I figured it was just Self Wicking container, hence the abbreviation.
The Everything SWICK Club: 2023 And Beyond
- Thread starter Carmen Ray
- Start date
I may have been wrong in my definitions and it is simply the combination of the two words, SIP and WICK?
I found some cool taller containers here at the lab. Could be an interesting way to increase pot or res size by combining with a 5 gal...
Looks like I have 3 or 4 spares. (Because I'm a hoarder lol)
My thought is in a 5 gal or the 5 gal in it. Heck maybe I just use 2 and it could be an extra tall pot. I know there were some growers experimenting with the tall pot and combo pots a few years back. I don't love the fact that they are white though. For algae.
Anyways hope everyone is having a great day
Cheers from Alaska
Edit. I said res but aonenor 2 variations would filled with a wicking media. I'm thinking of trying 3 to 6 this summer
Looks like I have 3 or 4 spares. (Because I'm a hoarder lol)
My thought is in a 5 gal or the 5 gal in it. Heck maybe I just use 2 and it could be an extra tall pot. I know there were some growers experimenting with the tall pot and combo pots a few years back. I don't love the fact that they are white though. For algae.
Anyways hope everyone is having a great day
Cheers from Alaska
Edit. I said res but aonenor 2 variations would filled with a wicking media. I'm thinking of trying 3 to 6 this summer
- Thread starter
- #64
That's a good theory. Lets work that into the narrative
It does make sense to me and perhaps we should formalize it with the SIPers. So wicking is a sub-category of SIP and that's how you end up with Swick.
Gee64
Well-Known Member
Hi Carmen
Mind if I hang out? This is a great subject
Mind if I hang out? This is a great subject- Thread starter
- #66
Hi Gee, thanks for joining usHi Carmen
It's a wonderful subject and I am glad you will be part of the conversation.
to me SIP is with a soil wick. SWICK uses a wick of another material to wick into the soil. What am I missing?
CBDMed
Well-Known Member
I'm gone!
Love you guys!
Love you guys!
- Thread starter
- #69
Hey Otter. I don't think either SIP or swick are defined by the wicking medium. They both use various I think. I think the soil wick model is the one that Azi proposed and that many members of 420 Mag are using to experiment with the technique. I think SIP is an umbrella term that encompasses all manner of sub-irrigated planters. I think that swick (SIP + Wick = Swick) is a type of SIP and Azi's build is a type of SIP and so on. Does that make sense to you, after-all this is only my opinion at this point. When more people engage on the subject I think we'll learn a lot more. Some are saying that the air gap in a SIP is what makes it stand apart. I find that an interesting observation because I think there can be and are air exchange layers to swicks.
That's basically how I think of it.
I put this in the SIP thread but I'll put it here as well while we're talking definitions:
I've never sub-irrigated any plants, but I have definitely done wicking using rope or cloth from a bottle to the top of the plant. So it seems to me that the S very much relates to the "sub" aspect of the name SWICK.
I've never sub-irrigated any plants, but I have definitely done wicking using rope or cloth from a bottle to the top of the plant. So it seems to me that the S very much relates to the "sub" aspect of the name SWICK.
- Thread starter
- #72
I think Hash Hound was being serious when he made the suggestion that Swick may the combination of the words Sub-irrigation and wicking. I made a joke about it but it makes sense. It would fit with your understanding too.
I have done some reading on the net about SIPs and watched some Youtube. I haven't seen an instruction that the wick must be soil. Perhaps the SIPs that you are building in the other thread should be referred to as Soil Chamber SIPs if you want to be specific...
Sub-irrigated Wicking / Swicking is simply that. It is using any suitable mechanism to wick water from the reservoir and through the pot from below. So perhaps your SIPs are sophisticated swicks LOL!
I think all of these things are misnamed, or at least misleading as the focus is all on the manner of delivering water and not on what actually makes these things work better.
Instead, they probably should be called SAPs, for Sub Aerated Planters. The focus should be on what's delivering the most important benefits. That's the increased availability of air down at the root zone and that would put the focus where it belongs. It almost doesn't seem to matter how you deliver the water as long as there is enough. I'd be curious from Hash how the SWICKS do in flower and how often they drain a given amount of water.
What I like about the SIPs is the ability of the plant to drink as much as it wants, and not being limited to the efficiency or flow capacity of the wicking medium. Buds fills his 1 gallon SIP reservoirs twice a day during flower so the plant is drinking close to two gallons every day. Astounding.
Whether you look at SIPs, SWICKS, Octopots, Airpots, Cloth pots, DWC, whatever, they all grow bigger and better plants than traditional plastic containers. What's common between them all? Extra air at the root zone.
I've changed the design of my containers based on what I think gives me better roots but in the end I don't think it makes all that much difference to the topside growth. Why? Both had similar air to the roots. And that's why I think the air is the defining factor. Without the extra air you get root rot pretty consistently.
