Dutty Panty
New Member
Curious what his monthly yields are I'm at about 15 lbs on 19 plants. Per month.
36Gr0w's First Journal - Hi-Brix - LOS - Indoor & Out!
- Thread starter 36Gr0w
- Start date
- Thread starter
- #762
Oh for sure, I can't deny that. Doesn't mean it isn't possible. That wasn't meant as a knock against you, just saying it is possible to grow great organic buds on a larger scale than a tent.
Dutty Panty
New Member
I do believe it's possible for the record I just don't approve.
- Thread starter
- #764
Lol, happy Friday bud.
Dutty Panty
New Member
Yes but he's an exception every category has there exceptions.
Dutty Panty
New Member
Same to you.
Dutty Panty
New Member
Have a good day 36
akisunni
New Member
Here is a link to the N'Fix I was discussing last night. It is not the same link as I saw in the past, but covers the topic.
N-Fix » Natural nitrogen to boost agriculture
50% reduction in N needs. Coating. Symbiotic relationship.
N-Fix » Natural nitrogen to boost agriculture
50% reduction in N needs. Coating. Symbiotic relationship.
- Thread starter
- #769
Thanks aki! Looks like I got some reading to do on that bacteria.
I'll admit I prefer my tomatoes/garden bought over store bought. But, it's not just the taste that bothers me,, it's how it gets to my plate and what they did to it, in between the vine and my grocery bag. Most tomatoes for example, at least what we get here on the east coast, off season. They are picked unripe or green, gassed to make them turn red, then packaged and shipped all over. Part of the reason, a large part if you ask me, for the poor taste.
I guess my point was, most people don't know the difference in taste because, (you have to see Penn and Teller explain it) because most have never had a garden. Very few homes/families have gardens relative to years ago, and the number of people out there.
It's becoming more popular, and I encourage people to have a garden. But, if for some reason they can't, and have to purchase things at a grocery store. I'm not going to condemn them either.
Same thing for good weed. Some can't grow and they rely on others. Those who can grow, not all have the access to the things needed to grow with LOS. OR, they have a business to run and choose other methods.
I'm going to try both methods because I can, and want to speak from experience, my experience. But, the bottom line is if they both taste the same, and by me producing it --I know how it came to my pipe, so the method that produces more will be my preferred method. That's just me.
I guess my point was, most people don't know the difference in taste because, (you have to see Penn and Teller explain it) because most have never had a garden. Very few homes/families have gardens relative to years ago, and the number of people out there.
It's becoming more popular, and I encourage people to have a garden. But, if for some reason they can't, and have to purchase things at a grocery store. I'm not going to condemn them either.
Same thing for good weed. Some can't grow and they rely on others. Those who can grow, not all have the access to the things needed to grow with LOS. OR, they have a business to run and choose other methods.
I'm going to try both methods because I can, and want to speak from experience, my experience. But, the bottom line is if they both taste the same, and by me producing it --I know how it came to my pipe, so the method that produces more will be my preferred method. That's just me.
- Thread starter
- #771
Bottom line is they don't taste, smell, or smoke the same. If you have the ability to grow, you can grow "organically."
Can someone explain flushing to me? The reasoning, how its done, and what effects it has on a plant? Are there any another examples of flushing in horticulture or agriculture, or gardening in general?
Can someone explain flushing to me? The reasoning, how its done, and what effects it has on a plant? Are there any another examples of flushing in horticulture or agriculture, or gardening in general?
- Thread starter
- #772
Pretty disappointing seeing people keep lumping organic gardening into one buzzword to try to make a point.
Home | Agricultural Marketing Service
I'm sure these farms are all failing miserably, and don't have an idea what they are doing. Probably just a bunch of tents in fields, since that's the only way organic growing works.
Just because people choose to be ignorant of something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
If someone can't tell the difference, good for them. Less to be disappointed by when they eat or smoke crap. Doesn't change my opinion or tastes, or ability to notice differences.
