Tuesday 10 December 2013
Where Scrog Started ,Posts from the originals Scroggers From 97 Part 6
From nobody@nsm.htp.org Sat Feb 14 13:03:20 1998
Newsgroups: alt.drugs.pot.cultivation
Subject: Re: ScrOG Questions ** Plant size, Screen height, Headroom **
From: nobody@nsm.htp.org
Date: 14 Feb 1998 18:03:20 -0000
References: <19980213171917.29368.qmail@nsm.htp.org> <19980214071826.11914.qmail@nym.alias.net>
Message-ID: <19980214180320.880.qmail@nsm.htp.org>
On 14 Feb 1998 07:18:26 -0000 pH <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>On 13 Feb 1998 17:19:17 -0000 nobody@nsm.htp.org wrote:
>>(Yes I have seen the npkaye site !!!)
>>
>>Under ScrOG growing in soil...
>>
>>1. How many square feet will a single plant fill in? IOW, if I have one female
>>after sexing, how much space would be optimum? Ignore the issue of lighting for
>>the purposes of this answer. If it is dependent on root development, etc.
>>please give me some guidelines or ranges.
>
>First off, I can't help you much with soil. You'll have to be your own best judge there regarding plant and pot size.
>
>How many sq ft can one plant fill? Use your imagination and a variety that can grow large. Good branching is a desirable trait also. You could go as big as you wanted as long as you can supply light, and the area covered doesn't prohibit access to all areas of the screen for training purposes. Just let the plant fill the canopy enough so that when it's put into flowering it'll stop it's upward growth by the time it fills the canopy. IOW Don't overgrow the canopy.
>
>I fill 8 sq ft with one plant, in 1.5 gallons of geolite, 40w/sq ft fluoro, and an ebb/flow hydro system. It consistantly yields between 5 and 6 oz.
>
Thanks. This changed my whole way of thinking about ScrOG.
>>
>>2. WHat is the best guideline for height of the screen?
>
>As low as you can go and still feel comfortable working in there. IMHO any vertical growth over an above 6 nodes (with good shoots) is a waste of growing time (even 4 nodes could do ya good). My height is 10 inches from the medium surface to the netting. Plants are allowed to grow about 1 or 2 inches above the netting before I top them at, or just below, the netting. That's the only cut I ever make, all the rest is training. Use them for clones BTW.
>
>> My guess is one-third
>>of my total growing height between plant and bottom of lamp "danger zone"
>>(18inches for my 175 watt MH). Is this reasonably good place to start, or
>>should I be halfway?
>
>To gage your headroom first decide how long (or tall) the buds are going to be. Hopefully you'll know your variety going into the grow. These are the only plant parts that will be allowed to grow above the netting. No top colas though, plants will develope stronger branches and produce better if topped..
>
>Once you know your bud height figure the safe distance for your particular type of light. If you say 18", you should know best.
Just from what I have read. You think I dare get closer ??
> Just make sure you maximize the light by keeping it as close to, and parallel with, the screen. A single 175w light has its limits ya know, at 40w/sq ft you'll have about a 4 sq ft ScrOG, at 50w/sq ft about 3.5 sq ft. At some point, if you make the ScrOG too large you can risk depriving peripheral growth of light. A light mover is a perfect match for the flat ScrOG profile, you can improve your yield and get the light closer too. Might not be practical with a 175w bulb though.
>
Well it seems to me that if the area is too big, I will just get weak growth at the edges. It shouldn't hurt the plant though, right ?? The center of the system will still be getting just as much light, as long as I do not raise the light too far from the top of the plants.
[snipped]
>
>Lower. Try 10-12 inches. The canopy never starts filling UNTIL the plants have reached the netting, and then start to grow horizontally. Very few branches are needed to fill the canopy because those branches will bear branches, and so on. You'll have so many tertiary and quadernary shoots from so few primary branches it'll be hard to believe til you do it. Having the netting farther up will waste some time, and will promote undergrowth that will not see much (if any) light once the canopy is full. IOW the extra distance wastes time and produces nothing extra. All the yield will be near the netting no matter where it's located, whether it be 1 foot or 10 feet from the pot..
>
Roger.
>I see your height profile thusly:
>1 foot for the pot
>10" above the pot is the netting
>10" bud height (variable)
>18" danger zone
>12" fixture thickness (top to bottom, just a guess)
>
>62 inches or 5 feet, maxed at harvest time. You have 3 feet left of the 8 to do with as you please. I'd raise the pots so you could work on the plants without bending over or getting on your knees.
>
>pH
>
Sounds like that is where the early clones could go, while they root and get ready for the Screen stage...
Thanks again PH. There was a huge amount of info in your last reply. Maybe that could be added (even with my questions) to the future FAQ, or to a website somewhere ??
BeachBUD
From nobody@nsm.htp.org Sat Feb 14 16:56:04 1998
Newsgroups: alt.drugs.pot.cultivation
Subject: Re: ScrOG Questions ** Plant size, Screen height, Headroom **
From: nobody@nsm.htp.org
Date: 14 Feb 1998 21:56:04 -0000
References: <19980213171917.29368.qmail@nsm.htp.org> <19980214071826.11914.qmail@nym.alias.net> <19980214180320.880.qmail@nsm.htp.org> <19980214191050.4524.qmail@nym.alias.net>
Message-ID: <19980214215604.5637.qmail@nsm.htp.org>
>I've got a shitload of old ScrOG texts, and posted Q&As (including >this one). I'll try to organize them and make it a FAQ or info resource
>on ScrOG.
>
>pH
I want to yell "do it!" but I know you're a busy guy...
Know that the work would be appreciated though. ;)
-Cougar
From nobody@REPLAY.COM Sat Feb 14 10:48:09 1998
Newsgroups: alt.drugs.pot.cultivation
Subject: Re: ScrOG Questions ** Plant size, Screen height, Headroom **
From: nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous)
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 16:48:09 +0100 (MET)
References: <19980213171917.29368.qmail@nsm.htp.org>
Message-ID: <199802141548.QAA05686@basement.replay.com>
On 13 Feb 1998 17:19:17 -0000 nobody@nsm.htp.org wrote:
>(Yes I have seen the npkaye site !!!)
>
>Under ScrOG growing in soil...
>
>1. How many square feet will a single plant fill in? IOW, if I have one >female after sexing, how much space would be optimum? Ignore the issue of >lighting for the purposes of this answer. If it is dependent on root >development, etc. please give me some guidelines or ranges.
Impossible to ignore lighting when answering this question, as your optimum space has a lot to do with the area your light covers well. I think most would agree that you want (at least) 40 to 50 watts per ft. for your ScrOG.
Most varieties are very capable of filling the average small personal grow (say 10 sq ft or thereabouts) with a single plant using the screen training method. Just be sure to start flowering when the canopy is half filled (or less) especially if it is your first attempt with a new variety. You need to learn how *your* plant will behave, as they do seem to grow differently.
>
>2. WHat is the best guideline for height of the screen? My guess is >one-third of my total growing height between plant and bottom of lamp >"danger zone" (18inches for my 175 watt MH). Is this reasonably good place >to start, or should I be halfway?
I believe pH keeps his 10" above the container. With the ScrOG method you don't need much vertical growth, just a nice big root mass & a good trunk getting the plant to the screen where the horizontal canopy will grow. With a 175 watt MH I'm guessing you will go for around 4 to 5 sq ft canopy. This will not take much time at all to fill, is there any chance you could add a second light & make your area twice as long to give the plant somewhere to grow? Back to the screen height question, You will only have buds growing above the screen, they grow pretty slowly and in some are much larger than the rest you can bend them back down somewhat. The idea is to contain all that fast veg growth (that occurs during early flowering) under the screen, cuasing a demand for horizontal space rather than vertical space.
>
>By way of a specific example, My plants are in pots that stand 1 foot high >to base of plant, in an eight foot closet. Grow light takes about a foot at >its highest point, and allowing 18" for "danger zone", it leaves me with >4.5 feet of grow space. Should the screen be placed at 1.5 feet above base >of plant, or higher ??
Always keep your light as close to your plants as you can without burning them, no matter what method you use to grow. Light energy falls with the square of the distance it travels, so keeping the light as close as you can makes a real difference in how much energy you make available to your babies.
Dingo
>
>TIA all you guys who know...
>
>BeachBUD
From Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1] Sat Mar 21 18:21:43 1998
Newsgroups: alt.drugs.pot.cultivation
Subject: What type of screen, Training, Adding screen to existing garden
From: pH <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]>
Date: 21 Mar 1998 23:21:43 -0000
Message-ID: <19980321232143.7194.qmail@nym.alias.net>
On Sat, 21 Mar 1998 07:03:44 +0100 (MET) nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) wrote:
>Hi all. I've got a few questions concerning the screen method as I think it
>might help me in my current situation.
>What type of screen is best suitable for this method? I have 2 types- standard
>chicken wire (holes are about 1" in diameter) and a nylon type in which the
>squares are 3"
You should be able to find chicken wire with 2" holes. Plants can put a good deal of upward stress on the netting. Wire that's stretched reasonbly taut wont flex like nylon, and would keep the profile of the canopy flatter, otherwise it might have a tendency to bow up in the middle.
Whatever you do don't use the 1" wire, it's a real pain getting nice thick shoots through those iddy biddy holes, many will snap on ya:-(
>At what time of growth is the screen put into place?
Before any plants are introduced. I never remove my screens.
>I currently have 4 plants
>in a 4'x4' ebb and flow table that were veged for 4 weeks under 1000w of metal
>halide. At the third week the centre top was removed. They have been now
>flowering for 3 weeks of 12/12 and i will put my 940 in for the remaining 5
>weeks. The strain is predominately indica 80%.
>From my earlier attempts the plants have grown right up to the lights although
>I now *bend* the shoots so this doesn"t happen anymore. I think the screen
>would not be as much of a stress as the bending is what do you think?
Yep
Generally it's easier to do the bending during veg than after buds are forming strongly. That's the intent of the ScrOG. When buds do start to form strongly the upward/outward growth has usually slowed to a crawl and no more training is needed. IOW any bending is done before that point.
>All the plants have been carefully *brushed* down. I start from the outside of
>the plants and gently brush them down with my hands slowly working my way to
>the centre where the main stem used to be(instead of bending them). They have
>been positoned in the 4x4 as to try and make them as centred to the table and
>each other. They grow in moveable buckets with a full flow system if this
>matters.
>Is it too late to use the screen method?
I don't think so.
>I've constructed a 4'x4' wood frame
>out of 1"x2"s and will simply put it over the now 18"high 4'x4' area of green
>Any info is greatly appreciated
How you go about at this point, and what will be expected from you, depends on exactly what the plants are doing now.
Place the screen down as far as you can without overbending any shoots. Train shoots as evenly as you can to fill the space, and put any shoot tips into the holes so they are above the netting. If you can put the largest shoot tips nearer the center, do so.
If they have stopped stretching, growth is noticably slower, and buds are starting to get thick, you shouldn't have much more to do but watch the buds slowly grow upward and adjust the height of you lights accordingly.
If plants are still stretching and upward/outward growth is still noticable, you will have to train shoot tips under the netting when they grow a couple inches above it. You'll know when it's time to leave them alone because buds will cease noticable upward growth as they thicken.
You'll want the top of the canopy to be the priority for shoot tips. They are the bud producers. So where possible try to tuck any shade leaves under the screen making way for shoot tips to get direct light at the top.
