LOL. Sorry, I really don't mean to be rude, unlike yourself I might add. I'm laughing because you haven't explained a thing with that statement. Leaves have stomata that exchange gases... yes? Here's that metaphorical spoon, now open your mouth... wider... our atmosphere is not just made up of oxygen, indeed it is mostly nitrogen. That nitrogen comes in lots of different forms of gasses or oxides that are exchangable at the leaf stomata. 



> By monitoring the disappearance of ammonia from an airstream flowing through a small growth chamber containing a single plant seedling, it was discovered that plant leaves absorb significant quantities of ammonia from the air, even at naturally occurring low atmospheric concentrations. The measured absorption rates of ammonia showed large diurnal fluctuations and varied somewhat among species, but differed little with the nitrogen fertility level of plants within a species.





> Thirty-day-old corn seedlings, grown in the greenhouse with different concentrations of supplemental nitrate nitrogen, were moved to a constant-temperature growth chamber and sealed in a 560-liter tent made of polyvinyl chloride. The plants were exposed to air containing ammonia labeled with nitrogen-15 (1, 10, and 20 parts per million) for 24 hours and then harvested. The nitrogen-15 content of the tops and roots showed that at 1 part per million 43 percent of the ammonia was absorbed, whereas at 10 and 20 parts per million, 30 percent of the ammonia was absorbed. The results demonstrate that growing plants may be a natural sink for atmospheric ammonia.


Here's that spoon again... do you know what the composition of ammonia is? I'll give you a clue, it contains nitrogen... 



> Soils and plants can absorb more S than is brought down in rain (Johansson, 1960). Much of the S absorbed from the air by light sandy soils (Mann, 1955) during the autumn, winter and spring is lost by leaching and only that absorbed by soil during crop growth can be used. * The crop can also absorb atmospheric S directly through the leaves; the amounts may be larger than soils supply when crops have a leaf-area index larger than 1 (Olsen, 1957; Spedding, 1969).*


LOL... you reading that shit, open wide now... a plant can actually absorb more S from the air than through the root zone in the right conditions.

i'm just getting started, but you're not giving me enough ammo... shall I move onto chlorine? You do know chlorine is an essential plant nutrient? Do you know plants absorb it from the atmosphere? Course you don't. If you did you wouldn't go around making stupid statements like there are no nutrients in the air. info is on the scholar pages, know what they are? course not, they're not trying to sell you anything to make your grow better. LOL


Uncle Ben said:


> *Root tip* termination aka "root pruning" via air or copper hydroxide is not restricting shit, apples and oranges.


It is restricting root mass. The roots come out and are air pruned, therefore not allowing the root system to grow past a certain soze, ergo restricting it. root pruning has been used for centuries in bonsai techniques.




Uncle Ben said:


> Root TIP pruning induces a massive output of fine roots which results in 10 times the potential uptake of water and nutrients based on a 4" rule that applies to root output and elongation, as explained by Dr. Carl Whitcomb. You need to register at Riddle and read the thread if you're truly interested in getting an education, or at least get a book on indoor plant culture.


This still explains nothing, based on a 4" rule? a 4" rule that means what? and how does this mean the plant responds with better growth? LOL
so you have no idea yourself how it really works you're just taking the doctors word for it. OK i see that, that's cool... just don't spoon feed me crap. substantial shit only please, or GTFO.


----------



## grapeoptimo (Dec 19, 2011)

if u quit being so rude u will get a better response.


----------



## mccumcumber (Dec 20, 2011)

RAM (root apical meristem) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meristem, check it out.


----------



## skunkushybrid01 (Dec 20, 2011)

mccumcumber said:


> RAM (root apical meristem) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meristem, check it out.


I already know all that. what is your point in posting that link?