Home | Agricultural Marketing Service
I'm sure these farms are all failing miserably, and don't have an idea what they are doing. Probably just a bunch of tents in fields, since that's the only way organic growing works.
Just because people choose to be ignorant of something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
If someone can't tell the difference, good for them. Less to be disappointed by when they eat or smoke crap. Doesn't change my opinion or tastes, or ability to notice differences.
Dutty Panty
New Member
Organic gardening uses flushing practices as well to remove dead organic matter.
- Thread starter
- #774
I can't knock you for trying and experimenting, I'm trying things out too. I wasn't trying to call you ignorant 3m, sorry if it came out that way.
- Thread starter
- #775
Can you elaborate?
- Thread starter
- #776
The Facts about Dynamic Accumulators
Posted April 10, 2015 by John Kitsteiner & filed under Design, Plant Systems, Plants.
Within the world of Permaculture we often find reference to plants known as Dynamic Accumulators. In brief, this is the idea that certain plants (often deep-rooted ones) will draw up nutrients from the lower layers of the soil, and these nutrients will be stored in the plants’ leaves. When the leaves fall in autumn and winter and are broken down, those stored nutrients are then incorporated into the upper layers of the soil where other plants will benefit from their deposition.
As a physician, I strive for scientific accuracy. I understand the scientific method and the world of academia. I know, beyond doubt, the benefit this arena has provided for the world. However, I also know, beyond doubt, that there is a lot of truth that has not been proven in a lab. This may be due to many factors. To name but a few: the topic has not yet been studied, there are flaws in the design of the study, or the topic is too complex for reductionist evaluation.
So with our scientific minds turned on, let’s examine the concept of dynamic accumulators.
We will start with the scientific evidence… Unfortunately, there is not much. In fact, I can find almost no research into dynamic accumulators. Strike that. I can find NO research into this concept at all. None. Many sources site references, but these references just don’t pan out. There are circular references, there are references to non-existing sources, and there are references to (just being honest) less than reputable books or authors. My lack of results was a bit disappointing.
As it turns out, it appears that the concept of dynamic accumulators has been passed down and around for so long that it has been accepted as fact. This concept did not originate with Permaculture, but it has been adopted and advocated by it for a long time. So much so, that many people associate dynamic accumulators with Permaculture.
Well then, how did this concept of dynamic accumulators get started? Where did it originate?
Although he didn’t develop the concept, I think we can safely blame Robert Kourik, organic gardening/landscaping author for bringing the term “dynamic accumulators” to the forefront of our minds. In 1986, he wrote Designing and Maintaining Your Edible Landscape—Naturally. On page 269, he created a list of “dynamic accumulators”. This list was compiled from a number of sources including: Weeds: Guardians of the Soil (Joseph Cocannouer), Practical Organic Gardening (Ben Easey), Stalking the Healthful Herbs (Euell Gibbons), Weeds as Indicators of Soil Conditions (Stuart Hill and Jennifer Ramsay), Weeds and What They Tell (Ehrenfried Pfeiffer), and The Organic Method Primer (Bargyla & Gylver Rateaver).
This list of plants was a good-faith attempt to provide guidance about what gardeners were throwing into their compost piles. Robert Kourik now openly admits that he regrets including that list in his book. He realized that the list was mainly based on informal and anecdotal reports, but this realization came too late. Pandora’s box was opened. Since then, many authors have shared the information from this chart (I am guilty as well!). Some authors added additional information based on even more informal or anecdotal information. We can now find reputable authors sharing these “scientific facts” with trusting readers.
I have had informal communications with both Toby Hemenway (author of the fabulous Gaia’s Garnden and upcoming book on urban Permaculture) and Dave Jacke (author of the highly recommended Edible Forest Gardens and upcoming book on Coppice Agroforestry). They both feel that the dynamic accumulator charts listed in their books were, at a minimum, unnecessary and unsubstantiated additions to their work.
With all this said, what evidence do we actually have about this idea of dynamic accumulators?