You should realize easier growth control and a more evenly spaced canopy relative to the light, but probably wont see as much benefit from the ScrOG as you would have if you started the crop with the ScrOG already in place. IOW the canopy may not be as full, and already being in flowering you wont be filling much more (depending on veriety of course).
One point I'd like to make is about shoot orientation. When I start a ScrOG crop I like to aid all shoots in growing as "straight up" as possible. This causes them to hit the netting sooner, as opposed to having as much lateral growth as upward growth. Then they start their horizontal growth. IOW some 4 foot shoots have more than 3 feet growing absolutely horizontal, and less than one foot is spent in upward travel.
Many of your lower/larger shoots may reach out quite far before turning up and finally reaching the top of the canopy. Shoots higher up on the mainstem kinda take care of themselves since their closer to the netting to start with, but lower shoots tend to be the thickest so I make sure they find the netting quickly where I can take best advantage of their size.
Here's a crudecraft ascii drawing, best viewed with a fixed pitch font.
Maybe it'll be my point across better.
- = Screen
| = Mainstem
+ = Shoot
SCREEN->------------------------------------------------------------
| +++++++++ | +++++++++++++++++++++++
| + | +
| + | +
| + | +
| + | +
|++ |++
| |
| |
This means that many nodesites on these shoots wont be at the top. No big deal for you right now, but this can help shorten the veg time needed. This shouldn't make much diff to you now though, since you use HID's penetration should be much better than the fluoros I'm used to.
pH
>
>
>AuroraB
>
From Cougar@nym.a.net Fri Apr 03 20:03:10 1998
Newsgroups: alt.drugs.pot.cultivation
Subject: ScrOG Training and other stuff ** Tracking clones, 2ndary growth, Reveg, birth of the 40/60 theory **
From: Cougar@nym.a.net
Date: 4 Apr 1998 02:03:10 +0200
Message-ID: <199804040003.CAA28535@basement.replay.com>
Cougar here...
Since Flick rattled my chain I thought I'd come out of my cave and
throw up some comments and questions - what the heck, it seems grow
talk is getting a bit scarce here anyway.
I've got two ghost plants under a 2'x4' ScrOG w/400w hps and I'm having
a ball watching it all grow. Yeah, I still get dirt under my
fingernails but hydro is getting closer and closer... The way I see it,
I won't be able to use the camper this year if I don't. Besides, I'm
getting real tired of playing with micro problems, and although clones
& dirt has been highly successful, it's becoming a major pita. :)
We all know that major growth occurs at the highest point of the plant,
and scrog is definitely the way to go if you want to play games with
that concept. Under 12 hour light, a branch tip can be held horizontal
(or low) and the branches secondaries all start growing, which of
course helps fill the screen. But will the branch tip grow as far as
you want it to? Maybe... my experiments says probably not. In fact, the
growth from the branch tip may stop almost completely (for a day or so)
as growth is shunted off to the 'taller' secondaries. Since induction
was only 10 days ago, I'm favoring the branch tips right now - not
bending them under the next wire until they are long enough to hook
upward enough to be closer to the height of the secondaries. Course,
this causes them to get a bit 'hooked' before they get tucked, so I use
temporary restraining wires to grow them at more of a slant.
So it looks like the grower has options here... promote growth from
branch tips or secondaries or a combination of both. Looks like it's
gonna be a game of constant watching, wondering, predicting, tucking
and maybe ending in some judicious pruning.
terts? quads? This is getting scary. :)
Training this way causes 'spurting' growth from the branch tips and the
secondaries and I'm not sure what kind of stress this may cause. I also
wonder if I confuse the plant when I have a day of severe tucking.
Not sure if I'm kidding or not.
Whatever comes, the info gained this time coupled with previous info
from these plants revegged mother under 320w of flouros and a screen,
should be enough to fill the screen perfectly... next time.?!! (Unless
I go hydro, which would put me back into a major data gathering mode
again. sigh. Does it ever end? I think not)
Comments/questions on any of the above are most welcome.
Ok, now for some questions:
What system do people use to keep track of their clones?
Since all my stock is from the same ghost plant, I just numbered them
according to generation... 2-1 & 2-2 are second generation clones, 3-1
and 3-2 would be third generation, etc. This seemed simple enough, but
what to call 'other' plants that have been acquired? (I need a better
system)
Measurements:
Currently I'm keeping track of daily growth from the top branch and one
other on each plant (arbitrarily picked because it was long enough and
handy enough). Also trunk diameter is measured on a weekly basis. Any
other things I should be measuring that would be handy to know in the
future? (Other than the obvious water & ferts usage)
-Cougar (got a little wordy, eh?)
ps. A hearty thanks to pH for posting the scrog info a few weeks ago...
It looks nice in my scrog folder and is well read!
From Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1] Fri Apr 03 21:31:02 1998
Newsgroups: alt.drugs.pot.cultivation
Subject: Re: ScrOG Training and other stuff ** Tracking clones, 2ndary growth, Reveg, birth of the 40/60 theory **
From: pH <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]>
Date: 4 Apr 1998 01:31:02 -0000
References: <199804040003.CAA28535@basement.replay.com>
Message-ID: <19980404013102.25324.qmail@nym.alias.net>
On 4 Apr 1998 02:03:10 +0200 Cougar@nym.a.net wrote:
>Cougar here...
>
>Since Flick rattled my chain I thought I'd come out of my cave and
>throw up some comments and questions - what the heck, it seems grow
>talk is getting a bit scarce here anyway.
>
>I've got two ghost plants under a 2'x4' ScrOG w/400w hps and I'm having
>a ball watching it all grow. Yeah, I still get dirt under my
>fingernails but hydro is getting closer and closer... The way I see it,
>I won't be able to use the camper this year if I don't. Besides, I'm
>getting real tired of playing with micro problems, and although clones
>& dirt has been highly successful, it's becoming a major pita. :)
It never ends ya know. One step up just leads to another step of a different color:-)
>
>We all know that major growth occurs at the highest point of the plant,
>and scrog is definitely the way to go if you want to play games with
>that concept. Under 12 hour light, a branch tip can be held horizontal
>(or low) and the branches secondaries all start growing, which of
>course helps fill the screen. But will the branch tip grow as far as
>you want it to?
Nope, it has a mind of its own. Good news is, it's predictable.
>Maybe... my experiments says probably not. In fact, the
>growth from the branch tip may stop almost completely (for a day or so)
>as growth is shunted off to the 'taller' secondaries.
I think you've got a keen eye. What you might be noticing are the subtle effects of training down a shoot tip versus pruning the shoot tip. Bending and crimping are ways of achieving the same end, but with different degrees of severity. The quantity of hormone sent from the shoot tip that tells the secondary shoots to slow down is at center stage here. Severe=pruning, hormone totally cut off. Moderate=crimping, hormone mostly cut off at first, Mild=training down or bending, hormone briefly interupted. That's the way I see it.
> Since induction
>was only 10 days ago, I'm favoring the branch tips right now - not
>bending them under the next wire until they are long enough to hook
>upward enough to be closer to the height of the secondaries. Course,
>this causes them to get a bit 'hooked' before they get tucked, so I use
>temporary restraining wires to grow them at more of a slant.
Yep, let them grow up a few more inches so they'll still be pointing up after they're trained, rather than laid flat. I think that's what you're saying.
>
>So it looks like the grower has options here... promote growth from
>branch tips or secondaries or a combination of both. Looks like it's
>gonna be a game of constant watching, wondering, predicting, tucking
>and maybe ending in some judicious pruning.
Ooops, pruning can be an easy way out of admitting you might be a bit overgrown:-) Yes, I too was in overgrowth denial.
>terts? quads? This is getting scary. :)
Quads at least.
>
>Training this way causes 'spurting' growth from the branch tips and the
>secondaries and I'm not sure what kind of stress this may cause. I also
>wonder if I confuse the plant when I have a day of severe tucking.
>Not sure if I'm kidding or not.
Does it look like a confused, stressed plant? Heh heh me thinks it looks like it's screaming, "FREE AT LAST".
>
>Whatever comes, the info gained this time coupled with previous info
>from these plants revegged mother under 320w of flouros and a screen,
>should be enough to fill the screen perfectly... next time.?!! (Unless
>I go hydro, which would put me back into a major data gathering mode
>again. sigh. Does it ever end? I think not)
>
>Comments/questions on any of the above are most welcome.
You're on top of things. The behavior difference of a variety you know, when put under a ScrOG is hard to predict. You'll find that some varieties that take a long time to mature will cause you to traing the longest shoots in the oddest shapes just to insure the shoot tip ends up in the center of the area. It's fun, every crop tried in a slightly modified way from the crop before. Then, just when ya think ya got it licked, you're tongue falls off:-) Heh heh IOW you go to another variety.
Wait till you see the size of some of the tertiary and quad buds.
>
>Ok, now for some questions:
>What system do people use to keep track of their clones?
Stuff that will allow you to answer any questions you'll have later on.
>Since all my stock is from the same ghost plant, I just numbered them
>according to generation... 2-1 & 2-2 are second generation clones, 3-1
>and 3-2 would be third generation, etc. This seemed simple enough, but
>what to call 'other' plants that have been acquired? (I need a better
>system)
I first keep track of the germinations, the plants it produces, and finally the resulting females. This I call the origins. Each variety is given a name, each plant a number. Like DNS names and IP addresses, humans prefer names, but numbers can help too:-) Eg - the variety SK#1, with 3 plants, SK#1-1, SK#1-2, SK#1-3. Assume each seed from bag seed can be a different variety.
Once a plant is cloned it starts up in the clone database and is given a simple seqential number, whichever is the next one in the database. With each clone record is the origin plant, and the clone number of the mother.
With this you can find how many cloning generations deep into a particular plant you are.
>
>Measurements:
>Currently I'm keeping track of daily growth from the top branch and one
>other on each plant (arbitrarily picked because it was long enough and
>handy enough).
I top my plants at 10 inches or shorter, so I find it better to measure shoot length now and then. The longest shoot, and the level of secondary shoot growth (eg - tertiary, quadernary, etc. etc.) is good to know for my purposes.
With an variety not grown by myself before, when flowering starts I keep careful logs of shoot growth up until the time the outward growth stops. Also of the secondary branching. This lets me know how to treat that variety next time in the ScrOG. Also lets you know its degree of stretching.
>Also trunk diameter is measured on a weekly basis.
I only log mainstem diameter when the cutting is taken, when it's transplanted to the main unit, when it's put into flowering, and at harvest.
> Any
>other things I should be measuring that would be handy to know in the
>future? (Other than the obvious water & ferts usage)
Heh heh That too changes all the time:-) All depends what catches your interest.
Aside from the usual system data the plant is grown in, harvest data I find to be the most queried info by myself. You might find it extreme, but I assure you I can compare harvests pretty well.
Bud length in one inch increments, up to '6"+greater'. Larger notables are noted seperately. Fresh weight of buds, leaves, and immature/attrophied buds.
Time milestones are cutting date, days to root, veg days, age at induction, and days from induction to harvest.
>
>-Cougar (got a little wordy, eh?)
Eh??
>
>ps. A hearty thanks to pH for posting the scrog info a few weeks ago...
>It looks nice in my scrog folder and is well read!
Yer welcome Cougar.
pH
Are people who ScrOG and get stoned known as ScrOGlodites?