----------



## 5000joints (Dec 20, 2011)

Hi guys. Ive been growing for years. The best way for me is this..... Veg under both a MH and an HPS. That will promote great root growth and thick stems with short internode lengths. I put the germinated seeds into Solo Cups. Once they reach about 5-6 inches tall, I t/p into 1 gallon pots. After a week I top them. This promotes secondary root systems. Once the plants show sex, I t/p into 3 gallon buckets. I switch to all HPS lamps. Where they ride out the remaining time under HPS lamps. I have grown in 1 gallon buckets and dont get nearly the yield from the 3's. I may get a quicker harvest from less veg time, Its alot more buckets to fill the space which means alot more work checking moisture levels all day on 120 1 gallon buckets. 

Pic 1 n' 2 is the seedling getting t/ped into a 1 gallon.
Pic 3 - A seedling 1 week after the t/p.
Pic 4 - Another healthy root system in a Solo Cup.
Pic 5 - A G-Force ( which yields huge ) in a 1 gallon bucket.
Pic 6 - This is when I t/p them. The ph can fluctuate badly in a small container. The single leaf turns yellow and its time.
Pic 7 - Rapid growth after the t/p.
Pic 8 - Healthy roots and room to grow mean thick healthy stems to support the fruits.
Pic 9 - The proof is in the pudding. Heres a Purps x Mass.Super Skunk grown in FFOF soil in a 3 gallon bucket under a 600w HPS.
............................BIG HEALTHY ROOTS = BIG HEALTHY FRUITS..........................................................................


----------



## Uncle Ben (Dec 20, 2011)

5000joints said:


> Hi guys. Ive been growing for years. The best way for me is this..... Veg under both a MH and an HPS. That will promote great root growth and thick stems with short internode lengths. I put the germinated seeds into Solo Cups. Once they reach about 5-6 inches tall, I t/p into 1 gallon pots. After a week I top them. This promotes secondary root systems. Once the plants show sex, I t/p into 3 gallon buckets. I switch to all HPS lamps. Where they ride out the remaining time under HPS lamps. I have grown in 1 gallon buckets and dont get nearly the yield from the 3's. I may get a quicker harvest from less veg time, Its alot more buckets to fill the space which means alot more work checking moisture levels all day on 120 1 gallon buckets.
> 
> Pic 1 n' 2 is the seedling getting t/ped into a 1 gallon.
> Pic 3 - A seedling 1 week after the t/p.
> ...


Nice job. 

Some tips. Germinate in taller pots, like 20 oz Styro-cups. Deal with the spin out by using Rootmaker injection molded pots to increase root mass and of course yield.

Good luck,
UB


----------



## skunkushybrid01 (Dec 20, 2011)

4" pots...


----------



## genuity (Dec 20, 2011)

skunkushybrid01 said:


> 4" pots...


whats the grow style on these?


----------



## skunkushybrid01 (Dec 20, 2011)

genuity said:


> whats the grow style on these?


I like to grow to around 2-2.5ft, but have no problems growing up to 4ft plants in them if from seed. 

I like SoG for the most part as that is the most efficient grow method which is why my plants don't branch out as i tend to cramp in as many as I can. or did, i shut down my op a couple months ago and have gone back to large (1 gallon) pots for a grow just to see if i'm wrong. also got a couple hydro plants growing but they're in 5 gallons. I can growin anything and with any method, i switch up to suit whatever.


----------



## 5000joints (Dec 20, 2011)

Wow SkunKusHybrid. Great job. Who would of thought.


----------



## 5000joints (Dec 20, 2011)

Thanx for the tip Uncle Ben. I use 20 oz Solo Cups. R the styrofoam ones taller? Ill check it out. The Rootmaker needs its own mix. Kind of a downfall for me. Plus it needs a tray 20 inches above ground level. Another minus for me. They look great. I bet it works fantastic with fantastic results. But for me, I like to just fill with FFOF soil from start to finish. Its really easy for me to manage 100 seedlings in the cups for 2 weeks, then t/p into 1's. The money spent on the pots and holding trays for just the 2 weeks in them just doesnt seem worth the cost at this time for me but thanx for the h/u when I do have the extra dough.


