DIY autowatering sistem - what do i need?

[IndianHay]

Can anyone post a list of things i need to do that kind of sistem by my own?

 

[Philosophelon]

1) A pump
2) Soft black PVC tubing (from pump to irrigation line)
3) Semi-rigid irrigation tubing (from softline, plug drip heads into it)
4) A hole puncher for irrigation tubing
5) Drip heads (little discs with a barb on either side that you plug into the irrigation line to regulate water flow [I prefer 2 GPH drippers])
6) Drip Lines (skinny hose that runs from drip heads to dripper stakes)
7) Drip Stakes (stake that is plugged into drip line and stuck in soil)
8) Line Ends (For the ends of your irrigation tubing)
9) Misc. Plastic Elbows, Tees, Etc.

*Go to your favorite growshop and ask the guys there to help you set it up. It's cheap and easy!

 

[stink.whistler]

You can also use a smartvalve system to water from the bottom. You just need the smartvalve, a reservoir, a tray to hold the plants and the 1" of water the smartvalve is going to allow in, and tubing to connect the smartvalve to the reservoir.

I don't know why more people do not use the smartvalve, it seems like a very elegant solution to me.

 

[Philosophelon]

The problem with bottom feeding is that it does not allow salts to leach from the rooting media when the plants are watered. With a normal top feeding, 10-15% of the volume of nutes/water added drain out the bottom of the pot, flushing out some of the old salts and/or restoring the balance of nutrients in the rhizosphere to the optimum ratios and concentrations. I would strongly recommend using a top-feed, drain-to-waste system if at all possible.

 

[stink.whistler]

That is a good point, Phlosophelon. But what are your thoughts on bottom feeding an organic soil grow? There is definitely the problem of not being able to supplement by adding compost to the top, but if you are going for a beginning to end grow w/ no supplements (other than an occasional manual top water of fish emulsion, or other) - I think smartvalve bottom feeding pure water might be a nice setup (have not done it myself!)

IndianHay - what kind of grow are you looking to do?

 

[Philosophelon]

...what are your thoughts on bottom feeding an organic soil grow? There is definitely the problem of not being able to supplement by adding compost to the top, but if you are going for a beginning to end grow w/ no supplements (other than an occasional manual top water of fish emulsion, or other) - I think smartvalve bottom feeding pure water might be a nice setup (have not done it myself!)

I think that it could certainly work for a pre-amended organic soil grow, provided the soil was well aerated. Actually, I think that if you fertilized with 100% organic nutes (like compost tea or something) you could probably bottom feed a nutrient sol'n as well. I did a few organic grows awhile back, and didn't need to flush at all until the end, as opposed to weekly like I do with refined mineral nutes. Salt build-up seemed to be a non-issue with straight organics.

Also, organics perform very differently than refined mineral nutes in the rhizosphere -- they are large complex molecules that need to be broken down (by soil micro-organisms) into the correct ionic form so that they can be absorbed by the plant. As a result, organic soil has its own 'self-correcting' tendency, if you will, because the organisms in the soil are constantly affecting the nutrients, hormones, pH, etc. I'm not an organic guru by any means, but I hope that gives ya a little background.

 

[IndianHay]

Thanks for all the answers! I will get things next week i suppose.
@stink.whistler: 150w mh/hps cabinet lst or scrog grow.

 

[Tanuvan]

The problem with bottom feeding is that it does not allow salts to leach from the rooting media when the plants are watered. With a normal top feeding, 10-15% of the volume of nutes/water added drain out the bottom of the pot, flushing out some of the old salts and/or restoring the balance of nutrients in the rhizosphere to the optimum ratios and concentrations. I would strongly recommend using a top-feed, drain-to-waste system if at all possible.

The simple solution is...use less nutrients. I believe in the autopots, you can use half strength. Also, it is every easy to pick up the pot with the plant in it...and run some plain water through it once every few weeks. For the otherwise zero maintenance, that is a small price in effort.

Light feedings do not cause noticeable salt build up. Look here for autopot info

http://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=64072&highlight=autopot+airstone

Johnny Chimpo is a master with them.

 

[Philosophelon]

The simple solution is...use less nutrients. I believe in the autopots, you can use half strength. Also, it is every easy to pick up the pot with the plant in it...and run some plain water through it once every few weeks.

True, that would mitigate salt build-up. But the point of adding sol'n to the top and allowing some to leach out the bottom is not only to re-establish an ideal concentration of nutrients in the rooting media -- it is also to re-establish an ideal ratio of nutrients in the rooting media, because plants do not use nutrients at the same rate. That's why you have to change reserviors at least every two weeks or so for optimum growth in hydro -- you can't just top it off at half strength all the time. Sure, you're plants won't burn, they may not even have external symptoms of a deficiency at first (or ever), but the ratio of nutrients (N:K:Mg:S:Ca) will continue to fluctuate and the longer you go without re-establishing the ideal nutrient ratio, the less optimally your plants will grow. I suppose you could change the bottom-feeding res regularly too, to solve that problem. But if you're flushing regularly and changing the res regularly, why not just go whole-hog and run a high-performance hydro setup?

I'm not claiming that bottom-feeding hydro doesn't work, nor am I claiming that it is not an easy-to-use or inexpensive setup. I am simply saying that bottom-feed hydro is by nature not a very high-performance hydro setup. Moreover, I do not think that my position is particularly controversial; I've not met any professionals in the industry who swear by bottom-feeding hydro. It might be easy, but a top-feeding drain-to-waste system is nearly as easy -- and it will deliver higher performance.

 

[Tanuvan]

Perhaps you haven't seen many grows from people using autopots or the MKII valve. It is all opinion, and I respect yours. However, if you have seen any of Johnny Chimpo's grows, or 3DDream, you would be hard press to show where any deficiencies developed from bottom feeding using the autopots.


Some people are using http://www.rambridge.com/products/irrigat/tropf/tropfbu2.html for top watering via Philophelon's approach.

 

[Philosophelon]

Perhaps you haven't seen many grows from people using autopots or the MKII valve. It is all opinion, and I respect yours. However, if you have seen any of Johnny Chimpo's grows, or 3DDream, you would be hard press to show where any deficiencies developed from bottom feeding using the autopots.

It is true that I've not read up on bottom feeding, so I must admit that I am certainly not an authority on the method. Also, I admit that I am only expressing my opinion, as is frequently the case in our field (and many others). I certainly respect your opinion, and other growers' ability to realize better results with a given method than I am able to realize myself.

I agree that autopots work, and I am sure that you are correct that the MKII valve works as well. But it is my experience that if one compares bottom feeding side-by-side with a more advanced hydro method (I tested some autopots vs. a small recirc. dripper system w/1:1 ratio coco to perlite), it will not perform as well. I used to work at a growshop until recently, so I have used autopots, and in my experience they did not perform as well as most of our other systems (DWC, or aero, or aero/NFT hybrid, or NFT, or drippers, or E&F trays) -- I'd say it performs as well as the Ebb & Gro, but that is one of my least favorite systems.

I'm NOT saying bottom-feeding doesn't work, because it does -- perhaps it's ideal if one is doing a personal grow, especially on a tight budget -- but just because it works (even if it works well) does not mean other methods don't work better. More convenient, less expensive, less maintenence: yes. But that comes at the cost of lower performance.

Finally, I don't mean to be a dick, and I recognize that there are those who disagree with me, but vigorous debate is healthy in the pursuit of knowledge, and it is in that vein that I am posting, not to be a contrarian douche-nozzle .