From Cougar@nym.a.net Sat Apr 04 02:37:49 1998
Newsgroups: alt.drugs.pot.cultivation
Subject: Re: ScrOG Training and other stuff ** Tracking clones, 2ndary growth, Reveg, birth of the 40/60 theory **
From: Cougar@nym.a.net
Date: 4 Apr 1998 08:37:49 +0200
References: <199804040003.CAA28535@basement.replay.com> <19980404013102.25324.qmail@nym.alias.net>
Message-ID: <199804040637.IAA28231@basement.replay.com>
On 4 Apr 1998 01:31:02 -0000 pH wrote:
>On 4 Apr 1998 02:03:10 +0200 Cougar@nym.a.net wrote:
>>Cougar here...
>> snip
>>Comments/questions on any of the above are most welcome.
>
>You're on top of things. The behavior difference of a variety you know, when put under a ScrOG is hard to predict. You'll find that some varieties that take a long time to mature will cause you to traing the longest shoots in the oddest shapes just to insure the shoot tip ends up in the center of the area. It's fun, every crop tried in a slightly modified way from the crop before. Then, just when ya think ya got it licked, you're tongue falls off:-) Heh heh IOW you go to another variety.
>
>Wait till you see the size of some of the tertiary and quad buds.
I don't even want to think about thinking about changing varieties, but
I'm dreaming about those buds. :)
>>What system do people use to keep track of their clones?
>I first keep track of the germinations, the plants it produces, and finally the resulting females. This I call the origins. Each variety is given a name, each plant a number. Like DNS names and IP addresses, humans prefer names, but numbers can help too:-) Eg - the variety SK#1, with 3 plants, SK#1-1, SK#1-2, SK#1-3. Assume each seed from bag seed can be a different variety.
>
>Once a plant is cloned it starts up in the clone database and is given a simple seqential number, whichever is the next one in the database. With each clone record is the origin plant, and the clone number of the mother.
>With this you can find how many cloning generations deep into a particular plant you are.
Ok, an easy to use reference number for each plant and an easy to keep
track of origins database. I like it... nice and simple. :)
>>Measurements:
>I top my plants at 10 inches or shorter, so I find it better to measure >shoot length now and then. The longest shoot, and the level of secondary >shoot growth (eg - tertiary, quadernary, etc. etc.) is good to know for my >purposes.
I was skipping the secondaries, etc but I can see that's a mistake.
>
>With an variety not grown by myself before, when flowering starts I keep >careful logs of shoot growth up until the time the outward growth stops. >Also of the secondary branching. This lets me know how to treat that >variety next time in the ScrOG. Also lets you know its degree of >stretching.
heh heh... This stuff went 35 days before growth stopped and budding
really took off in two previous grows. I expect the same from the
current two clones that are flowering, but I have yet to determine how
the hps changed the growth equation that I so carefully plotted.
>>other things I should be measuring that would be handy to know in the
>>future? (Other than the obvious water & ferts usage)
>Aside from the usual system data the plant is grown in, harvest data I find >to be the most queried info by myself. You might find it extreme, but I >assure you I can compare harvests pretty well.
>
>Bud length in one inch increments, up to '6"+greater'. Larger notables are >noted seperately. Fresh weight of buds, leaves, and immature/attrophied >buds.
Yeah, I see you can compare harvests. :) Thats a bit more data than I
collect, but it serves a useful purpose.
>Time milestones are cutting date, days to root, veg days, age at induction, and days from induction to harvest.
Yep, those are all covered.
>pH
>
>Are people who ScrOG and get stoned known as ScrOGlodites?
If they live in a cave like I do, they certainly could be. :)
I think their origins are fannie and flock farkle#1?
-Cougar
From Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1] Sat Apr 04 06:02:38 1998
Newsgroups: alt.drugs.pot.cultivation
Subject: Re: ScrOG Training and other stuff ** Tracking clones, 2ndary growth, Reveg, birth of the 40/60 theory **
From: pH <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]>
Date: 4 Apr 1998 10:02:38 -0000
References: <199804040003.CAA28535@basement.replay.com> <19980404013102.25324.qmail@nym.alias.net> <199804040637.IAA28231@basement.replay.com>
Message-ID: <19980404100238.10779.qmail@nym.alias.net>
On 4 Apr 1998 08:37:49 +0200 Cougar@nym.a.net wrote:
>On 4 Apr 1998 01:31:02 -0000 pH wrote:
>
>>On 4 Apr 1998 02:03:10 +0200 Cougar@nym.a.net wrote:
>>>Cougar here...
>>> snip
>>>Comments/questions on any of the above are most welcome.
>>
>>You're on top of things. The behavior difference of a variety you know, when
>put under a ScrOG is hard to predict. You'll find that some varieties that
>take a long time to mature will cause you to traing the longest shoots in the
>oddest shapes just to insure the shoot tip ends up in the center of the area.
>It's fun, every crop tried in a slightly modified way from the crop before.
>Then, just when ya think ya got it licked, you're tongue falls off:-) Heh heh
>IOW you go to another variety.
>>
>>Wait till you see the size of some of the tertiary and quad buds.
>
>I don't even want to think about thinking about changing varieties, but
>I'm dreaming about those buds. :)
>
>>>What system do people use to keep track of their clones?
>
>>I first keep track of the germinations, the plants it produces, and finally
>the resulting females. This I call the origins. Each variety is given a name,
>each plant a number. Like DNS names and IP addresses, humans prefer names, but
>numbers can help too:-) Eg - the variety SK#1, with 3 plants, SK#1-1, SK#1-2,
>SK#1-3. Assume each seed from bag seed can be a different variety.
>>
>>Once a plant is cloned it starts up in the clone database and is given a
>simple seqential number, whichever is the next one in the database. With each
>clone record is the origin plant, and the clone number of the mother.
>>With this you can find how many cloning generations deep into a particular
>plant you are.
>
>Ok, an easy to use reference number for each plant and an easy to keep
>track of origins database. I like it... nice and simple. :)
>
>>>Measurements:
>>I top my plants at 10 inches or shorter, so I find it better to measure >shoot
>length now and then. The longest shoot, and the level of secondary >shoot
>growth (eg - tertiary, quadernary, etc. etc.) is good to know for my
>>purposes.
>
>I was skipping the secondaries, etc but I can see that's a mistake.
FWIW when I measure for the longest primary shoot, I also look for the longest secondary shoot and note that too. Gives an indicator of the level and quality of branching.
>
>>
>>With an variety not grown by myself before, when flowering starts I keep
>>careful logs of shoot growth up until the time the outward growth stops.
>>Also of the secondary branching. This lets me know how to treat that >variety
>next time in the ScrOG. Also lets you know its degree of >stretching.
>
>heh heh... This stuff went 35 days before growth stopped and budding
>really took off in two previous grows.
The variety makes a world of difference here. I've had a 140 day variety that takes 55 days for upward growth to stop after induction, a 106 day variety that takes 42 days, and a 60ish day variety that takes 25 days.
Hmmm. would I be in the ball park if I guessed your variety is ready for harvest at around 80 days after induction?
> I expect the same from the
>current two clones that are flowering, but I have yet to determine how
>the hps changed the growth equation that I so carefully plotted.
Did you go from fluoros to HPS? I'd be curious to know your findings between the two light types on the same variety, especially if W/sq ft is about the same for both.
pH
>>>other things I should be measuring that would be handy to know in the
>>>future? (Other than the obvious water & ferts usage)
>
>>Aside from the usual system data the plant is grown in, harvest data I find
>>to be the most queried info by myself. You might find it extreme, but I
>>assure you I can compare harvests pretty well.
>>
>>Bud length in one inch increments, up to '6"+greater'. Larger notables are
>>noted seperately. Fresh weight of buds, leaves, and immature/attrophied
>>buds.
>
>Yeah, I see you can compare harvests. :) Thats a bit more data than I
>collect, but it serves a useful purpose.
>
>>Time milestones are cutting date, days to root, veg days, age at induction,
>and days from induction to harvest.
>
>Yep, those are all covered.
>
>>pH
>>
>>Are people who ScrOG and get stoned known as ScrOGlodites?
>
>If they live in a cave like I do, they certainly could be. :)
>I think their origins are fannie and flock farkle#1?
>
>-Cougar
From Cougar@nym.a.net Sat Apr 04 20:57:08 1998
Newsgroups: alt.drugs.pot.cultivation
Subject: Re: ScrOG Training and other stuff ** Tracking clones, 2ndary growth, Reveg, birth of the 40/60 theory **
From: Cougar@nym.a.net
Date: 5 Apr 1998 02:57:08 +0200
References: <199804040003.CAA28535@basement.replay.com> <19980404013102.25324.qmail@nym.alias.net> <199804040637.IAA28231@basement.replay.com> <19980404100238.10779.qmail@nym.alias.net>
Message-ID: <199804050057.CAA05815@basement.replay.com>
On 4 Apr 1998 10:02:38 -0000 pH wrote:
Cougar said:
>>heh heh... This stuff went 35 days before growth stopped and budding
>>really took off in two previous grows.
>
>The variety makes a world of difference here. I've had a 140 day variety that takes 55 days for upward growth to stop after induction, a 106 day variety that takes 42 days, and a 60ish day variety that takes 25 days.
>
>Hmmm. would I be in the ball park if I guessed your variety is ready for harvest at around 80 days after induction?
Snort.. I love it! I looked at your numbers, my numbers, put them in a
table, saw a ratio appearing and grabbed the calculator. Yeah, you'd be
in the ballpark. Looks like about 40% of the flowering time is growth
and 60% is budding time. (I had figured 80-85 days for flowering based
on two previous grows with this variety under flouros)
Seems Flick and you mentioned this ratio a while back without
mentioning specific ratios or numbers... Now I wonder? You think this
40/60 ratio is fairly constant? If so, it has ramifications for my
future. :)
>> I expect the same from the
>>current two clones that are flowering, but I have yet to determine how
>>the hps changed the growth equation that I so carefully plotted.
>
>Did you go from fluoros to HPS? I'd be curious to know your findings between the two light types on the same variety, especially if W/sq ft is about the same for both.
I'd love to flood you with info, but I haven't had enough time with the
hps yet since this crop has only had 11 days of flowering. Three more
weeks are needed before I have good growth numbers... Besides, it's
sort of an apples and oranges comparison because the plant under
flouros was revegged, clones taken, and put back into flowering. The
current crop are two of those clones, but they were clipped at 11",
vegged for a week more with flouros, and vegged an additional week
under the hps (24/0).
Nevertheless, the biggest differences so far are in internodal lengths
and secondary growth. (320w flouro vs 400w hps, both under 8sqft scrog)
The revegged plant under 320w flouros had alternating nodes pretty
evenly spaced along a branch's length. Secondary growth from those
nodes was minimal. (maybe an inch or two)
The clones from that revegged plant under 400w hps have a greater
internodal length, of course, but the secondary branching is anything
but minimal. A top shoot may be 15" long with several 6-7" secondaries,
and the tertiaries are starting to look around for more light. I can't
wait to see what happens over the next 3 weeks. :)
Keeping in mind apples and oranges, I think I can definitely say that
the hps fits the scrog idea of filling a canopy better than the 320w
flouro's just based on internodal length and growth in the secondaries
(at least for this variety). Doubling the lumens here didn't hurt
things. :)
Course, harvest day is far off - and that's where the bud hits the
scale.
