How To Prevent Botrytis, PM, and Bacterial Leaf Spot Disease

[Mikell]

Just pause for a moment, and take a second to re-read this comment. Dude, look how angry you're getting. So much anger. What gives?

"You are not special" - is that what your siblings told you while you grew up? It's not true, you are special. We must not take this out on other people though, you've gotta learn from this and not be so bitter towards other people - whether it be on forums or in real life. Your jaw wouldn't remain in tact for too long if you spoke like this to someone in person... I can tell you that much lol

I'm sorry, if you can please respond to the queries put to you.

The ball is in your court, do what you will.

Who's angry, the one asking questions, or the one threatening violence?

 

[Former Guest]

You're both being rude to each other. Do I need to change my user title to official dick measurer? lets just try to focus on our own attitudes now or whip em out so I can declare winner

 

[Team Microbe]

You heard her Mikell.... whip it out!


And while you're at it...

You might need a bigger size though, because judging by your comments thus far... you own a gargantuan

No but really, I'm done now lol. Let's continue this thread...

 

[Former Guest]

Stop. It. Means you too buddy.

 

[Mikell]

I appreciate you taking the time to respond in a relevant, mature manner Microbe.

Let's continue this thread...

Gladly, you can start by addressing the concerns expressed over the past few pages.

 

[DuskrayTroubador]

I think the question I posed earlier that went unanswered has some merit; whenever fertilizer is the only synthetic thing used and is used in a responsible way, combined with a completely natural and living soil, what damage is done?

When taking inventory of the damages, I would like to know damages to both the finished product and the environment, as both are important.

I was under the impression that the damage from growing with chemicals stemmed from runoff, salt build up, not tapering off/cleansing, and lack of any sort of living soil, as well as the problems associated with using chemical insecticides/fungicides. In absence of chemical insecticides and fungicides, it seems to me (and my albeit rudimentary understanding of plant and ecosystem biology) that with responsible use, the problems associated with chemical fertilizers are avoided.

 

[Team Microbe]

I think the question I posed earlier that went unanswered has some merit; whenever fertilizer is the only synthetic thing used and is used in a responsible way, combined with a completely natural and living soil, what damage is done?

When taking inventory of the damages, I would like to know damages to both the finished product and the environment, as both are important.

I was under the impression that the damage from growing with chemicals stemmed from runoff, salt build up, not tapering off/cleansing, and lack of any sort of living soil, as well as the problems associated with using chemical insecticides/fungicides. In absence of chemical insecticides and fungicides, it seems to me (and my albeit rudimentary understanding of plant and ecosystem biology) that with responsible use, the problems associated with chemical fertilizers are avoided.

Well it depends on what you mean by the word "damage" I think. Environmental damage is seen after it's flushed into our water supply, all that excess nitrogen makes algae really flourish in certain places (especially the Golf). When it comes to organic soil and chemicals, I look at it like trying to drive an automatic car as you would a manual one... it's counter-productive because the soil food web relies on natural processes that are bypassed in synthetic regimens.

I think if going that route the use of a soilless mix is more logical, since soil requires feeding the soil directly and the plant indirectly, where with synthetics it's the very opposite. As you already know, we rely on microorganisms to break down and transfer food to the plant in a soil setting. The advantage soil has over conventional styles of growing is that we can relax and let the microbes do the work for us. We don't have to play God, or know when to switch to flowering nutrients. The microbes do it all themselves, and the plants are allowed to stow away reserves for times of stress. Plant needs change by the hour, one hour it could be craving some N and the next it's P, Ca, or K... so we never really know what's going on from a human stand-point. That's why gardening is so damn humbling - you eventually realize you don't play as big of a role as you thought you did.. you simply supply the environment, seeds, and pots; and the soil does the rest for you.

I think final product quality is more of a preference type of thing, some people can't tell the difference between mid grade and organic high grade so they don't see the point in putting the time in to learn about soil systems, while others can and it's of value to them to put the time in. I do know that soil allows for a more abundant terpene profile, which is why many think living soil smoke is tastier than chemical smoke

 

[Mad Lab]

sometimes you get some better information as an observer when these debates get out of hand.

 

[RetroGrow]

We don't have to play God, or know when to switch to flowering nutrients.

But I like playing god. And it doesn't really take a whole lot of knowledge to know when to switch to flowering nutrients. Seriously, a cave man could do it.
It's funny. You're actually preaching NOT to play god while doing it!

 

[Team Microbe]

But I like playing god. And it doesn't really take a whole lot of knowledge to know when to switch to flowering nutrients. Seriously, a cave man could do it.
It's funny. You're actually preaching NOT to play god while doing it!

