Teddy Edwards
Well-Known Member
Beautiful work, PJ.
PeeJay's Neophyte Breeding Adventure
- Thread starter PeeJay
- Start date
Beautiful work, PJ.
Dennise
Well-Known Member
....
Metabolically healthy plants. I like that perspective. There's the goal.
- Thread starter
- #244
The SWICK side-by-side has come to an end. This has nothing to do with deciding that SWICK is no good. It has to do with space! The DarkStar and Sage'n Sour are going crazy in stretch. The idea of getting in there to check on 16 plants was kind of scary. I culled the four weakest Panama and Chitral. Now there are 8 in 2 gallon cans of PJ v2.01. You can see from this picture how tight space is getting. I had to up-can. The plants are ready for food. There is no way I was fitting 16 2 gallon pots in there. In fact, there was no way I was fitting 4 of the 8 that remain in SWICK trays. Oh well...
Even though conditions in the greenhouse have been rough (temps well over 100 in there for a couple of hours a day and RH in the teens) growth all around is not bad for 19-22 days. If anything I would say the SWICK slightly outperformed traditional water. Four Chitral on the left, four Panama on the right.
Looking at roots during transplant was as expected. Roots in the SWICK pots were bunched at the bottom and were not well distributed compared to the traditionally watered pots.
SWICK from the bottom:
SWICK side:
More SWICK
Bottom
Side
Traditionally watered:
Those aren't great pictures. Juggling root balls and the camera is not easy. Anyway there is a much more developed web of fine roots; hence a better soil/plant interface in the traditionally watered plants. I have no idea if this even matters moving forward and we are never going to know.
Even though conditions in the greenhouse have been rough (temps well over 100 in there for a couple of hours a day and RH in the teens) growth all around is not bad for 19-22 days. If anything I would say the SWICK slightly outperformed traditional water. Four Chitral on the left, four Panama on the right.
Looking at roots during transplant was as expected. Roots in the SWICK pots were bunched at the bottom and were not well distributed compared to the traditionally watered pots.
SWICK from the bottom:
SWICK side:
More SWICK
Bottom
Side
Traditionally watered:
Those aren't great pictures. Juggling root balls and the camera is not easy. Anyway there is a much more developed web of fine roots; hence a better soil/plant interface in the traditionally watered plants. I have no idea if this even matters moving forward and we are never going to know.
Thanks for the documented side-by-side, PeeJay! 
It's startling how educational a simple experiment can be. I never really thought about incremental root development - the hourly/daily growth - before. Seeing examples of that growth is So instructive! Since we're feeding from the soil biota and not directly, we want lots of surface area, lots of fine roots. To get that, we have to have more uniformity in soil moisture than the Swick provides. It would seem that Swick has the advantage there, but unfortunately the lowest soil layer stays wet, encouraging roots to settle in and grow, impeding lateral growth. Foliage does better at the expense of root development.
Very interesting.
I'm also curious about aeration, a subject that almost never comes up in the forums. I've always erred to the dry side when caring for potted plants and even those in beds, because it's fairly easy to add more water, and hard to take it out, AND because while you wait for the soil to dry, the roots are choking to death - double trouble.
I've never killed a plant by parching it, but many houseplants have died from soggy soil. So ... what about the role of aeration? Our lil soil beasties thrive on it, don't they? They don't really love water - it's a thick humid soil atmosphere that they love. The chemical reactions require available gasses, so they need to be able to freely burble and osmose throughout the soil.
Parch-and-Drench watering allows portions of the soil to get mortally dry, so it definitely has its downside, but it seems like Swick has one, too. Actually ... Swick would be better for bloom, when the roots are already established and the plant simply needs a steady source of water ...
It's startling how educational a simple experiment can be. I never really thought about incremental root development - the hourly/daily growth - before. Seeing examples of that growth is So instructive! Since we're feeding from the soil biota and not directly, we want lots of surface area, lots of fine roots. To get that, we have to have more uniformity in soil moisture than the Swick provides. It would seem that Swick has the advantage there, but unfortunately the lowest soil layer stays wet, encouraging roots to settle in and grow, impeding lateral growth. Foliage does better at the expense of root development.
Very interesting.
I'm also curious about aeration, a subject that almost never comes up in the forums. I've always erred to the dry side when caring for potted plants and even those in beds, because it's fairly easy to add more water, and hard to take it out, AND because while you wait for the soil to dry, the roots are choking to death - double trouble.
