I did not know this. Why would the stems from the first and second nodes be considered primary colas? Could you please provide a reference?
420 Magazine Sponsored Grow Extravaganza Featuring NextLight Mega, GeoFlora Nutes & More!
- Thread starter Mr. Krip
- Start date
I did not know this. Why would the stems from the first and second nodes be considered primary colas? Could you please provide a reference?
i got all sorts of odd mains on the last quad attempt. don't think i achieved more than 3
ok maybe one has 4 in there ..
i topped at 4 - 5 i think. i trimmed off the first node or two. mains didn't seem dependent on node.
ok maybe one has 4 in there ..
i topped at 4 - 5 i think. i trimmed off the first node or two. mains didn't seem dependent on node.
- Thread starter
- #163
It has to do with the re-distribution of the hormones from the apical tip and you can still find Uncle Ben's original post out there. Here are some of the key points:
Hmmmmmm, for some reason you're not understanding how the plant responds. I'll try again. Being that there are two leafsets at each node during veg, and there are dormant foliar buds in the axils of where the petiole attaches to the "trunk", then each node = 2 foliar outputs WHEN THE AUXINS ARE TRICKED INTO BEING REDISTRIBUTED TO THOSE SITES.IOW, when you cut above the 2nd node, you'll get 4 outputs - 2 from the first node and 2 from the second. It's when you get above 3 or 4 that it becomes iffy regarding the outcome. You'll find the typical forum advice for topping is around the 7th node. Why, I don't know.
@GeoFlora Nutrients, I am trying to determine how expensive Geoflora is compared to the chemical fertilizer I am currently using but the obstacle is that you sell your product by weight but the dosage is by volume so I can't determine how far it goes so can you please tell me how many cups would be in your minimum sized 4 lb package?
- Thread starter
- #165
Their dosage is by weight, in ounces. For a #10 container, you use 8 oz. every two weeks, or 16 oz. (1 lb.) every four weeks; so four pounds should get you about 16 weeks in a #10 container (or four plants for four weeks, etc.).
Thanks Krip! I guess what I was asking for was a peer-reviewed reference explaining why only the first and second node stems would be considered main colas. If I keep the third and fourth nodes instead, as in quadlining, I’m puzzled why the resulting four stems wouldn’t be main colas?
Thank you, Mr. Krip. What threw me was that ounces can be used to measure both volume and weight and the only time they are interchangeable is with a substance with the same density (weight to volume ratio) identical to water but I see when they convert from ounces to cups they say it is only approximated so apparently the density of their product is close enough to water that they use ounce for both weight and density interchangeably. GEOFLORA Organic Dry Nutrients
Using your calculations for 16 weeks assuming an eight-week veg and eight week flower period that works out to $24 for one plant in a 10-gallon pot.
With the single part chemical fertilizer I am using I bought 9.9 kg or 9900 g for $119.29. Assuming I feed my 10-gallon pot 6 g times 2 gallons three times per week for 16 weeks during the life of my plant I would use 216 g. That is based on the assumption I would give maximum doses throughout its entire life so this is considerably larger than the actual amount for simplicity of calculation. Dividing the 9.9 kg by the 216 g each plant would take determines my 9.9 kg bag could fertilize 49 plants and dividing the initial cost of $119.29 by the 45.83 plants it can grow means my chemical fertilizer costs me $2.60 per plant in a 10-gallon pot over its life.
$24 divided by $2.60 means that going organic would cost conservatively 9.2 times as much as using chemical fertilizers per plant. Not saying the cost is prohibitive this is just the reality in dollars and cents between organic and chemical. Now I am starting to understand why the organic strawberries at the grocery store cost so much.
They would be.
It’s about leaving 2 or 4 branches (one or two nodes).
Any more than 4 and they all became secondary.
So it’s about the number of colas and the distribution of auxins into them. It doesn’t actually matter which nodes. JUst that Uncle Ben’s method is about minimum time for maximum roots so the first 2 are kept
The way I understand in it, keeping the fisrt 2 is just the most expedient. That and the more minimal training and pruning (i dont do much of either) are the differneces between UBT and quadlining. Quadlining also achieves 4 main coals - as you know
CADBOY
Well-Known Member
GeoFlora line looks promising, let's see where this goes.
I get it. Thanks Amy!