Plants change needs on the flip of a dime, it's literally unknown when they demand these things. Trust me, I loved playing God too but after a while it becomes quite humbling. You're taking a wild guess when you switch regimens with your light cycle, those plants take up bloom requirements at all different times depending on strain and pheno type. You're taking an uneducated guess basically. The soil system is so complex that it becomes hard to explain it in a few paragraphs, if we could only see microbes...

 

[MJPassion]

I appreciate that. Tone and body language are lacking and miscommunication happens more easily.

Each grower thinks there way is the right way. When you tell them that there way sucks, generally it won't go over well. Think of it like this, for the most part I think it is safe to say that people don't appreciate it when religious folks knock on their doors. People even joke about the cruel things they do like getting the hose because it's unwanted and they're saying that their religion is better than yours. People stick to their beliefs even more.

But what if that didn't happen? What if all those religious folks just did their religious thing and when people have trying times and are unhappy with their life yeilds, then they see the religious people and want to then know the good news? Crappy analogy but I guess I'm saying why don't we just post how happy we are with our plants, what we are doing to get there in and let the pics speak for themselves? People will come on your thread and want what you have. Then they're ready and willing to listen and your time is not wasted with fighting the negative folks. It's all about the delivery of the message; not the message itself per say. Wait for them to come to us and ask how we do it. Let people take the path and those who make it, want to listen. Those who want to fight will get stuck.

My path: synthetic hydro to synthetic soilless which turned into mold. Switched to organic soil and even with my poor soil mix, no PM. While my veg room environment is conducive to molding plants, the organics I use like biobizz and amended soil along with other inputs like kelp and aloe have solved, I repeat, solved my issue of pm. If I could get my environment better, the plants would be even healthier. When the pm got bad I got root rot in my hydro rez and was so upset. I started looking into microbes, aquaponics and then finally I stumbled upon brix. Tried it and despite it being more difficult to understand than synthetics, I could care less and love the way I grow. I still think synthetic growers can have plants that are mold free as a few times a week I stroll by whiteberries thread to admire. I have friends who grow both ways and the ones who grow with synthetics often ask me questions on why or how I'm doing what I'm doing. That's when I get to share without coming off the wrong way.

Poetry in action here.
k+

 

[Former Guest]

I think the best way to help is the infirmary forum. There are Newbs helping Newbs with a spattering of experienced growers answering.

 

[MJPassion]

Well it depends on what you mean by the word "damage" I think. Environmental damage is seen after it's flushed into our water supply, all that excess nitrogen makes algae really flourish in certain places (especially the Golf). When it comes to organic soil and chemicals, I look at it like trying to drive an automatic car as you would a manual one... it's counter-productive because the soil food web relies on natural processes that are bypassed in synthetic regimens.

I think if going that route the use of a soilless mix is more logical, since soil requires feeding the soil directly and the plant indirectly, where with synthetics it's the very opposite. As you already know, we rely on microorganisms to break down and transfer food to the plant in a soil setting. The advantage soil has over conventional styles of growing is that we can relax and let the microbes do the work for us. We don't have to play God, or know when to switch to flowering nutrients. The microbes do it all themselves, and the plants are allowed to stow away reserves for times of stress. Plant needs change by the hour, one hour it could be craving some N and the next it's P, Ca, or K... so we never really know what's going on from a human stand-point. That's why gardening is so damn humbling - you eventually realize you don't play as big of a role as you thought you did.. you simply supply the environment, seeds, and pots; and the soil does the rest for you.

I think final product quality is more of a preference type of thing, some people can't tell the difference between mid grade and organic high grade so they don't see the point in putting the time in to learn about soil systems, while others can and it's of value to them to put the time in. I do know that soil allows for a more abundant terpene profile, which is why many think living soil smoke is tastier than chemical smoke

I like to think of the growers medium, wether it be H2O, dirt, coco, peat... wtf ever it is, as a plants stomach.

Like your stomach, the medium generally has a combination of microbial life that is necessary for the delivery of nutrient in a useable form.

 

[Crusader Rabbit]

Not all questions need to be answered. Not all challenges need to be met. Sometimes a challenge in itself is enough to alert readers to the fact that they need to take an item with a few grains of salt, and maybe do some research on their own. The first incarnation of this thread went down in flames. But this is a good thread and the efforts of those involved to keep it on the road are much appreciated.

 

[DuskrayTroubador]

Well it depends on what you mean by the word "damage" I think. Environmental damage is seen after it's flushed into our water supply, all that excess nitrogen makes algae really flourish in certain places (especially the Golf). When it comes to organic soil and chemicals, I look at it like trying to drive an automatic car as you would a manual one... it's counter-productive because the soil food web relies on natural processes that are bypassed in synthetic regimens.