I've never killed a plant by parching it, but many houseplants have died from soggy soil. So ... what about the role of aeration? Our lil soil beasties thrive on it, don't they? They don't really love water - it's a thick humid soil atmosphere that they love. The chemical reactions require available gasses, so they need to be able to freely burble and osmose throughout the soil.Parch-and-Drench watering allows portions of the soil to get mortally dry, so it definitely has its downside, but it seems like Swick has one, too. Actually ... Swick would be better for bloom, when the roots are already established and the plant simply needs a steady source of water ...
Ditto...
I'm mighty impressed with the results PeeJay. This is so instructive. To be able to see what we all speculated about. Hands down, we want more fine roots. I can see real potential for the SWICK when the plants are roaring through the bloom cycle, but until we have the fine roots firmly established I'd avoid the SWICK. We feed soil, and particularly with the fine control we exercise with the Kit we need a massive ball of the fine network to get the magic we're after.
Graytail, I like those thoughtful observations about aeration too.
I love a good brainstorming session, don't you? Interesting, how ours span days and weeks here on the journals.
May I repost this? I'd like to put it on the SWICK thread, but also on my own journal.
Graytail, I like those thoughtful observations about aeration too.
I love a good brainstorming session, don't you? Interesting, how ours span days and weeks here on the journals.
May I repost this? I'd like to put it on the SWICK thread, but also on my own journal.
- Thread starter
- #248
I don't have any definitive answers, Gray. I perceive a general lack of understanding about soil biota hereabouts. One of the things that happens in waterlogged soil is denitrification.
Basically as microbial action breaks down organic material it deaminates protiens removing the amino groups and converting them to ammonia (NH3). NH3 is a gas and will dissipate from dry soil in a hurry and out into the atmosphere. However, in moist or wet soil it becomes solubalized and makes ammonium ions (NH4+). NH3 + H2O -> NH4+ + OH- .
Next, organisms like Nitrosomas convert the NH4+ to NO2- (nitrite). Organisms like Nitrobacter convert NO2- into NO3- (nitrate) . These microorganisms get their energy from oxidizing the nitrogenous compounds.
The plant would love to be able to use NH4+ to create build it's proteins but the ions are typically tightly bound to negative charges in the soil. NO3-, however, with it's negative charge is easily transported across the cell membrane and into the plant. Nitrate is fully oxidized and is really the only form of nitrogen that plants take up in appreciable amounts.
In order for the oxidation reactions to take place there needs to be an electron acceptor and in this case it is oxgen. Waterlogged soils contain little or no free oxygen. When there is no oxygen then the pathway from NH3+ to the NO3- is disrupted. To make matters worse there are anerobic bacteria in the soil that like to use NO3- as an electron acceptor. They take the NO3- -> NO2- -> N2O ->N2 and it is lost from the soil and into the atmosphere. When you let the soil dry appreciably it is hell on the anaerobes that do this reaction. In a continuously wet environment they thrive.
The nitrogen cycle from organic material requires both a wet and dry conditions. Wet conditions to solubalize the NH3 and dry conditions to facilitate the oxidation into usable NH3-. When a plant gets at least a modest wet dry cycle the correct conditions are available for both sets of reactions to take place as the soil slowly dries out from the bottom to the top.
Basically as microbial action breaks down organic material it deaminates protiens removing the amino groups and converting them to ammonia (NH3). NH3 is a gas and will dissipate from dry soil in a hurry and out into the atmosphere. However, in moist or wet soil it becomes solubalized and makes ammonium ions (NH4+). NH3 + H2O -> NH4+ + OH- .
Next, organisms like Nitrosomas convert the NH4+ to NO2- (nitrite). Organisms like Nitrobacter convert NO2- into NO3- (nitrate) . These microorganisms get their energy from oxidizing the nitrogenous compounds.
The plant would love to be able to use NH4+ to create build it's proteins but the ions are typically tightly bound to negative charges in the soil. NO3-, however, with it's negative charge is easily transported across the cell membrane and into the plant. Nitrate is fully oxidized and is really the only form of nitrogen that plants take up in appreciable amounts.
In order for the oxidation reactions to take place there needs to be an electron acceptor and in this case it is oxgen. Waterlogged soils contain little or no free oxygen. When there is no oxygen then the pathway from NH3+ to the NO3- is disrupted. To make matters worse there are anerobic bacteria in the soil that like to use NO3- as an electron acceptor. They take the NO3- -> NO2- -> N2O ->N2 and it is lost from the soil and into the atmosphere. When you let the soil dry appreciably it is hell on the anaerobes that do this reaction. In a continuously wet environment they thrive.
The nitrogen cycle from organic material requires both a wet and dry conditions. Wet conditions to solubalize the NH3 and dry conditions to facilitate the oxidation into usable NH3-. When a plant gets at least a modest wet dry cycle the correct conditions are available for both sets of reactions to take place as the soil slowly dries out from the bottom to the top.