----------



## mccumcumber (Dec 20, 2011)

Knowledge of the RAM explains why UB is suggesting his pots. You are in a sense constantly training your roots so they never "get big and useless." It's the equivalent of topping your SAM. The copper at the edge of the pot cause the root growth to become less linear and the secondary root apical meristems start to take over the growth.


----------



## skunkushybrid01 (Dec 20, 2011)

mccumcumber said:


> Knowledge of the RAM explains why UB is suggesting his pots. You are in a sense constantly training your roots so they never "get big and useless." It's the equivalent of topping your SAM. The copper at the edge of the pot cause the root growth to become less linear and the secondary root apical meristems start to take over the growth.


Yet those roots will not do anything unless the rest of the environment makes the equation work. If the environment were to allow that then the plant would naturally produce more shorter roots anyway with no need for pruning.


----------



## Uncle Ben (Dec 20, 2011)

skunkushybrid01 said:


> Yet those roots will not do anything unless the rest of the environment makes the equation work. If the environment were to allow that then the plant would naturally produce more shorter roots anyway with no need for pruning.



....thigh bone is connected to the hip bone. The hip bone is connected to the.......


----------



## Uncle Ben (Dec 20, 2011)

5000joints said:


> The Rootmaker needs its own mix. Kind of a downfall for me.


No it doesn't. 

Look people, if you don't understand the principles and caveats of root tip pruning, then just say so.

UB


----------



## grapeoptimo (Dec 20, 2011)

that dude grows a 4 ft plant in a 1 gallon or smaller pot and he has a fuckin attitude but its kind of impressive. I'm definitely trying it. 

@UB -Do smart pots do any root tip pruning?


----------



## born2killspam (Dec 20, 2011)

skunkushybrid01 said:


> I checked the link. it leads to a site that you need to be a member of to view the thread... and i have no intention of making an account just to look at some guy's thread. If you have anything real to share then please do. here is that question again:* Are you saying it is less efficient to feed a plant through the leaves? If so, can you explain in what way?*I have done my homework, obviously a heap more than you have as you seem to concentrate in one area and on one man, yet struggle too to provide any substantial information for me to digest. You go from mentioning one guy to mentioning another... You take the time to respond yet fail to provide anything substantial. What I read sticks in my head and i have no problem reiterating that information in my own words. Your words promise much and deliver nothing. I'm disappointed as I've been trying to prove myself wrong for a few years now.. this is why i've gone back to big pots for a grow. I just need to see it one more time.I like the reading though too... i tend to do things myself first and then find the explanations for what i'm seeing. Just like anybody else though I could be wrong, making connections that are not there based on other connections that are loose fitting, etc, etc...Pruning the roots or trimming them is still just a way of maintaining a certain-sized root system, or restricting it. As i've stated, there are many journals out there where root pruning is mentioned as just another system of root restriction. Although I will agree that there are separate repercussions from one or the other. With root pruning for example the plants are encouraged to build new roots, concentrate on new root growth... whereas actually just constricting the roots encourages the plant to utilise that system more intensely. It is documented that a constricted root system will increase efficiency to compensate for being smaller.


It's never typically the best approach to stress plants in any way.. Don't get me wrong, strong plants will definitely handle it well enough, and may even produce more mass, but IMO that mass increase is primarily stem-weight, and the sweetness of a well treated plant is lost.. (And for the record, I'm basing this off of observations of clones that I grew, and sometimes mutilated for kicks.. So I know what could be obtained from the genetics in question..) Basically stressing plants is good for bikers etc, but bad for connoisuers..


----------



## skunkushybrid01 (Dec 21, 2011)

grapeoptimo said:


> that dude grows a 4 ft plant in a 1 gallon or smaller pot and he has a fuckin attitude but its kind of impressive. I'm definitely trying it.
> 
> @UB -Do smart pots do any root tip pruning?


I only have an attitude with people that give me one... i just go harder so it looks like i'm the bad guy. I have fed lots of facts into this thread only for it to be spammed by the pot shill UB. Yeah, that annoys me a little, he's not even paying for advertising. 