-Cougar
From Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1] Sun Apr 05 05:39:12 1998
Newsgroups: alt.drugs.pot.cultivation
Subject: Re: ScrOG Training and other stuff ** Tracking clones, 2ndary growth, Reveg, birth of the 40/60 theory **
From: pH <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]>
Date: 5 Apr 1998 09:39:12 -0000
References: <199804040003.CAA28535@basement.replay.com> <19980404013102.25324.qmail@nym.alias.net> <199804040637.IAA28231@basement.replay.com> <19980404100238.10779.qmail@nym.alias.net> <199804050057.CAA05815@basement.replay.com>
Message-ID: <19980405093912.15745.qmail@nym.alias.net>
On 5 Apr 1998 02:57:08 +0200 Cougar@nym.a.net wrote:
>On 4 Apr 1998 10:02:38 -0000 pH wrote:
>
>Cougar said:
>>>heh heh... This stuff went 35 days before growth stopped and budding
>>>really took off in two previous grows.
>>
>>The variety makes a world of difference here. I've had a 140 day variety that
>takes 55 days for upward growth to stop after induction, a 106 day variety that
>takes 42 days, and a 60ish day variety that takes 25 days.
>>
>>Hmmm. would I be in the ball park if I guessed your variety is ready for
>harvest at around 80 days after induction?
>
>Snort.. I love it! I looked at your numbers, my numbers, put them in a
>table, saw a ratio appearing and grabbed the calculator. Yeah, you'd be
>in the ballpark. Looks like about 40% of the flowering time is growth
>and 60% is budding time. (I had figured 80-85 days for flowering based
>on two previous grows with this variety under flouros)
>
>Seems Flick and you mentioned this ratio a while back without
>mentioning specific ratios or numbers... Now I wonder? You think this
>40/60 ratio is fairly constant? If so, it has ramifications for my
>future. :)
I was hesitant to mention any numbers before, having only the 140 and 106 day varieties to cite with certainty. Since then I've started test harvesting the 60ish day variety. Didn't really review any numbers til your 35 day figure spurred my curiosity, not everybody counts the stretching days ya know:-)
The figures are uncanny, almost 40% on the nose ya knows:-) Now with yours making a fourth variety I feel pretty confident that a constant has started to develop.
It has ramifications for anybody starting a new variety and wants to know how far or how long it will continue to grow once induced. One only needs to know the maturing time under 12/12 (info any seed bank can supply).
This is very important info for headroom planning. To ScrOGgers it's indispensable for timing a full canopy and avoiding overgrowth of that first crop with a new variety. Hmm.... no more "chauking the first one up to experience" if you misjudge the stretch.
If one just keeps track of the growth rate during the veg period, they can expect that rate to continue after induction for a time span equal to 40% of the maturing time.
WHOOOPIE!!!!! I like this:-))))
>
>>> I expect the same from the
>>>current two clones that are flowering, but I have yet to determine how
>>>the hps changed the growth equation that I so carefully plotted.
>>
>>Did you go from fluoros to HPS? I'd be curious to know your findings between
>the two light types on the same variety, especially if W/sq ft is about the
>same for both.
>
>I'd love to flood you with info, but I haven't had enough time with the
>hps yet since this crop has only had 11 days of flowering. Three more
>weeks are needed before I have good growth numbers... Besides, it's
>sort of an apples and oranges comparison because the plant under
>flouros was revegged, clones taken, and put back into flowering. The
>current crop are two of those clones, but they were clipped at 11",
>vegged for a week more with flouros, and vegged an additional week
>under the hps (24/0).
>
>Nevertheless, the biggest differences so far are in internodal lengths
>and secondary growth. (320w flouro vs 400w hps, both under 8sqft scrog)
>
>The revegged plant under 320w flouros had alternating nodes pretty
>evenly spaced along a branch's length. Secondary growth from those
>nodes was minimal. (maybe an inch or two)
>
>The clones from that revegged plant under 400w hps have a greater
>internodal length, of course, but the secondary branching is anything
>but minimal. A top shoot may be 15" long with several 6-7" secondaries,
>and the tertiaries are starting to look around for more light. I can't
>wait to see what happens over the next 3 weeks. :)
>
>Keeping in mind apples and oranges, I think I can definitely say that
>the hps fits the scrog idea of filling a canopy better than the 320w
>flouro's just based on internodal length and growth in the secondaries
>(at least for this variety). Doubling the lumens here didn't hurt
>things. :)
Apples & oranges noted. I think a short internode plant is easier to manage with ScrOG. From my experience the longer the internodes are, the faster the outward growth is, and the more often one must train the growth. Most ScrOGgers would agree that when stretching is at its worst he's doing daily checks & training duty til it stops. After all it's internodes (buds) we want to fill the canopy with, not inches of shoot. It appears the HPS is holding true to its reputation in your case. Longer internodes:-( Higher lumens:-)
My upgrade to HID wont be far off. Fer sure I'll be using a MH bulb to help encourage short internodes til the stretching stops, then the sodium conversion goes in to grab all the lumens and growth power for the slower growing buds.
>
>Course, harvest day is far off - and that's where the bud hits the
>scale.
Don't forget the YOR.
pH
>
>-Cougar
>
From buzzbuds@hotmail.com Sun Apr 05 18:31:37 1998
Newsgroups: alt.drugs.pot.cultivation
Subject: Re: ScrOG Training and other stuff ** Tracking clones, 2ndary growth, Reveg, birth of the 40/60 theory **
From: "green man" <buzzbuds@hotmail.com>
Date: Sun, 05 Apr 1998 15:31:37 PDT
Message-ID: <19980405223137.15953.qmail@hotmail.com>
x-no-archive: yes
pH wrote:
<small snip>
>My upgrade to HID wont be far off. Fer sure I'll be
>using a MH bulb to help encourage short internodes til
>the stretching stops, then the sodium conversion goes
>in to grab all the lumens and growth power for the
>slower growing buds.
Hi pH
Yeah you're among the last of the old timers still using flouro. Nothing
wrong with it, for Scrog it seems almost ideal. If you are converting
for the higher efficiency of HID, it may take a long time to get your
money back. I question the use of a conversion bulb. The conversion
bulbs typicaly have lower efficiencies than either MH or HPS. This is
most pronounced in the lower wattages. I forget what size your grow is
but why not keep the flouros for veg growth and just get HPS for use
after they have stopped stretching? The 600w HPS has been reported to
have the best lumens/watt of all.
peace
green man
From Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1] Sun Apr 05 20:37:49 1998
Newsgroups: alt.drugs.pot.cultivation
Subject: Re: ScrOG Training and other stuff ** Tracking clones, 2ndary growth, Reveg, birth of the 40/60 theory **
From: pH <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]>
Date: 6 Apr 1998 00:37:49 -0000
References: <19980405223137.15953.qmail@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <19980406003749.16239.qmail@nym.alias.net>
On Sun, 05 Apr 1998 15:31:37 PDT "green man" <buzzbuds@hotmail.com> wrote:
>x-no-archive: yes
>
>pH wrote:
>
><small snip>
>
>>My upgrade to HID wont be far off. Fer sure I'll be
>>using a MH bulb to help encourage short internodes til
>>the stretching stops, then the sodium conversion goes
>>in to grab all the lumens and growth power for the
>>slower growing buds.
>
>Hi pH
>Yeah you're among the last of the old timers still using flouro. Nothing
>wrong with it, for Scrog it seems almost ideal. If you are converting
>for the higher efficiency of HID, it may take a long time to get your
>money back. I question the use of a conversion bulb. The conversion
>bulbs typicaly have lower efficiencies than either MH or HPS. This is
>most pronounced in the lower wattages. I forget what size your grow is
>but why not keep the flouros for veg growth and just get HPS for use
>after they have stopped stretching? The 600w HPS has been reported to
>have the best lumens/watt of all.
>
>peace
>green man
Hi Greenman,
The fluoros supply my needs, I'm going for the gravy now:-) Also want to see the diffs between both under the same conditions.
I'm not converting for pure higher efficiency, want more yield from a smaller area. Maybe I'll end up with the same area and just enjoy a surplus, don't know yet for sure.
My intent is to still use fluoros for cloning & probably vegging. With the extra grow space, I'll now use the old flowering shelves for that, where presently I don't have a dedicated veg area. When plants are put to flower it will be done with the MH to favor compact growth, when upward growth has stopped then the HPS conversion will be installed to promote flower production and put the higher lumens of the HPS to good use without the associated stretching. Plants should be coming to the flowering area from the old shelf unit where before they were vegged in the flowering area as needed.
The first light will be a 400 watter for a 2x4 canopy. It'll replace one of two 2x4 shelves each lit with 320W fluoros right now. Once I see my gains I'll decide if I want another 400 or a 600 as I expand to replace the second flowering shelf. Then I'll have both to play with as I want:-) The trons will either go to the wife for veggies/herbs or be used in some other way, right now they are the the beloved Mother Holders:-)
In essence the final game plan is to replace the two 2x4 shelf units with a 2x8 ScrOGed canopy, two HIDs, and a linear light mover. The basic underlying e/f hydro system will remain unchanged.
Now you got me thinking about getting the 600 watter first. I'm tempted but the 400w more closely resembles the 320w of fluoros. I really want to measure the difference between a ScrOGed fluoro setup and a ScrOGed HID setup of the same wattage. The extra 80watts wont be very hard to account for, and the much increased lumens will definitely give me more yield than the fluoros. So I have nothing to lose by possibly underdoing it with the first light, the second light will polish the rough edges when the setup is completed.
As far as getting my money back. Well, I've been sittin' on these fluoros for a bunch of years now, already gotten paid back many times over. In fact I'm smoking some of the future payback right now:-) Reckon I'm about two or three years paid up by now..... heh heh.
pH
From Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1] Mon Apr 06 10:08:57 1998
Newsgroups: alt.drugs.pot.cultivation
Subject: Re: ScrOG Training and other stuff ** Tracking clones, 2ndary growth, Reveg, birth of the 40/60 theory **
From: nft <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]>
Date: 6 Apr 1998 14:08:57 -0000
References: <19980406003749.16239.qmail@nym.alias.net>...
Message-ID: <19980406140857.8841.qmail@nym.alias.net>
Hi pH, Greenman.
pH wrote in message <19980406003749.16239.qmail@nym.alias.net>...
>On Sun, 05 Apr 1998 15:31:37 PDT "green man" <buzzbuds@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>x-no-archive: yes
>>
>>pH wrote:
>>
>><small snip>
>>
>>>My upgrade to HID wont be far off. Fer sure I'll be
>>>using a MH bulb to help encourage short internodes til
>>>the stretching stops, then the sodium conversion goes
>>>in to grab all the lumens and growth power for the
>>>slower growing buds.
>>
>>Hi pH
>>Yeah you're among the last of the old timers still using flouro. Nothing
>>wrong with it, for Scrog it seems almost ideal. If you are converting
>>for the higher efficiency of HID, it may take a long time to get your
>>money back. I question the use of a conversion bulb. The conversion
>>bulbs typicaly have lower efficiencies than either MH or HPS. This is
>>most pronounced in the lower wattages. I forget what size your grow is
>>but why not keep the flouros for veg growth and just get HPS for use
>>after they have stopped stretching? The 600w HPS has been reported to
>>have the best lumens/watt of all.
>>
>>peace
>>green man
>
>Hi Greenman,
>
>The fluoros supply my needs, I'm going for the gravy now:-) Also want to see the diffs between both under the same conditions.