I think this is more clear if you consider that in the Uncle Ben system, (the rules of thumb quoted,) the auxins are redistributed based on a single event. A single event at the third or fourth node will usually create 2 main colas.
Quadlining is a longer term method where you find yourself balancing and rebalancing the branching growth (auxin redistribution) by multiple training decisions made every few days, rather than a single event.
The Phantom
Member
I do agree it is more but you are comparing it to one of the cheapest chemical fertilizers on the market right now though. If you look at the cost of what some of the other chemical and liquid fertilizers are with their various bottles, the cost could be more on par.
What drew me to it is being able to grow organic with a 1-part (in my eyes since you only use one at a time and never both) fertilizer, plus only dosing every two weeks vs mixing almost daily with the chemical fertilizer the both of us are using. That extra cost may just be the cost of going the KISS organic way vs the easy chemical way. Now as far as results, that’s what I’m here for (no pressure @Mr. Krip).
So less traumatic - makes sense! I guess what turned me off on UBT is that I heard that you grow to node 5 (or 6?) and then top above 2 - it just seemed like a waste of growth time and energy. But I get that a more mature plant, and a single traumatic event, could lead to less impact going forward.
Cutting off a larger mass of more vigorus growth, leaving roots that generate more total growth energy, forces the growth down into 4 buds (modes 1 & 2) rather than into 2 buds (node 2 only).
I'm not saying I know it to be worth the time to replace those 3 nodes of growth, but I suspect it is equal or less time consuming than quadlining with leaf stripping
It might be worth the time if you planted the cut off growth into a new pot of soil as a single clone. It would be fun to experiment with a few clones and compare results.
I agree with everything you said Phantom and I certainly wasn't trying to dissuade anyone from going the Geoflora route; I was just curious about the price and posted my findings but like you I have not drawn any conclusions yet myself and agree with all your positives about it and how well it performs is really the determining factor.I do agree it is more but you are comparing it to one of the cheapest chemical fertilizers on the market right now though. If you look at the cost of what some of the other chemical and liquid fertilizers are with their various bottles, the cost could be more on par.
What drew me to it is being able to grow organic with a 1-part (in my eyes since you only use one at a time and never both) fertilizer, plus only dosing every two weeks vs mixing almost daily with the chemical fertilizer the both of us are using. That extra cost may just be the cost of going the KISS organic way vs the easy chemical way. Now as far as results, that’s what I’m here for (no pressure @Mr. Krip).
Because of this thread, I did a little reading on organic versus chemical fertilizers and apparently, as I posted before somewhere previously, fruits and vegetables are more nutritious with organics so to me it just makes sense that cannabis plants raised organically would have a richer cannabinoid, terpenes, etc content so for that reason alone organics makes a lot of sense to me and has me very intrigued also how this grow goes. The more I read and think about it and hear people's opinions the more appealing it seems.
Emilya Green
Well-Known Member
after this discussion I now realize why I have not had any stellar grows this last year... none of my product turned out to be exceptional. It was good... but not what I expect to grow. I knew I was making a fundamental mistake somewhere, and now, thanks to Amy, I can clearly see what I have been doing wrong. It has always bugged me why on my plants lately, I always get 1 branch that rises to the top of the canopy and becomes dominant and always, each plant in the room has one branch doing this while the rest maintain a fairly even canopy below those branches. I have been priding myself on my multiple topping method that creates huge bushes with 32+ buds... and as it turns out, all but one was secondary. I have been shooting myself in the foot all along. I am going back to Uncle Bens method with no more topping after that, and thanks to another discussion with Filipe, if I have to save vertical space I will supercrop after that, doing all I can to preserve the 4 primary kolas. It sometimes amazes me how well I have done over the years, when I can still make profoundly basic mistakes such as this. Live and learn as they say... each grow will get better and better.
The Phantom
Member
Oh yeah I totally agree with you, it’s like buying organic vs not at the grocery store, expect to pay more for something that is better in overall quality, from what I’ve been told. I’m trying to get some stuff set up to run clones and compare the two as far as finished product weight and overall taste. See if there really is a difference and if it’s worth changing over too. I’ll still keep running my liquid chemical fertilizers because of my rdwc but as far as doing runs of auto or clone SOGs in between my hydro runs, I may really lean towards using Geo for it.
I was thinking I would love to see the two compared. Eventually, I may try it too.
The Phantom
Member
It won’t be until September but I’ll tag you when I get it going.
Thanks, much appreciated.