This makes me want to try that experiment with felt seedling pots even more. Let me get AFK and get on that.
I'll check back later for your answer about the posts PeeJay. You got me excited now.
I'll check back later for your answer about the posts PeeJay. You got me excited now.
- Thread starter
- #250
Sue, sure, do what you want with anything you find here.
And this stopped me in my tracks. How can I justify using a SWICK at all then? Can you think of any situation, other than having to be away from your plants for an extended period, where use of a SWICK could be beneficial? Obviously there are communities of growers using them and growing good product (myself included), so might there be more to this than the obvious chemistry?
Yeah, what PJ said...
Thanxx for adding the layman's terms for the bottom line; That I follow.
- Thread starter
- #253
Sue, SWICK obviously works. My SWICK plants did great. The nitrogen cycle example is just one of many reasons that SWICK is less than ideal. I know of a couple of rather large scale vegetable growing SIPs where I live. They are great for reducing water use in dry climates.
In the early stages I found that the only labor saving was it took slightly less time to top up SWICKs than it did to water plants. If anything the SWICK plants did a little better than the traditionally watered ones. I have no idea if the lack of root development throughout the pot would have had a negative impact over the long haul. Intuitively, I want an extensive soil/plant interface and SWICK does not seem to offer that. The pots in the SWICK were like adobe bricks the whole time and I know that can impact the nitrogen cycle negatively. It is also interesting that I didn't water the plants any more often than I topped off the SWICKs. Those ~20 day old plants have only been watered four times.
The nitrogen cycle thing is of interest because I notice that there seems to be more yellowing and signs of nitrogen deficency late in life for SWICK plants. Check out the China Palace Buffet, for example.
In the early stages I found that the only labor saving was it took slightly less time to top up SWICKs than it did to water plants. If anything the SWICK plants did a little better than the traditionally watered ones. I have no idea if the lack of root development throughout the pot would have had a negative impact over the long haul. Intuitively, I want an extensive soil/plant interface and SWICK does not seem to offer that. The pots in the SWICK were like adobe bricks the whole time and I know that can impact the nitrogen cycle negatively. It is also interesting that I didn't water the plants any more often than I topped off the SWICKs. Those ~20 day old plants have only been watered four times.
The nitrogen cycle thing is of interest because I notice that there seems to be more yellowing and signs of nitrogen deficency late in life for SWICK plants. Check out the China Palace Buffet, for example.
V
Ziggy's leaf degradation has more to do with playing with the Kit than anything else PeeJay. You'd be better advised to check out my first journal.
SWICK raised from about one month. Less than 10 tiny, tiny necrotic leaves between the two. So for my grow that didn't come into account at all. I had a spectacular harvest, between the soil, my control of the CFLs and the SWICK. Not an average harvest mind you, but extraordinary potency and very decent yield. I attribute that success in large part to my use of the SWICK.
I've never torn my pot apart (no-till, Duh!), so I don't know what the roots have been like, but I know it pops seeds within days and grows decent plants that I have no complaints about. Those tiny roots though, I need them for the Kit. I need them for the LOS as well, obviously, but something else may be at play in that pot.
Ziggy's leaf degradation has more to do with playing with the Kit than anything else PeeJay. You'd be better advised to check out my first journal.
SWICK raised from about one month. Less than 10 tiny, tiny necrotic leaves between the two. So for my grow that didn't come into account at all. I had a spectacular harvest, between the soil, my control of the CFLs and the SWICK. Not an average harvest mind you, but extraordinary potency and very decent yield. I attribute that success in large part to my use of the SWICK.
I've never torn my pot apart (no-till, Duh!), so I don't know what the roots have been like, but I know it pops seeds within days and grows decent plants that I have no complaints about. Those tiny roots though, I need them for the Kit. I need them for the LOS as well, obviously, but something else may be at play in that pot.
- Thread starter
- #255
Sue, I am well aware that some very nice plants have been grown in SWICK. I wish I had the real estate to have continued with my side by side but I just don't.
For every plant that does well in SWICK there are others that don't.
I was pleased overall with the performance of the SWICK for the first three weeks. You did hear me say that right? Nitrogen cycling is one example of how wet/dry cycles are beneficial. It should be noted that the nitrogen cycle in soil is frequently manipulated by adding nitrate fertilizers to the soil. It does not matter if these are organic or salt based - fishy ferts, alfalfa, mono ammonium phosphate, ammonium nitrate... In a continuously wet soil a higher percentage of available nitrate will be disposed of by anaerobes.