>
>I'm not converting for pure higher efficiency, want more yield from a smaller area. Maybe I'll end up with the same area and just enjoy a surplus, don't know yet for sure.
>
>My intent is to still use fluoros for cloning & probably vegging. With the extra grow space, I'll now use the old flowering shelves for that, where presently I don't have a dedicated veg area. When plants are put to flower it will be done with the MH to favor compact growth, when upward growth has stopped then the HPS conversion will be installed to promote flower production and put the higher lumens of the HPS to good use without the associated stretching. Plants should be coming to the flowering area from the old shelf unit where before they were vegged in the flowering area as needed.
>
pH, (IMHO) I would do it the other way round, get a M/H conversion bulb, reason I say this is :- plants will spend more time under the HPS, more watts from the HPS, more choice of HPS bulbs, ie, 430w-Agro, Sodium plus etc and you will be going from 320w Flouro, to 360w MH conversion, then to 400w HPS. Wadda ys think ?
>The first light will be a 400 watter for a 2x4 canopy. It'll replace one of two 2x4 shelves each lit with 320W fluoros right now. Once I see my gains I'll decide if I want another 400 or a 600 as I expand to replace the second flowering shelf. Then I'll have both to play with as I want:-) The trons will either go to the wife for veggies/herbs or be used in some other way, right now they are the the beloved Mother Holders:-)
>
>In essence the final game plan is to replace the two 2x4 shelf units with a 2x8 ScrOGed canopy, two HIDs, and a linear light mover. The basic underlying e/f hydro system will remain unchanged.
>
>Now you got me thinking about getting the 600 watter first. I'm tempted but the 400w more closely resembles the 320w of fluoros. I really want to measure the difference between a ScrOGed fluoro setup and a ScrOGed HID setup of the same wattage. The extra 80watts wont be very hard to account for, and the much increased lumens will definitely give me more yield than the fluoros. So I have nothing to lose by possibly underdoing it with the first light, the second light will polish the rough edges when the setup is completed.
>
>As far as getting my money back. Well, I've been sittin' on these fluoros for a bunch of years now, already gotten paid back many times over. In fact I'm smoking some of the future payback right now:-) Reckon I'm about two or three years paid up by now..... heh heh.
>
>pH
Just my 2 bob's worth.
"nft"«
= Useful Grow info.etc at "nft's" web-site=
www.geocities.com/RainForest/Vines/9863/
From Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1] Mon Apr 06 17:58:54 1998
Newsgroups: alt.drugs.pot.cultivation
Subject: Re: ScrOG Training and other stuff ** Tracking clones, 2ndary growth, Reveg, birth of the 40/60 theory **
From: pH <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]>
Date: 6 Apr 1998 21:58:54 -0000
References: <19980406003749.16239.qmail@nym.alias.net>... <19980406140857.8841.qmail@nym.alias.net>
Message-ID: <19980406215854.20229.qmail@nym.alias.net>
On 6 Apr 1998 14:08:57 -0000 nft <AT> nym <DOT> alias <DOT> net wrote:
>Hi pH, Greenman.
>
>pH wrote in message <19980406003749.16239.qmail@nym.alias.net>...
>>On Sun, 05 Apr 1998 15:31:37 PDT "green man" <buzzbuds@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>x-no-archive: yes
>>>
>>>pH wrote:
>>>
>>><small snip>
>>>
>>>>My upgrade to HID wont be far off. Fer sure I'll be
>>>>using a MH bulb to help encourage short internodes til
>>>>the stretching stops, then the sodium conversion goes
>>>>in to grab all the lumens and growth power for the
>>>>slower growing buds.
>>>
>>>Hi pH
>>>Yeah you're among the last of the old timers still using flouro. Nothing
>>>wrong with it, for Scrog it seems almost ideal. If you are converting
>>>for the higher efficiency of HID, it may take a long time to get your
>>>money back. I question the use of a conversion bulb. The conversion
>>>bulbs typicaly have lower efficiencies than either MH or HPS. This is
>>>most pronounced in the lower wattages. I forget what size your grow is
>>>but why not keep the flouros for veg growth and just get HPS for use
>>>after they have stopped stretching? The 600w HPS has been reported to
>>>have the best lumens/watt of all.
>>>
>>>peace
>>>green man
>>
>>Hi Greenman,
>>
>>The fluoros supply my needs, I'm going for the gravy now:-) Also want to see
>the diffs between both under the same conditions.
>>
>>I'm not converting for pure higher efficiency, want more yield from a smaller
>area. Maybe I'll end up with the same area and just enjoy a surplus, don't
>know yet for sure.
>>
>>My intent is to still use fluoros for cloning & probably vegging. With the
>extra grow space, I'll now use the old flowering shelves for that, where
>presently I don't have a dedicated veg area. When plants are put to flower it
>will be done with the MH to favor compact growth, when upward growth has
>stopped then the HPS conversion will be installed to promote flower production
>and put the higher lumens of the HPS to good use without the associated
>stretching. Plants should be coming to the flowering area from the old shelf
>unit where before they were vegged in the flowering area as needed.
>>
>
>
>pH, (IMHO) I would do it the other way round, get a M/H conversion bulb, reason
>I say this is :- plants will spend more time under the HPS, more watts from the
>HPS, more choice of HPS bulbs, ie, 430w-Agro, Sodium plus etc and you will be
>going from 320w Flouro, to 360w MH conversion, then to 400w HPS. Wadda ys think
>?
I think it makes sense. Should get more flowering lumens from a 400HPS than with an HPS conversion.
Thanks NFT.
pH
--snip--
>
>Just my 2 bob's worth.
>
> "nft"½
From jetson3@hotmail.com Thu Apr 30 23:31:51 1998
Newsgroups: alt.drugs.pot.cultivation
Subject: Scrog question for you .. ** Screen Height, Hanging multiple fluoros **
From: jetson3@hotmail.com
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 21:31:51 -0600
Message-ID: <6ibc6n$jv0$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
Scrogers -
Using a enclosed grow cabinet :
5 feet long
4 feet high
3 ft deep
Wanting to use the Scrog method, I have a few questions.
Screen(chick wire) - Is the 10" height a needed measurement or can you place
your screen as high as you want?
Lights - Using the Shoplite fixtures. Each holds 2 bulbs. Using 4 40 watt
flouro's. 3 Cool 1 warm. The fixtures are 7" wide and are hangable. I
should be able to hang them side by side with the 3 feet of space. Going to
hang them 1" above canopy. Is it worth investing in any of those flouro
light sticks to hang on the sides? Perhaps to give more light to the
underside of the canopy? Comments? Suggestions?
Grow medium - Thinking of going with 1/3 perlite, 1/3 vermiculite and soil.
Have not figured out nutes or fertilizer yet. Perhaps peters? Suggestions?
Is it worth coming up with a Co2 solution? Perhaps Kip's fermentation ,
which seems easy enough. I was planning on using an outtake fan, does this
counter-act this?
This will be my first time. With the amount of space I am using, is 4 plants
too many? Strain unknown.
Thanks
WBC
From Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1] Thu Apr 30 23:15:04 1998
Newsgroups: alt.drugs.pot.cultivation
Subject: Re: Scrog question for you .. ** Screen Height, Hanging multiple fluoros **
From: Anonymous Sender <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]>
Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 00:15:04 -0300
References: <6ibc6n$jv0$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
Message-ID: <fd63726f207904e4d7b9ec4d88255d52@anonymous.poster>
On Thu, 30 Apr 1998 21:31:51 -0600 jetson3@hotmail.com wrote:
>x-no-archive: yes
>
>Scrogers -
I am not a scrogger yet, but I have been studying... :-))
>
>Using a enclosed grow cabinet :
>5 feet long
>4 feet high
>3 ft deep
>
>Wanting to use the Scrog method, I have a few questions.
>
>Screen(chick wire) - Is the 10" height a needed measurement or can you place
>your screen as high as you want?
>
As High as you want. But WHy? Remember, all the space under the screen is useless, except for as much as is used by vegetation layer (2-3 inches??).
>Lights - Using the Shoplite fixtures. Each holds 2 bulbs. Using 4 40 watt
>flouro's. 3 Cool 1 warm. The fixtures are 7" wide and are hangable. I
>should be able to hang them side by side with the 3 feet of space. Going to
>hang them 1" above canopy. Is it worth investing in any of those flouro
>light sticks to hang on the sides? Perhaps to give more light to the
>underside of the canopy? Comments? Suggestions?
>
4x40 watt = 160 watt
5ft x 3ft = 15 sq ft
This is about 10 watts / foot
You need more light on top.
Up to 600 watts for 15 foot area (40 w/ft)
>Grow medium - Thinking of going with 1/3 perlite, 1/3 vermiculite and soil.
>Have not figured out nutes or fertilizer yet. Perhaps peters? Suggestions?
>
>Is it worth coming up with a Co2 solution? Perhaps Kip's fermentation ,
>which seems easy enough. I was planning on using an outtake fan, does this
>counter-act this?
>
Don't bother with CO2 until you get you light up a LOT. CO2 does not become the limiting factor in growth until you hit over 50 watts/sq ft, and get your nutes perfect.
>This will be my first time. With the amount of space I am using, is 4 plants
>too many? Strain unknown.
>
I am going to use 2 plants for 13.5 sq ft Four might not be too many, but you need to watch for overgrowth. Estimates I have heard is that one plant will cover from 8 to 20 square feet. I can't verify this personally.
>Thanks
>
You are welcome.
I hope it was helpful.
********
BeachBUD
From nayr@mindspring.com Fri May 01 08:23:32 1998
Newsgroups: alt.drugs.pot.cultivation
Subject: Re: Scrog question for you .. ** Screen Height, Hanging multiple fluoros **
From: "nayr" <nayr@mindspring.com>
Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 08:23:32 -0400
References: <6ibc6n$jv0$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <fd63726f207904e4d7b9ec4d88255d52@anonymous.poster>
Message-ID: <6iceoo$3hh$1@camel19.mindspring.com>
Quick question then ..
BeachBud's advice has WBC placing 640 watts of flouro's in a space that is
3' deep. By my calculations, that is 15 flouro tubes. How does one get
that many installed in a 3 ft space?
kinda curious
Nayr
Anonymous Sender wrote in message ...
>On Thu, 30 Apr 1998 21:31:51 -0600 jetson3@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>x-no-archive: yes
>>
>>Scrogers -
>
>I am not a scrogger yet, but I have been studying... :-))
>
>>
>>Using a enclosed grow cabinet :
>>5 feet long
>>4 feet high
>>3 ft deep
>>
>>Wanting to use the Scrog method, I have a few questions.
>>
>>Screen(chick wire) - Is the 10" height a needed measurement or can you
place
>>your screen as high as you want?
>>
>
>As High as you want. But WHy? Remember, all the space under the screen is
useless, except for as much as is used by vegetation layer (2-3 inches??).
>
>>Lights - Using the Shoplite fixtures. Each holds 2 bulbs. Using 4 40
watt
>>flouro's. 3 Cool 1 warm. The fixtures are 7" wide and are hangable. I
>>should be able to hang them side by side with the 3 feet of space. Going
to
>>hang them 1" above canopy. Is it worth investing in any of those flouro
>>light sticks to hang on the sides? Perhaps to give more light to the
>>underside of the canopy? Comments? Suggestions?