I think if going that route the use of a soilless mix is more logical, since soil requires feeding the soil directly and the plant indirectly, where with synthetics it's the very opposite. As you already know, we rely on microorganisms to break down and transfer food to the plant in a soil setting. The advantage soil has over conventional styles of growing is that we can relax and let the microbes do the work for us. We don't have to play God, or know when to switch to flowering nutrients. The microbes do it all themselves, and the plants are allowed to stow away reserves for times of stress. Plant needs change by the hour, one hour it could be craving some N and the next it's P, Ca, or K... so we never really know what's going on from a human stand-point. That's why gardening is so damn humbling - you eventually realize you don't play as big of a role as you thought you did.. you simply supply the environment, seeds, and pots; and the soil does the rest for you.

I think final product quality is more of a preference type of thing, some people can't tell the difference between mid grade and organic high grade so they don't see the point in putting the time in to learn about soil systems, while others can and it's of value to them to put the time in. I do know that soil allows for a more abundant terpene profile, which is why many think living soil smoke is tastier than chemical smoke

Remember, we're talking about responsible use of synthetic fertilizers: i.e. giving more frequent feedings that are of a lower PPM, as the plants can only absorb the nutrients out of the soil at a certain rate. This prevents excess nutrients that have been in the soil for too long from leeching out. Whenever one tapers off and eventually stops feeding in flowering, the flush is not what one thinks of as a flush in the conventional sense where the fertilizers are purposely leeched out by frequent watering. On the contrary, flushing outdoor is a process that begins by giving the plants less fertilizer, and then eventually none (without speeding up frequency of watering, or one might even cut back a bit) so that the plants utilize the remaining fertilizer. Hence when low PPM feedings are given, the nutrients never are in the soil long enough to leech out.

In theory, a soil mix with all kinds of castings compost would leech nutrients into the water supply potentially more than synthetic nutrients in an unmodified soil, simply in virtue of the fact that the soil is mixed together and has one large amount of nutrients to last the whole season. Due to the large number of nutrients in the soil being there for a very long time (due to plants only being able to use so much at a time) it only make sense to think that a lot of those nutrients are going to leech from the soil due to watering and rain and into the water supply. Now whether or not these nutrients in the water supply are less dangerous than synthetic nutrients is a completely different discussion, and frankly not one that I know much about (Nitrogen is Nitrogen, right?).

And you're forgetting that my soil is living. It's soil native to the grow location and other rich, loamy soil dug out of an area near a creek. Very good soil, and very much alive indeed. My soil is all organic matter straight out of mother nature, the result of how many thousands of years of completely natural processes. Your soil is organic matter from mother nature mixed together. Both are equally organic and living.

It's also noteworthy that while you're right, plants do change their needs by the hour, synthetic ferts do remain in the soil for some period of time (being responsible means just giving a lower PPM dose so that they don't stay there long enough that they leech out before the plants can use them) and if one uses a say, 20-20-20 fertilizer with plenty of micronutes and all that good stuff, what is to stop the plant from drawing them out of the soil at any given time?

And knowing when to switch fertilizers is not much of a crapshoot. While there is a little bit of variance between strains and phenotypes, photoperiod strains almost always begin releasing flowering hormones somewhere between 14.5 and 14.25 hours of daylight. That's about a 2 or 3 day period. About a week from then you'll start seeing signs of flowering. This is when you begin to give the plant flowering nutrients and, if you're feeding in a responsible fashion, the plant will still have enough nutrients from the all-purpose 20-20-20 to begin eating what it wants in the couple day layover from when it may begin needing flowering nutrients and when you begin giving them.

Now it may be the case that plants without synthetics may be healthier, and shit, they may even yield more. That I don't know about. I'm just trying to sort through some of the problems that are ascribed to using synthetic fertilizers.

 

[Microbeman]

...they are in coir, smart pots 11 ltr, I believe, Growth technology Ionic full range for coco, plus Buddha Tree bloomstarter and then PK 9-18 in place of growth technology PK 14, & a week of House and Garden Shooting Powder.Flush = chuck PH'd, molasses laced water at her coco until it weeps a little and leave well enough alone. The flush will be from now until she is ready.

Thanks for any input

Then it is likely that you could flush excess solubles, unlike peat based or soil.

 

[Ftscustm]

I can't vote again

I can't vote again

Well it depends on what you mean by the word "damage" I think. Environmental damage is seen after it's flushed into our water supply, all that excess nitrogen makes algae really flourish in certain places (especially the Golf). When it comes to organic soil and chemicals, I look at it like trying to drive an automatic car as you would a manual one... it's counter-productive because the soil food web relies on natural processes that are bypassed in synthetic regimens.