We do know that some plants accumulate minerals in high concentrations in their tissues. In the botanical community, this concept is known as “phytoaccumulation” or “hyperaccumulation”, and this has been very well researched. These plants are able to grow in soils with high concentrations of certain minerals. Researchers are using hyperaccumulating plants in areas that have been contaminated with heavy metals or high-value metals. The plants pull out (phytoextract) these minerals from the soil. The plants are then harvested and processed to extract the minerals from plants to be recycled or dealt with in a more ecological manner. This “phyomining” has been used, with success, on significantly contaminated sites.
In addition, there has been an extensive database put together by botanist James “Jim” A. Duke Ph.D. which provides information on thousands of plants. Specifically, and for our purposes, the database provides information on the concentration of minerals found in the tissues of plants. His Phytochemical and Ethnobotanical Database is hosted on the USDA ARS site (United States Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Research Service). This is a wealth of information that would take a long, long time to fully peruse and appreciate. Using the information from Dr. Duke’s database, a free, downloadable Nutrient Content Spreadsheet was created. I am not sure who created it, but I found it on Build-A-Soil.com. This is well organized spreadsheet with multiple worksheets (pages).
With this information, can we connect the dots for dynamic accumulators?
For instance, according to Dr. Duke’s database, we can see the phosphorus (P) concentration in Lambsquarter (Chenopodium album) is over 36,000 ppm (parts per million). This is a high concentration. Therefore, it would make sense to grow Lambsquarter on our site. We would let the Lambsquarter die back in the winter and compost in place. By spring, we should have higher concentrations of phosphorus (P) in our soil. Right?
Unfortunately, while this scenario sounds good, we have no proof that it will work. Our logical pathway sounds plausible, but the reality is that nature is never quite as simple as we would like. First, minerals don’t appear out of nowhere (alchemy is still not science!); if the soil or subsoil has no phosphorus to begin with, then the Lambsquarter cannot accumulate it. Second, if the soil has no biology (i.e. Dr. Elaine Ingham’s Soil Food Web), then there is a good chance the phosphorus may not be bioavailable to the roots. Third, while our scenario sounds good, we have no scientific proof (research data) that if the Lamsquarter did accumulate phosphorus it would indeed be returned to the soil in a usable form to future plants. Maybe it will, but would it take six months, one year, five years, or twenty-five years to become available again? This is information that we just do not have.
In addition, we cannot use anecdotal reports about dynamic accumulators. People will often site their own garden as “proof”. Unfortunately, this anecdotal information is not scientific evidence. I am not saying that their soils did not improve with the planting of dynamic accumulators, but was it the dynamic accumulation or another factor that caused the improvements? Was it mulching, composting in place, biomass accumulation, biodiversity, microclimate creation/enhancement, etc.?
As a good friend of mine likes to say, “The plural of anecdote is not data.” But, to be my own devil’s advocate, it is the repeated anecdotal report that often leads to scientific research which eventually “proves” a long-held concept to be true. For example, almost a year ago on this site Ben Stallings shared his experience using comfrey to improve his soil. This article is a great example of single data point that should spur more research.
Unfortunately, high-quality research is both time and money intensive.
What then should we do with the concept of dynamic accumulators?
Take the information for what it is, soft data. We can make some logical assumptions, i.e. “guesses”, and hope for the best. But we should not treat or teach the concept, the theory, of dynamic accumulators as scientifically proven information. We should not treat it as fact. We should definitely not rely solely on dynamic accumulation as our single solution for degraded soils. Of course, if we are appropriately applying and practicing Permaculture, we wouldn’t do this anyway.
Personally, I will continue to use dynamic accumulators in a holistic approach to soil improvement. It may help our soils for our intended purposes in exactly the way that we think, or it may help for entirely another reason. If it works, I don’t really need to know why. Having more diversity on our sites will almost always be of benefit… scientifically proven or not.
John also has his own blog site, Temperate Climate Permaculture, please visit John here for this and other articles.