One thing that fascinates me about both the kit and LOS aficionados is that both methods seem to rely on a steady stream of inputs - add this, add that, try this, try that. I don't add much of anything and it works pretty well. I don't SWICK and it works pretty well.
For every plant that does well in SWICK there are others that don't.
I was pleased overall with the performance of the SWICK for the first three weeks. You did hear me say that right? Nitrogen cycling is one example of how wet/dry cycles are beneficial. It should be noted that the nitrogen cycle in soil is frequently manipulated by adding nitrate fertilizers to the soil. It does not matter if these are organic or salt based - fishy ferts, alfalfa, mono ammonium phosphate, ammonium nitrate... In a continuously wet soil a higher percentage of available nitrate will be disposed of by anaerobes.
One thing that fascinates me about both the kit and LOS aficionados is that both methods seem to rely on a steady stream of inputs - add this, add that, try this, try that. I don't add much of anything and it works pretty well. I don't SWICK and it works pretty well.
Not an LOS afficianado, just a neophyte practitioner.
From long veg to flowering, I am LOS cc-mix soil + water + herbal foliar for bug reduction.
I respect your less is more approach.
I have tremendous respect in what you do with your minimal input, minimal stress, maximum output system PeeJay. I'm also enamoured with the idea of having a soil community that is undisturbed, and that takes some regular input. I'll grant you that our association has me rethinking how much input and scaling that back.
The Kit is another thing entirely - minimal base with orchestrated manipulation of the biota. PeeJay, you'd love this Kit!
This is right up your alley. Someday you need to dabble. 
Dennise
Well-Known Member
There is no doubt in my mind PJ that the PJ organic soil mix is the easiest and best medium I have ever used and after I finish this run... I don't think I will use anything else... I love the buds it grow... the taste... and if it got any easier... they would grow themselves....
- Thread starter
- #259
Indoor update:
Things are going well. The 5x60 Mars cheapo runs very hot! The tent plants seem a little heat stressed so I boosted the fan a bit to cool things down. I don't have a thermometer/hydrometer in the tent even though I have several sitting around. I'd rather look at the situation and think, "it may be a little hotter than I want in there, I think I'll boost the fan." Watch and react.
Whole tent, Cheese on the left and DarkStar on the right. Day 27 of flower - a little less for the pokey DarkStar.
I'm really liking the Dinafem Cheese. It is chunking up nicely, branched with little encouragement. It is not the "latest and greatest" strain but like the Dinafem OG I grew, a very well behaved plant with a solid genetic backbone. It stinks like only a good cheese can. This was a freebie but I will be ordering both the Dinafem OG and the Dinafem Cheese next order no matter how tempted I am by other things that seem more exotic.
Darkstar is poking along in flower formation but is looking nicely frosty. This strain takes a little patience. It has a rather sativa-like pace for a pure indica. If I get to the greenhouse update today then we will see that there too.
Things are going well. The 5x60 Mars cheapo runs very hot! The tent plants seem a little heat stressed so I boosted the fan a bit to cool things down. I don't have a thermometer/hydrometer in the tent even though I have several sitting around. I'd rather look at the situation and think, "it may be a little hotter than I want in there, I think I'll boost the fan." Watch and react.
Whole tent, Cheese on the left and DarkStar on the right. Day 27 of flower - a little less for the pokey DarkStar.
I'm really liking the Dinafem Cheese. It is chunking up nicely, branched with little encouragement. It is not the "latest and greatest" strain but like the Dinafem OG I grew, a very well behaved plant with a solid genetic backbone. It stinks like only a good cheese can. This was a freebie but I will be ordering both the Dinafem OG and the Dinafem Cheese next order no matter how tempted I am by other things that seem more exotic.
Darkstar is poking along in flower formation but is looking nicely frosty. This strain takes a little patience. It has a rather sativa-like pace for a pure indica. If I get to the greenhouse update today then we will see that there too.
- Thread starter
- #260
Greenhouse update:
I was away for several days this week again but lower temperatures, intermittent cloud cover, and higher RH prevented a repeat of last weeks debacle.
DarkStar is, I guess, flowering now.
Sage n' Sour is farther along:
The breeders like PJ 2.01. Panama does not like the climate as much as the Chitral. These are between 23 and 25 days from breaking ground.
I was away for several days this week again but lower temperatures, intermittent cloud cover, and higher RH prevented a repeat of last weeks debacle.
DarkStar is, I guess, flowering now.
Sage n' Sour is farther along:
The breeders like PJ 2.01. Panama does not like the climate as much as the Chitral. These are between 23 and 25 days from breaking ground.