I think if going that route the use of a soilless mix is more logical, since soil requires feeding the soil directly and the plant indirectly, where with synthetics it's the very opposite. As you already know, we rely on microorganisms to break down and transfer food to the plant in a soil setting. The advantage soil has over conventional styles of growing is that we can relax and let the microbes do the work for us. We don't have to play God, or know when to switch to flowering nutrients. The microbes do it all themselves, and the plants are allowed to stow away reserves for times of stress. Plant needs change by the hour, one hour it could be craving some N and the next it's P, Ca, or K... so we never really know what's going on from a human stand-point. That's why gardening is so damn humbling - you eventually realize you don't play as big of a role as you thought you did.. you simply supply the environment, seeds, and pots; and the soil does the rest for you.

I think final product quality is more of a preference type of thing, some people can't tell the difference between mid grade and organic high grade so they don't see the point in putting the time in to learn about soil systems, while others can and it's of value to them to put the time in. I do know that soil allows for a more abundant terpene profile, which is why many think living soil smoke is tastier than chemical smoke

Thank you, your thoughts drive my thinking in a personal and happily similar direction.

 

[Ftscustm]

Still zoned out of the system

Still zoned out of the system

Not all questions need to be answered. Not all challenges need to be met. Sometimes a challenge in itself is enough to alert readers to the fact that they need to take an item with a few grains of salt, and maybe do some research on their own. The first incarnation of this thread went down in flames. But this is a good thread and the efforts of those involved to keep it on the road are much appreciated.

Thank you for that! Well met, nice thinking...



I have no knowledge of a previous incarnation but this mother is a phoenix.

 

[CannaBrix]

Then it is likely that you could flush excess solubles, unlike peat based or soil.

Unlike peat or soil? Can you elaborate?

 

[Microbeman]

Remember, we're talking about responsible use of synthetic fertilizers: i.e. giving more frequent feedings that are of a lower PPM, as the plants can only absorb the nutrients out of the soil at a certain rate. This prevents excess nutrients that have been in the soil for too long from leeching out.

I believe that this is possible, however the trouble with it involves the basis of data one uses to determine what PPM/EC of which specific nutrients are required at what specific time. Who tells you how strong or weak to mix your nutrients?

In theory, a soil mix with all kinds of castings compost would leech nutrients into the water supply potentially more than synthetic nutrients in an unmodified soil, simply in virtue of the fact that the soil is mixed together and has one large amount of nutrients to last the whole season. Due to the large number of nutrients in the soil being there for a very long time (due to plants only being able to use so much at a time) it only make sense to think that a lot of those nutrients are going to leech from the soil due to watering and rain and into the water supply. Now whether or not these nutrients in the water supply are less dangerous than synthetic nutrients is a completely different discussion, and frankly not one that I know much about (Nitrogen is Nitrogen, right?).

This is incorrect, to the best of my knowledge. While there certainly are very minor soluble nutrients in properly finished compost and properly digested vermicompost, the lion's share of nutrients are sequestered (locked up) in a form which is only released via organic acids secreted by microorganisms and plant roots. This is in effect how the cation/anion exchange functions. (Anion contingent on colloidal/humus content of soil/[v]compost)

It is because of this aspect of living soil that one can plant new crops into the same soil whence last season's harvest came. If the soil abounds with diverse & dense microbial populations, the amount of nutrient required is reduced.

If you are talking about manure applied, then you are correct that leaching is very problematic.

It's also noteworthy that while you're right, plants do change their needs by the hour, synthetic ferts do remain in the soil for some period of time (being responsible means just giving a lower PPM dose so that they don't stay there long enough that they leech out before the plants can use them)

And knowing when to switch fertilizers is not much of a crapshoot. While there is a little bit of variance between strains and phenotypes, photoperiod strains almost always begin releasing flowering hormones somewhere between 14.5 and 14.25 hours of daylight. That's about a 2 or 3 day period. About a week from then you'll start seeing signs of flowering. This is when you begin to give the plant flowering nutrients and, if you're feeding in a responsible fashion, the plant will still have enough nutrients from the all-purpose 20-20-20 to begin eating what it wants in the couple day layover from when it may begin needing flowering nutrients and when you begin giving them.

Emphasis in bold added by me.

Please tell me that you see the contradiction between the two above quotes. Also, again I would ask, Who/what tells you what the nutrient requirements of the plants are and guides the nutrient mix?

I presume you are talking about the typical upswing of
P for fruitset(?)

Don't misread me. I believe that what you are discussing is doable but must be done with mathematical precission. One either needs to learn how to calculate this themselves or work with a professional, able to do the calculations, based in part on soil and water tests (nutrient, porosity, pH, mineral content, water TDS, etc.)

BTW, there are not that many people capable in this area. How much easier is it to just use natural growing techniques?