>>
>
>4x40 watt = 160 watt
>5ft x 3ft = 15 sq ft
>This is about 10 watts / foot
>You need more light on top.
>Up to 600 watts for 15 foot area (40 w/ft)
>
>>Grow medium - Thinking of going with 1/3 perlite, 1/3 vermiculite and
soil.
>>Have not figured out nutes or fertilizer yet. Perhaps peters?
Suggestions?
>>
>>Is it worth coming up with a Co2 solution? Perhaps Kip's fermentation ,
>>which seems easy enough. I was planning on using an outtake fan, does
this
>>counter-act this?
>>
>
>Don't bother with CO2 until you get you light up a LOT. CO2 does not become
the limiting factor in growth until you hit over 50 watts/sq ft, and get
your nutes perfect.
>
>>This will be my first time. With the amount of space I am using, is 4
plants
>>too many? Strain unknown.
>>
>
>I am going to use 2 plants for 13.5 sq ft Four might not be too many, but
you need to watch for overgrowth. Estimates I have heard is that one plant
will cover from 8 to 20 square feet. I can't verify this personally.
>
>
>>Thanks
>>
>
>You are welcome.
>I hope it was helpful.
>
>********
>BeachBUD
>
From jetson3@hotmail.com Fri May 01 21:41:52 1998
Newsgroups: alt.drugs.pot.cultivation
Subject: Re: Scrog question for you .. ** Screen Height, Hanging multiple fluoros **
From: jetson3@hotmail.com
Date: Fri, 01 May 1998 19:41:52 -0600
References: <6ibc6n$jv0$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <fd63726f207904e4d7b9ec4d88255d52@anonymous.poster> <6iceoo$3hh$1@camel19.mindspring.com>#1/1
Message-ID: <6idq4h$26q$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
<< If it's against a wall make sure you can reach to the back to do training.
>>
The box is enclosed. I have two doors which open frontwards. That gives me
about a 4.5 ft hole to get to the plants with. I will not be able to get to
them from the back. Suggestions on training with this constraint?
<< You should be able to get 6 fixtures in the 3 foot space, I have 4 in a 2
foot space. Bend up any overhanging reflectors to fit more fixtures.>>
Went out and invested in more Shoplite(s). Have a total of 7 fixtures. I
plan on removing the reflectors off of each. Gonna be a headache hanging
them. Was wondering if I could devise a way so that I can raise and lower
all of them at the same time ....hrmmm .. Suggestions?
I should hang the fixtures approx 1" above chic wire .... correct? Even
during flowering and the 12/12 cycle?
Thanks
WBC
From Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1] Fri May 01 21:45:13 1998
Newsgroups: alt.drugs.pot.cultivation
Subject: Re: Scrog question for you .. ** Screen Height, Hanging multiple fluoros **
From: nft <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]>
Date: 2 May 1998 01:45:13 -0000
References: <6idq4h$26q$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
Message-ID: <19980502014513.28780.qmail@nym.alias.net>
jetson3@hotmail.com wrote in message <6idq4h$26q$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
><< If it's against a wall make sure you can reach to the back to do training.
>>>
>The box is enclosed. I have two doors which open frontwards. That gives me
>about a 4.5 ft hole to get to the plants with. I will not be able to get to
>them from the back. Suggestions on training with this constraint?
><< You should be able to get 6 fixtures in the 3 foot space, I have 4 in a 2
>foot space. Bend up any overhanging reflectors to fit more fixtures.>>
>Went out and invested in more Shoplite(s). Have a total of 7 fixtures. I
>plan on removing the reflectors off of each. Gonna be a headache hanging
>them. Was wondering if I could devise a way so that I can raise and lower
>all of them at the same time ....hrmmm .. Suggestions?
How about connecting them all together with 2 pieces of flat steel,
1 piece at each end of the fixtures, attach a steel eye centrally
on each piece of steel, get some braided cable, attach a hook to one
end to go through the eyes on the steel, then run the cable up to the
ceiling and onto 2 pulleys, obviously take a bit more working out
to get it all to hang correctly, but I think that would work ok with
a bit of tinkering.
>I should hang the fixtures approx 1" above chic wire .... correct? Even
>during flowering and the 12/12 cycle?
Get the flouro's as close as possible without burning the plants,
have them in that position all the time, from start to finish.
>Thanks
>WBC
No prob's, happy growin'
"nft"«
From AirborneD@ddy.home.smokin Fri May 01 22:46:39 1998
Newsgroups: alt.drugs.pot.cultivation
Subject: How close? ** Screen Height, Hanging multiple fluoros **
From: AirborneD@ddy.home.smokin
Date: 2 May 1998 04:46:39 +0200
References: <6idq4h$26q$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... <19980502014513.28780.qmail@nym.alias.net>
Message-ID: <19980502024456.7671.qmail@nsm.htp.org>
>Get the flouro's as close as possible without burning the plants,
>have them in that position all the time, from start to finish.
> "nft"½
Um--I get this with the flouros, but with HID how close can you get. I
am about 2 feet now with a 78 degree temp. Is the principal the same
since I read somewhere that light loses its intensity by half at each
foot? ie. 1000 at source would be 500 foot candles at 1 foot and 250
fc at 2 feet and so on.
Overanalyzing as usual,
--Airborne
From Mons@nomad.com Fri May 01 23:21:43 1998
Newsgroups: alt.drugs.pot.cultivation
Subject: Re: Scrog question for you .. ** Screen Height, Hanging multiple fluoros **
From: Mons@nomad.com (Mons)
Date: Sat, 2 May 1998 13:21:43 +1000
References: <6ibc6n$jv0$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <fd63726f207904e4d7b9ec4d88255d52@anonymous.poster> <6iceoo$3hh$1@camel19.mindspring.com>#1/1 <6idq4h$26q$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
Message-ID: <A1DF293B5F57922A.D0A323C30F72F22B.E278494F575D2383@library-proxy.airnews.net>
In article <6idq4h$26q$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, jetson3@hotmail.com says...
> Went out and invested in more Shoplite(s). Have a total of 7 fixtures. I
> plan on removing the reflectors off of each. Gonna be a headache hanging
> them. Was wondering if I could devise a way so that I can raise and lower
> all of them at the same time ....hrmmm .. Suggestions?
Mount them to a board. Hook the board to a pully chain that goes
through a ring in the roof, hammer a nail downwards on a vertical and hook
the chain to the nail to keep it at the preferred height. Id keep the
lights away from the tops of the plants when young. Also 600w might produce
a bit of heat, even with fluros so id look into some form of venting.
Sounds like in 4 months youll have a very nice crop. I think PH averages
17g/f2, with his Scrog.Your 15f2 x 17 = 255g :)
From Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1] Sat May 02 02:13:00 1998
Newsgroups: alt.drugs.pot.cultivation
Subject: Re: Scrog question for you .. ** Screen Height, Hanging multiple fluoros **
From: pH <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]>
Date: 2 May 1998 06:13:00 -0000
References: <6ibc6n$jv0$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <fd63726f207904e4d7b9ec4d88255d52@anonymous.poster> <6iceoo$3hh$1@camel19.mindspring.com>#1/1 <6idq4h$26q$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
Message-ID: <19980502061300.21865.qmail@nym.alias.net>
On Fri, 01 May 1998 19:41:52 -0600 jetson3@hotmail.com wrote:
><< If it's against a wall make sure you can reach to the back to do training.
>>>
>
>The box is enclosed. I have two doors which open frontwards. That gives me
>about a 4.5 ft hole to get to the plants with. I will not be able to get to
>them from the back. Suggestions on training with this constraint?
Get small and walk in:-) Rent a giant:-) What can I say, if you can't reach
the back to do training you'll have a time of it when the stretch comes. I'm a
tall guy and have a hard time reaching the back of my 2 foot space at times.
You can give it a go, but I think you'll curse a lot.
>
><< You should be able to get 6 fixtures in the 3 foot space, I have 4 in a 2
>foot space. Bend up any overhanging reflectors to fit more fixtures.>>
>
>Went out and invested in more Shoplite(s). Have a total of 7 fixtures. I
>plan on removing the reflectors off of each. Gonna be a headache hanging
>them. Was wondering if I could devise a way so that I can raise and lower
>all of them at the same time ....hrmmm .. Suggestions?
Go to the web site in my sig and look for the multishelf setup. Perhaps you'll
see how my lights are assembled and hung in some of the photos. Simply put, I
took three 2 foot lengths of 1x3's and laid them on the floor. Then I took the
fixtures and laid them all across the 1x3's so that one 1x3 was in the middle,
and the other two on the ends of the fixtures. Then I either used existing
holes in the fixtures or drilled new holes to fasten the fixtures to the 1x3's
with wood screws (actually sheet metal screws that screwed into the wood). To
the center of the 1x3's on the ends I attached a flat "T" bracket with one of
its holes projecting over the edge so an "S" hook on the chain could attach
there. I used a flat "T" bracket to gain some vertical space, you could use
simple screw-in hook. Just make sure before placing the hook that you check
the balance of the entire fixture so it will hang "flat", and not on an angle.
>
>I should hang the fixtures approx 1" above chic wire .... correct? Even
>during flowering and the 12/12 cycle?
I use cheap link chain to adjust the lights. I find the ability to adjust one
link at a time (appx 1/4-1/2" in fixture height) an advantage. I have a hook
on the cabinet interior front sides to hold the chain in place.
One inch is fine, I go for less. A fan is always wafting across the unit so I
don't worry about it getting too hot. I have about 10" of space above the
screen to adjust the lights. As tips grow through the netting I'll raise the
lights a couple times then train the shoot under the netting a lower the lights
and reapeat the process. Generally, during veg the lights don't get raised
more than about 4" from the screen before they're lowered again after training.
However, during flowering when buds start forming, the lights never come down
and always go up slowly with the buds as they grow.
pH
>
>Thanks
>
>WBC
>
>
>
From Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1] Sun May 03 00:56:16 1998
Newsgroups: alt.drugs.pot.cultivation
Subject: Re: Scrog question for you .- Att Ph ** Screen Height, Hanging multiple fluoros **
From: pH <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]>
Date: 3 May 1998 04:56:16 -0000
References: <6ibc6n$jv0$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <fd63726f207904e4d7b9ec4d88255d52@anonymous.poster> <6iceoo$3hh$1@camel19.mindspring.com>#1/1 <6idq4h$26q$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>#1/1 <6ifddh$644$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
Message-ID: <19980503045616.3577.qmail@nym.alias.net>
On Sat, 02 May 1998 10:17:06 -0600 jetson3@hotmail.com wrote:
><< Get small and walk in:-) Rent a giant:-) What can I say, if you can't
>reach
>the back to do training you'll have a time of it when the stretch comes. I'm
>a
>tall guy and have a hard time reaching the back of my 2 foot space at times.
>You can give it a go, but I think you'll curse a lot.>>>
>
>I really did not realize this at first. Still reading/learning. Since
>getting in from the back is not an option, maybe I can play with the sides
>somehow. I will probably just go through once crop to see how it works.
>Modify as I go along.