The Facts about Dynamic Accumulators - The Permaculture Research Institute
Posted April 10, 2015 by John Kitsteiner & filed under Design, Plant Systems, Plants.
Within the world of Permaculture we often find reference to plants known as Dynamic Accumulators. In brief, this is the idea that certain plants (often deep-rooted ones) will draw up nutrients from the lower layers of the soil, and these nutrients will be stored in the plants’ leaves. When the leaves fall in autumn and winter and are broken down, those stored nutrients are then incorporated into the upper layers of the soil where other plants will benefit from their deposition.
As a physician, I strive for scientific accuracy. I understand the scientific method and the world of academia. I know, beyond doubt, the benefit this arena has provided for the world. However, I also know, beyond doubt, that there is a lot of truth that has not been proven in a lab. This may be due to many factors. To name but a few: the topic has not yet been studied, there are flaws in the design of the study, or the topic is too complex for reductionist evaluation.
So with our scientific minds turned on, let’s examine the concept of dynamic accumulators.
We will start with the scientific evidence… Unfortunately, there is not much. In fact, I can find almost no research into dynamic accumulators. Strike that. I can find NO research into this concept at all. None. Many sources site references, but these references just don’t pan out. There are circular references, there are references to non-existing sources, and there are references to (just being honest) less than reputable books or authors. My lack of results was a bit disappointing.
As it turns out, it appears that the concept of dynamic accumulators has been passed down and around for so long that it has been accepted as fact. This concept did not originate with Permaculture, but it has been adopted and advocated by it for a long time. So much so, that many people associate dynamic accumulators with Permaculture.
Well then, how did this concept of dynamic accumulators get started? Where did it originate?
Although he didn’t develop the concept, I think we can safely blame Robert Kourik, organic gardening/landscaping author for bringing the term “dynamic accumulators” to the forefront of our minds. In 1986, he wrote Designing and Maintaining Your Edible Landscape—Naturally. On page 269, he created a list of “dynamic accumulators”. This list was compiled from a number of sources including: Weeds: Guardians of the Soil (Joseph Cocannouer), Practical Organic Gardening (Ben Easey), Stalking the Healthful Herbs (Euell Gibbons), Weeds as Indicators of Soil Conditions (Stuart Hill and Jennifer Ramsay), Weeds and What They Tell (Ehrenfried Pfeiffer), and The Organic Method Primer (Bargyla & Gylver Rateaver).
This list of plants was a good-faith attempt to provide guidance about what gardeners were throwing into their compost piles. Robert Kourik now openly admits that he regrets including that list in his book. He realized that the list was mainly based on informal and anecdotal reports, but this realization came too late. Pandora’s box was opened. Since then, many authors have shared the information from this chart (I am guilty as well!). Some authors added additional information based on even more informal or anecdotal information. We can now find reputable authors sharing these “scientific facts” with trusting readers.
I have had informal communications with both Toby Hemenway (author of the fabulous Gaia’s Garnden and upcoming book on urban Permaculture) and Dave Jacke (author of the highly recommended Edible Forest Gardens and upcoming book on Coppice Agroforestry). They both feel that the dynamic accumulator charts listed in their books were, at a minimum, unnecessary and unsubstantiated additions to their work.
With all this said, what evidence do we actually have about this idea of dynamic accumulators?
We do know that some plants accumulate minerals in high concentrations in their tissues. In the botanical community, this concept is known as “phytoaccumulation” or “hyperaccumulation”, and this has been very well researched. These plants are able to grow in soils with high concentrations of certain minerals. Researchers are using hyperaccumulating plants in areas that have been contaminated with heavy metals or high-value metals. The plants pull out (phytoextract) these minerals from the soil. The plants are then harvested and processed to extract the minerals from plants to be recycled or dealt with in a more ecological manner. This “phyomining” has been used, with success, on significantly contaminated sites.