SAPs. Maybe I should rename my thread...
Instead, they probably should be called SAPs, for Sub Aerated Planters. The focus should be on what's delivering the most important benefits. That's the increased availability of air down at the root zone and that would put the focus where it belongs. It almost doesn't seem to matter how you deliver the water as long as there is enough. I'd be curious from Hash how the SWICKS do in flower and how often they drain a given amount of water.
What I like about the SIPs is the ability of the plant to drink as much as it wants, and not being limited to the efficiency or flow capacity of the wicking medium. Buds fills his 1 gallon SIP reservoirs twice a day during flower so the plant is drinking close to two gallons every day. Astounding.
Whether you look at SIPs, SWICKS, Octopots, Airpots, Cloth pots, DWC, whatever, they all grow bigger and better plants than traditional plastic containers. What's common between them all? Extra air at the root zone.
I've changed the design of my containers based on what I think gives me better roots but in the end I don't think it makes all that much difference to the topside growth. Why? Both had similar air to the roots. And that's why I think the air is the defining factor. Without the extra air you get root rot pretty consistently.
SAPs. Maybe I should rename my thread...
Mine drink a quart+ a day. If I skip a day it will suck up what it missed also.
- Thread starter
- #75
That makes sense.
I'd agree with this. I often use the aMaphondo example to illustrate this. The Transkei weed is grown in inaccessible mountains to avoid being sprayed by the police who can't get to them by helicopter. Anyway, those farmers can't bring water to the plants and the plants are fed by the dew in the air, foliar mainly and feeder roots at the top.
Please will you explain how and why this is, Azi.
I must admit some of the terminology confuses this LudditeI think Hash Hound was being serious when he made the suggestion that Swick may the combination of the words Sub-irrigation and wicking. I made a joke about it but it makes sense. It would fit with your understanding too.
I have done some reading on the net about SIPs and watched some Youtube. I haven't seen an instruction that the wick must be soil. Perhaps the SIPs that you are building in the other thread should be referred to as Soil Chamber SIPs if you want to be specific...
Sub-irrigated Wicking / Swicking is simply that. It is using any suitable mechanism to wick water from the reservoir and through the pot from below. So perhaps your SIPs are sophisticated swicks LOL!
All these systems basically water from the bottom of the pot, not much different to pouring water in the tray or leaving run-off sitting until it's absorbed really - isn't it?
- Thread starter
- #77
Here SAPS stands for South African Police Service. Please don't call your dagga pots SAPSI think all of these things are misnamed, or at least misleading as the focus is all on the manner of delivering water and not on what actually makes these things work better.
Instead, they probably should be called SAPs, for Sub Aerated Planters. The focus should be on what's delivering the most important benefits. That's the increased availability of air down at the root zone and that would put the focus where it belongs. It almost doesn't seem to matter how you deliver the water as long as there is enough. I'd be curious from Hash how the SWICKS do in flower and how often they drain a given amount of water.
What I like about the SIPs is the ability of the plant to drink as much as it wants, and not being limited to the efficiency or flow capacity of the wicking medium. Buds fills his 1 gallon SIP reservoirs twice a day during flower so the plant is drinking close to two gallons every day. Astounding.
Whether you look at SIPs, SWICKS, Octopots, Airpots, Cloth pots, DWC, whatever, they all grow bigger and better plants than traditional plastic containers. What's common between them all? Extra air at the root zone.
I've changed the design of my containers based on what I think gives me better roots but in the end I don't think it makes all that much difference to the topside growth. Why? Both had similar air to the roots. And that's why I think the air is the defining factor. Without the extra air you get root rot pretty consistently.
SAPs. Maybe I should rename my thread...
- Thread starter
- #78
Well the principle is the same, water movement via capillary action from the bottom up. The aeration chamber is what sets the one apart from the other. LOL @ Luddite
Stunger is doing a version of sub-irrigation via an aeration tube. I think this is his own idea. It would also work on similar principles I think?
And in what sized container?
Back when I was experimenting with SWICKS, I found it difficult to match the wick size to the plant. I had everything buried in one container so couldn't change things as the plant grew. At the beginning there was too much water flow for the small plant and eventually there was not enough for the larger plant and the roots just grew down the wick to help themselves. I've seen some recent designs that allow for a changing number of wicks which I think would would be much better.
But also, back then, I too was focused on the delivery of water. How much at what rate, and basically was oblivious to the air component.
It's back to the air. Sit a pot with a normal planting mix in a saucer you keep constantly full and you'll get root rot, so it's not just about the bottom watering. And yes, you can just do bottom watering, clearing out the unused water after say 15 mins and grow a nice plant but you won't get the expolsive growth you get when the multiple factors are all in play.