R&D is the name of the game:-)
>
><< Go to the web site in my sig and look for the multishelf setup. Perhaps
>you'll
>see how my lights are assembled and hung in some of the photos. Simply put, I
>took three 2 foot lengths of 1x3's and laid them on the floor. Then I took
>the
>fixtures and laid them all across the 1x3's so that one 1x3 was in the middle,
>and the other two on the ends of the fixtures. Then I either used existing
>holes in the fixtures or drilled new holes to fasten the fixtures to the 1x3's
>with wood screws (actually sheet metal screws that screwed into the wood). To
>the center of the 1x3's on the ends I attached a flat "T" bracket with one of
>its holes projecting over the edge so an "S" hook on the chain could attach
>there. I used a flat "T" bracket to gain some vertical space, you could use
>simple screw-in hook. Just make sure before placing the hook that you check
>the balance of the entire fixture so it will hang "flat", and not on an
>angle.>>>
>
>I was thinking along the lines of something similar. The more I look at the
>box, the more I think I should be able to get all the fixtures in there with
>less stress than I thought. Last nite I took the time to bend the reflectors
>up on the Shoplite. Gives me about 6" per fixture to now work with. Until
>you have it built, you do not quite realize 15sq ft affords you some space.
>
>The only thing that is bumming me out is not knowing the sex before-hand. It
>is going to be one little jungle before I am able to sex them. Figure I will
>just go with two plants and hope for the best.
I think you're asking for Mr. Murphy to make an appearance:-( I'd go with 4
plants just to increase the odds a bit. Flower earlier than you expect to, if
the canopy isn't full at harvest blame it on R & D. Next crop will be the REAL
one.
>
>Clone chamber - where is your clone chamber info? Been looking but could not
>find. I believe you were using a Rubbermaid Tote with some flouro's ....
>correct?
http://www.lycaeum.org/~npkaye/cloning_ph.html Cloning & Rooting Chamber
pH
>
>As always,
>
>Thanks!
>
>WBC
>
From Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1] Fri May 01 10:14:12 1998
Newsgroups: alt.drugs.pot.cultivation
Subject: Re: Scrog question for you .. ** Screen Height, Hanging multiple fluoros **
From: pH <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]>
Date: 1 May 1998 14:14:12 -0000
References: <6ibc6n$jv0$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
Message-ID: <19980501141412.4929.qmail@nym.alias.net>
On Thu, 30 Apr 1998 21:31:51 -0600 jetson3@hotmail.com wrote:
>x-no-archive: yes
>
>Scrogers -
>
>Using a enclosed grow cabinet :
>5 feet long
>4 feet high
>3 ft deep
If it's against a wall make sure you can reach to the back to do training.
>
>Wanting to use the Scrog method, I have a few questions.
>
>Screen(chick wire) - Is the 10" height a needed measurement or can you place
>your screen as high as you want?
Heh heh why grow palm trees, all stem with the growth just on top? You can
grow them as tall as you like but you'll be wasting time doing so. The idea is
to fill the canopy fast, and harvest the bulk from the top of the canopy.
If you used the fluoros as you mention below your "productive" canopy would
only be about 6-8 inches thick, but is should be all buds.
>
>Lights - Using the Shoplite fixtures. Each holds 2 bulbs. Using 4 40 watt
>flouro's. 3 Cool 1 warm. The fixtures are 7" wide and are hangable. I
>should be able to hang them side by side with the 3 feet of space.
You should be able to get 6 fixtures in the 3 foot space, I have 4 in a 2 foot
space. Bend up any overhanging reflectors to fit more fixtures.
> Going to
>hang them 1" above canopy. Is it worth investing in any of those flouro
>light sticks to hang on the sides? Perhaps to give more light to the
>underside of the canopy? Comments? Suggestions?
They would be better served filling that 1 foot of canopy the 4 foot fluoros
wont reach. Under the canopy you just can't get them close enough to do much
good, they'd do more good up top.
>
>Grow medium - Thinking of going with 1/3 perlite, 1/3 vermiculite and soil.
>Have not figured out nutes or fertilizer yet. Perhaps peters? Suggestions?
>
>Is it worth coming up with a Co2 solution? Perhaps Kip's fermentation ,
>which seems easy enough. I was planning on using an outtake fan, does this
>counter-act this?
Yes it does. CO2 wouldn't help much the fluoros.
>
>This will be my first time. With the amount of space I am using, is 4 plants
>too many? Strain unknown.
If the strain is unknown, so is the answer. Best advice, flower very early to
avoid overgrowth.
pH
>
>Thanks
>
>WBC
>
From Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1] Sun May 03 16:22:53 1998
Newsgroups: alt.drugs.pot.cultivation
Subject: When does training stop and growth is allowed to grow through the screen?
From: pH <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]>
Date: 3 May 1998 20:22:53 -0000
Message-ID: <19980503202253.22890.qmail@nym.alias.net>
On 03 May 1998 16:09:44 GMT bcaustic@aol.com (BCAUSTIC) wrote:
>when do you let the shoots start growing up thru the screen? do you keep
>training them under until buds start forming
Yes. Training continues until shoot tips (budheads at this point) start
becomming fuzzy looking and thick with fresh pistils, this usually coincides
with the end of the stretch. The slow growing budheads are then allowed to
grow up through the screen without any further training. At this point,
instead of training, the lights (fluoros) are raised as the buds grow into
them. With HIDs you might not need to raise the lights at all depending on the
distance and how long the buds get.
Once into bud production, on occasion a bud here and there will outgrow all
other buds, causing you to keep the lights (fluoros) further away from the bulk
of the buds. In cases like this I look under the screen and find the shoot
that contains that longest bud. Then, from under the screen, I'll use training
wire (or pipe cleaners, or twist ties twisted together), and attach one end to
the shoot at the point where it exits the screen, and the other end to
something below that (a plant container, even other shoots lower down). I then
shorten the training wire (or twist tie) just enough to pull the bud downward
thus bringing its height above the screen on the same plane as the bulk of the
buds. Generally, 1/2" to 1" does the trick. That's the extent of any training
once the stretch has completely stopped.
>or do you let it go thru when you switch to flowering?
No. That would put all the stretch growth above the screen, defeating its
purpose of keeping the canopy flat while bud production is occuring. IOW you'd
probably end up tying, bending, and crimping when buds did start to form when
the stretch eventually stops.
>any help would be appreciated.
FWIW the stretch is the most frustrating part of the training. Much growth.
and super fast growth at that, will keep you super busy during this short
period of time. However, once it's done you're training time will not longer
be needed at all, and you'll have much time on your hands to see the Screen of
Green in action.
pH
From sbabcock@planet.eon.net Sat May 09 00:00:54 1998
Newsgroups: alt.drugs.pot.cultivation
Subject: scrog ** What is & isn't ScrOG, Light height **
From: "James Chartrand" <sbabcock@planet.eon.net>
Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 22:00:54 -0600
Message-ID: <6j0kmd$ivi@priv-sys04-le0.agt.net>
what is scrog, help the dumd thanx....james
From NightBreed@nym.alias.net Sat May 09 23:06:48 1998
Newsgroups: alt.drugs.pot.cultivation
Subject: Re: scrog ** What is & isn't ScrOG, Light height **
From: Satyr <NightBreed@nym.alias.net>
Date: 10 May 1998 03:06:48 -0000
Message-ID: <19980510030648.13222.qmail@nym.alias.net>
James Chartrand wrote:
>
> what is scrog, help the dumd thanx....james
SCReen Of Green. Go to N.P. Kaye's <http://www.lycaeum.org/~npkaye/>.
It won't tell you about ScrOg, but if you're just starting, you need the
basics. Check out all catagories.
Then go to Deja News 'Power Search'
<http://search.dejanews.com/home_ps.shtml> Enter <Sreen of Green> for
the search. Designate <alt.drugs.pot.cultivation> in the 'Groups' field
and go to 'Number of matches' and change it from 25 to 100.
Read away and remember Deja News.
From AirborneD@dd.y Sat May 09 23:57:37 1998
Newsgroups: alt.drugs.pot.cultivation
Subject: Re: scrog ** What is & isn't ScrOG, Light height **
From: AirborneD@dd.y
Date: 10 May 1998 05:57:37 +0200
References: <6j0kmd$ivi@priv-sys04-le0.agt.net>
Message-ID: <199805100357.FAA24411@basement.replay.com>
On Fri, 8 May 1998 22:00:54 -0600 "James Chartrand"
<sbabcock@planet.eon.net> wrote:
>what is scrog, help the dumd thanx....james
>
>
Look at the laughingmoon.com grow room. Pictures and everything!
Airborne
From Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1] Sun May 10 13:14:23 1998
Newsgroups: alt.drugs.pot.cultivation
Subject: Re: scrog ** What is & isn't ScrOG, Light height **
From: pH <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]>
Date: 10 May 1998 17:14:23 -0000
References: <6j0kmd$ivi@priv-sys04-le0.agt.net> <199805100357.FAA24411@basement.replay.com>
Message-ID: <19980510171423.7865.qmail@nym.alias.net>
On 10 May 1998 05:57:37 +0200 AirborneD@dd.y wrote:
>On Fri, 8 May 1998 22:00:54 -0600 "James Chartrand"
><sbabcock@planet.eon.net> wrote:
>
>>what is scrog, help the dumd thanx....james
>>
>>
>Look at the laughingmoon.com grow room. Pictures and everything!
>
>Airborne
Hi Airborne,
Laughing Moon isn't ScrOG. Thay do have a screen but it's used for an entirely
different purpose. Their 4" screening is used to support the weight of the
huge colas to keep them from flopping over from their own weight. IOW the
plants grow straight through the screen.
With ScrOG the screen is usually 2" poultry netting, and used as an alternative
way to train shoots instead of using tying, bending, or crimping methods. IOW
the plants do not grow straight through the screen, but are trained back under
the screen to force horizontal growth to fill the canopy. Only when the buds
start forming are they then allowed to grow above the screen.
See
http://www.lycaeum.org/~npkaye/multishelf.html Multishelf & Trellis(ScrOG)
pH
From AirborneD@dd.y Sun May 10 13:33:32 1998
Newsgroups: alt.drugs.pot.cultivation
Subject: Re: scrog ** What is & isn't ScrOG, Light height **
From: AirborneD@dd.y
Date: 10 May 1998 19:33:32 +0200
References: <6j0kmd$ivi@priv-sys04-le0.agt.net> <199805100357.FAA24411@basement.replay.com> <19980510171423.7865.qmail@nym.alias.net>
Message-ID: <199805101733.TAA05625@basement.replay.com>
pH penned, oh so eloquently:
>Laughing Moon isn't ScrOG. Thay do have a screen but it's used for an entirely different purpose. Their 4" screening is used to support the weight of the huge colas to keep them from flopping over from their own weight. IOW the plants grow straight through the screen.
With ScrOG the screen is usually 2" poultry netting, and used as an
alternative way to train shoots instead of using tying, bending, or
crimping methods. IOW the plants do not grow straight through the
screen, but are trained back under the screen to force horizontal
growth to fill the canopy. Only when the buds start forming are they
then allowed to grow above the screen.
Sorry bud. I re-read it and was so overwhelmed with the buds...and it
was a bit wider too. I have found the 2" netting at our local store.
How could I use it with my HID setup? Do I need glass? I have 2-1000w
lights (1hps, 1mh). If I filled my 18ft/2 space with screen about 12"
off the pots, is that the basic idea? And keep the lights 3 or 4 feet
off the screen? Only instead of LMs, train my lateral shoots and main
branches to live under, rather than thru the screen, until the budding
streach stops, then allow them to grow up thru the screen and harvest
like a hedge of juicy colas! I can't wait. Only...it's gonna take me
another 3 months before I can. I need a time compressor. Set that
sucker in my room and turn it to 3 months...