In addition, there has been an extensive database put together by botanist James “Jim” A. Duke Ph.D. which provides information on thousands of plants. Specifically, and for our purposes, the database provides information on the concentration of minerals found in the tissues of plants. His Phytochemical and Ethnobotanical Database is hosted on the USDA ARS site (United States Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Research Service). This is a wealth of information that would take a long, long time to fully peruse and appreciate. Using the information from Dr. Duke’s database, a free, downloadable Nutrient Content Spreadsheet was created. I am not sure who created it, but I found it on Build-A-Soil.com. This is well organized spreadsheet with multiple worksheets (pages).
With this information, can we connect the dots for dynamic accumulators?
For instance, according to Dr. Duke’s database, we can see the phosphorus (P) concentration in Lambsquarter (Chenopodium album) is over 36,000 ppm (parts per million). This is a high concentration. Therefore, it would make sense to grow Lambsquarter on our site. We would let the Lambsquarter die back in the winter and compost in place. By spring, we should have higher concentrations of phosphorus (P) in our soil. Right?
Unfortunately, while this scenario sounds good, we have no proof that it will work. Our logical pathway sounds plausible, but the reality is that nature is never quite as simple as we would like. First, minerals don’t appear out of nowhere (alchemy is still not science!); if the soil or subsoil has no phosphorus to begin with, then the Lambsquarter cannot accumulate it. Second, if the soil has no biology (i.e. Dr. Elaine Ingham’s Soil Food Web), then there is a good chance the phosphorus may not be bioavailable to the roots. Third, while our scenario sounds good, we have no scientific proof (research data) that if the Lamsquarter did accumulate phosphorus it would indeed be returned to the soil in a usable form to future plants. Maybe it will, but would it take six months, one year, five years, or twenty-five years to become available again? This is information that we just do not have.
In addition, we cannot use anecdotal reports about dynamic accumulators. People will often site their own garden as “proof”. Unfortunately, this anecdotal information is not scientific evidence. I am not saying that their soils did not improve with the planting of dynamic accumulators, but was it the dynamic accumulation or another factor that caused the improvements? Was it mulching, composting in place, biomass accumulation, biodiversity, microclimate creation/enhancement, etc.?
As a good friend of mine likes to say, “The plural of anecdote is not data.” But, to be my own devil’s advocate, it is the repeated anecdotal report that often leads to scientific research which eventually “proves” a long-held concept to be true. For example, almost a year ago on this site Ben Stallings shared his experience using comfrey to improve his soil. This article is a great example of single data point that should spur more research.
Unfortunately, high-quality research is both time and money intensive.
What then should we do with the concept of dynamic accumulators?
Take the information for what it is, soft data. We can make some logical assumptions, i.e. “guesses”, and hope for the best. But we should not treat or teach the concept, the theory, of dynamic accumulators as scientifically proven information. We should not treat it as fact. We should definitely not rely solely on dynamic accumulation as our single solution for degraded soils. Of course, if we are appropriately applying and practicing Permaculture, we wouldn’t do this anyway.
Personally, I will continue to use dynamic accumulators in a holistic approach to soil improvement. It may help our soils for our intended purposes in exactly the way that we think, or it may help for entirely another reason. If it works, I don’t really need to know why. Having more diversity on our sites will almost always be of benefit… scientifically proven or not.
John also has his own blog site, Temperate Climate Permaculture, please visit John here for this and other articles.
The Facts about Dynamic Accumulators - The Permaculture Research Institute
I didn't take it that way, not at all,, no worries man.
- Thread starter
- #778
Found a decent spot in the woods, cleared some space and dug some holes. Filled them halfway with soil and transplanted my CBD Widow and a Lemon Skunk out of 7 gal pots and into the earth. Mulched with ferns, branches, and forest floor duff.
- Thread starter
- #779
So that about cleared out my 400w box. Took some clones of the Widow. Next to be put out will be a Platinum Girl Scout Cookie, Purple Sour Diesel, and another Lemon Skunk. Who knows after that.
- Thread starter
- #780
PGSC up potted from 1 gal to 3 gal.
Similar threads