If you do try and grow from seed in a 4" pot, please be aware that you will need to maintain the medium, i'm pretty sure that means being aware of how the nutrients move around in the medium and of excess salts. obviously in a smaller medium any sodium build-up will start to get bigger. You may also need to water up to 3 times a day in peak flower or veg (if you veg 24/0). I never measure my nutes, i use GH 2 part, micro and bloom... but i'd advise that you feed hard for several days and then give a plain water feed, make the plain water feeds intermittent... no need for regularity. the point of the plain water feed is to help clean the medium of salts, even help unlock some of them. water is a great chelating agent.

I once grew a 6ft landrace sativa in a 4" pot but i failed mid flower due to high salt issues... nothing i could do about it... so you can go too big to handle. If i were you i'd start out with clones and try veg'ing for 2 weeks then flip. You should end up with a plant around 2.5ft (if growing a regular hybrid). The more room you give the plants, the more they will spread out. when growing in smaller pots i have a tendency to cram in more plants, so they grow straight up naturally, no need for training. aside from sativas, outright sativas will branch out and overtake a space no matter what.


----------



## skunkushybrid01 (Dec 21, 2011)

born2killspam said:


> It's never typically the best approach to stress plants in any way.. Don't get me wrong, strong plants will definitely handle it well enough, and may even produce more mass, but IMO that mass increase is primarily stem-weight, and the sweetness of a well treated plant is lost.. (And for the record, I'm basing this off of observations of clones that I grew, and sometimes mutilated for kicks.. So I know what could be obtained from the genetics in question..) Basically stressing plants is good for bikers etc, but bad for connoisuers..


stress does not promote growth, it promotes potency and hermaphroditism. stress halts growth. so stress is actually better for connoisseurs.


----------



## Uncle Ben (Dec 21, 2011)

grapeoptimo said:


> that dude grows a 4 ft plant in a 1 gallon or smaller pot and he has a fuckin attitude but its kind of impressive. I'm definitely trying it.
> 
> @UB -Do smart pots do any root tip pruning?


Yes, but they're also expensive. If you want to learn all about the most important basic foundations to plant culture, call them up and get the DVD. It's long so you'll have to do 20 minute sessions, but about the best education one can get when it comes to botany, plant culture. You'd think it was all about sales, it's not. 90% of what he teaches in that DVD is pure horticulture....and you're getting it from one of the best in the field, not some shithole op like AN. http://www.rootmaker.com/rootmakersystem.php

Here's a YouTube - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3N21KaL-vY


----------



## Uncle Ben (Dec 21, 2011)

skunkushybrid01 said:


> stress does not promote growth, it promotes potency and hermaphroditism. stress halts growth. so stress is actually better for connoisseurs.


Stress does not promote potency. That's another forum myth (along with the others such the app of Vitamin B, totally useless). And what's up with the elitist "connoisseurs" crap? 

Your plants look stressed out and rightfully so. A pint size pot aka 4" only serves to stunt growth and production.

This is what a <cough> a "connoisseur" grows, a healthy plant in a 3 gallon pot.


----------



## skunkushybrid01 (Dec 21, 2011)

Uncle Ben said:


> Stress does not promote potency. That's another forum myth (along with the others such the app of Vitamin B, totally useless). And what's up with the elitist "connoisseurs" crap?
> 
> Your plants look stressed out and rightfully so. A pint size pot aka 4" only serves to stunt growth and production.
> 
> ...


LOL, you talk about stress, clearly you missed the plant in the background of pic 2. also the close up of that plant shows tip necrosis from lack of nutrients, also the stems are calling for P. the palnt in the background looks like she's shouting K, give me some K! but you ignore her and let the fans die off. stress, eh... LOL.

a 4" pot serves to stunt upward growth, it also serves to make tighter buds with a heavier dry weight than had the roots not been restricted.

potency is increased with stress... it is a natural plant response to stress. IME.


----------



## skunkushybrid01 (Dec 21, 2011)

Uncle Ben said:


> And what's up with the elitist "connoisseurs" crap?


ask born2killspam, he's the guy that brought it up.


----------