Thanks for the clarity. Critique me where necessary.
Airborne
From Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1] Mon May 11 10:42:15 1998
Newsgroups: alt.drugs.pot.cultivation
Subject: Re: scrog ** What is & isn't ScrOG, Light height **
From: pH <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]>
Date: 11 May 1998 14:42:15 -0000
References: <6j0kmd$ivi@priv-sys04-le0.agt.net> <199805100357.FAA24411@basement.replay.com> <19980510171423.7865.qmail@nym.alias.net> <199805101733.TAA05625@basement.replay.com>
Message-ID: <19980511144215.18788.qmail@nym.alias.net>
On 10 May 1998 19:33:32 +0200 AirborneD@dd.y wrote:
>pH penned, oh so eloquently:
>>Laughing Moon isn't ScrOG. Thay do have a screen but it's used for an
>entirely different purpose. Their 4" screening is used to support the weight
>of the huge colas to keep them from flopping over from their own weight. IOW
>the plants grow straight through the screen.
>
>With ScrOG the screen is usually 2" poultry netting, and used as an
>alternative way to train shoots instead of using tying, bending, or
>crimping methods. IOW the plants do not grow straight through the
>screen, but are trained back under the screen to force horizontal
>growth to fill the canopy. Only when the buds start forming are they
>then allowed to grow above the screen.
>
>Sorry bud. I re-read it and was so overwhelmed with the buds...and it
>was a bit wider too. I have found the 2" netting at our local store.
>How could I use it with my HID setup?
Same way you'd use it with any setup. The idea doesn't change, only the
distance to the light source.
>Do I need glass?
I don't think so.
Due to the nature of the training, and because the fastest growth is being
confined under the screen, I'd even think glass in the HID fixture would be
less of a necessity because there's less of a chance of something accidentally
growing into the lights.
>I have 2-1000w
>lights (1hps, 1mh). If I filled my 18ft/2 space with screen about 12"
>off the pots, is that the basic idea?
Yep.
Wow, 111w/sq ft.!
>And keep the lights 3 or 4 feet off the screen?
If that's the distance that works safest with those lights, yep. FWIW if you
keep the lights a little higher than needed in anticipation of fast unexpected
growth toward the lights, you might be able to cut the distance some since the
growth will be under more control.
>Only instead of LMs, train my lateral shoots and main
>branches
If by main branches you mean the mainstem of the plant, I usually top the
plants to encourage the shoot growth.
>to live under, rather than thru the screen, until the budding
>streach stops, then allow them to grow up thru the screen and harvest
>like a hedge of juicy colas!
Get out the electric hedge clippers:-) Me thinks with 111w/sq ft buds from
your shoots would be as large as mainstem colas in most other setups.
>I can't wait. Only...it's gonna take me
>another 3 months before I can. I need a time compressor. Set that
>sucker in my room and turn it to 3 months...
Heh heh Then you'll have plenty of time to prepare. Best of all you'll have an
understanding of how your variety(s) behaves between the time you induce
flowering and the time the stretch stops. Now's the perfect time to log that
growth if you haven't already done so.
pH
>
>Thanks for the clarity. Critique me where necessary.
>
>Airborne
>
>
>
From phlo@nym.alias.net Mon May 11 14:51:04 1998
Newsgroups: alt.drugs.pot.cultivation
Subject: Re: scrog ** What is & isn't ScrOG, Light height **
From: phlo <phlo@nym.alias.net>
Date: 11 May 1998 18:51:04 -0000
References: <19980511144215.18788.qmail@nym.alias.net>
Message-ID: <19980511185104.13635.qmail@nym.alias.net>
pH in response to ScrOG questions:
>>How could I use it with my HID setup?
>Same way you'd use it with any setup. The idea doesn't change,
>only the distance to the light source.
Speaking of which! I setup my 3 150W HPS's about 16-18" from the
screen, however, they are fixed in place as is the screen. For
vegetative growth I am stuck with the full 18" of distance between
the lights and the plants, but I felt it was necessary in order to
have plenty of room for nice size buds down the road. I'm just
not sure the 2' x 4' space is better w/ like 2-3 plants ScrOG'd or
with like 8 plants growing regularly ...
>Due to the nature of the training, and because the fastest growth
>is being confined under the screen, I'd even think glass in the
>HID fixture would be less of a necessity because there's less of
>a chance of something accidentally growing into the lights.
My 150 HPS's are in glass enclosed fixtures cause they are meant
to be used as floodlamps. The only benefit to this is that I can
foliar feed without worrying about the bulb exploding or having
electrical problems. The drawback is obvious, they only go up to
150W, so I had to use 3 in a 2' x 4' space.
>If that's the distance that works safest with those lights, yep.
>FWIW if you keep the lights a little higher than needed in
>anticipation of fast unexpected growth toward the lights, you
>might be able to cut the distance some since the growth will be
>under more control.
Good, I guessed that on my own ... I figured about 18" would be ok
since I have a strong breeze coming right down from the top of my
growspace from a window unit. I bought one of those RapidTest
meters from home Depot this morning, only to find it to be flaky I
think. It can seem to make up it's mind about the ph, although I
am sure I was low. I was coming in around 6.0, glad I checked,
but it's from the compost I think.
We'll see how everything plays out ...
ph]o
From Cougar@scrog.dirt.net Tue May 26 04:50:52 1998
Newsgroups: alt.drugs.pot.cultivation
Subject: Scrog, Growth, 40/60
From: Cougar@scrog.dirt.net
Date: 26 May 1998 10:50:52 +0200
Message-ID: <199805260850.KAA24829@basement.replay.com>
A lot of contributors to adpc will probably want to skip this post, since
it deals exclusively with cultivation. You have been warned. ;)
(Besides, it's long)
The grow room: 2x4=8 sq ft closet, no co2, timed venting.
The lights: 320 watts of flouros or 400 watt HPS.
The medium: Soil (fertility/drainage mix - no kipchit)
Plants:
Mom was a seedling (unknown variety).
#2, #3, #5, were clones taken from Mom after she was revegged.
#7 was cloned from the tip of #3.
Meaurements: I measure from the beginning of the stem to the first 'real'
leaf node below the growing tip. When that growth stops and budding takes
off, I quit measuring. Yep, this variety actually does stop growing.
Measured growth amounts during the flowering cycle.
Mom : 36" in 35 days. 320w/flouro. Top was trained.
Mom revegged : 8" in 35 days. 320w/flouro. Scrogged.
#2 & #3 : 8" in 25 days. 400w/hps. Topped once and scrogged.
#5 : 23" in 25 days. 400w/hps. Topped once, not trained.
#7 : 22" in 25 days. 400w/hps. Not topped, not trained.
This indicates that the hps cut the flowering growth phase of this
variety from 35 days to 25 days, which is a good thing. The amount of
growth under ScrOG is about 1/3 that of an unscrogged plant. That is
caused by supporting so many equally dominant growth tips on each plant,
and keeping the shoot tips low (encouraging secondary growth). That's my
take, anyway.
FWIW, I don't use pistil color to determine when to harvest. I find that
watching the resin glands is a much better method. When they start to
turn from clear to whitish, it's time. Yep, that too is a judgement call,
but it works here. Ok, so that leads us to the 40/60 theory and how do
flouro's and the hps compare with the same variety.
As you can see from the table above, the growing days under 12/12 were
cut dramatically under hps. Also, it made no difference if the plants
were scrogged or vertically grown - the growing days were the same (only
the amount of growth varied). But how about the total flowering days? My
data says the 40/60 theory is completely accurate, no matter which lights
were used. The table below shows the number of days growth was happening,
days budding, and the total time under 12/12.
Here's the 40/60 projections, based on measured growth during flowering:
Mom :35/49 = 84 total days (flouros)
Mom revegged:35/49 = 84 total days (flouros)
#2,#3 :25/38 = 63 total days (hps)
#5,#7 :25/38 = 63 total days (hps)
Here's what the reality was:
1. Mom was right on.
2. Mom revegged was harvested after 60 days of 12/12 to eliminate mites
and make room for #2 & #3. The reveg was merely an experiment to gain
ScrOG experience and see what growth was like under a screen, but it was
very obvious she needed 3 more weeks to enlarge the calyxes.
3. #2 & #3 were right on. (harvested 3 days early)
4. #5 & #7 look like they will be right on also, although they have 3
weeks to go yet. (Someone is wondering why #5 & #7 only grew 22"-23" when
Mom grew 36". It's because they were a growth experiment and only had 1/2
gallon pots to live in.)
Here's some general statements. (ymmv)
Lighting makes no difference as far as quality of smoke.
HPS produces a faster turnaround than flouros.
HPS produced fuller buds, but not earth shatteringly fuller.
The 40/60 theory is right on, no matter the lighting.
ScrOG is not only very productive, it's fascinating.
Here's some smokey blatherings:
The just completed grow only filled 6 sq ft of the screen but produced
8.9 ounces of excellent smoke from two clones. The reason the screen was
not filled was because I thought I would get 35 days of growth but only
got 25 under the hps. Had I known, I could have added a week to the veg
cycle and harvested maybe 11-12 ounces... oh well. This is stricly a
personal use grow, and I think I can take the summer off now. :)
A big thanks to pH and Flick... you guys not only made it possible, but
very smokeable! :)
-Cougar (just a dirt kinda guy)
From AA@loads.com Thu May 28 14:28:07 1998
Newsgroups: alt.drugs.pot.cultivation
Subject: Scrog me, baby!
From: AA@loads.com
Date: 28 May 1998 20:28:07 +0200
Message-ID: <199805281828.UAA00461@basement.replay.com>
Off and on, I've been a closet grower for the last 20 years (starting
with the one in my college dorm room hehehe), always with poor to
mediocre results. But, dudes, I just clipped my first harvest under
430W HPS using Scrog and I am simply amazed! The info here on adpc was
most helpful. I feel like I should do an unsolicited testimonial, "Get
new enhanced A.D.P.C.Gold Plus - it freshens as it brightens!"
I used seeds I saved from a bag I got in Fairbanks 15 years ago. Now I
remember why I saved them, and I am sho'nuf glad I did. They're clearly
an indica strain and they made these monster buds as big as my dick.
Well, OK, not that big, but as big as Kip's anyway. And they were
everywhere! Screen-O-Green is a brilliant technique. pH, I don't know
if you thought it up, but whoever did ought to get royalties, two buds
every harvest.
Sorry, no YOR entry because I don't have a scale. Strictly personal you
know.
Scrog rules. Try it.
From curious@naughtymonkey.org Fri May 29 09:30:01 1998
Newsgroups: alt.drugs.pot.cultivation
Subject: Re: Scrog me, baby!
From: Curious George <curious@naughtymonkey.org>
Date: 29 May 1998 15:30:01 +0200
Message-ID: <199805291330.PAA00772@basement.replay.com>
In article <199805290730.JAA11200@basement.replay.com> you write:
>Off and on, I've been a closet grower for the last 20 years (starting
>with the one in my college dorm room hehehe), always with poor to
>mediocre results. But, dudes, I just clipped my first harvest under
>430W HPS using Scrog and I am simply amazed! The info here on adpc was
>most helpful. I feel like I should do an unsolicited testimonial, "Get
>new enhanced A.D.P.C.Gold Plus - it freshens as it brightens!"
>
>I used seeds I saved from a bag I got in Fairbanks 15 years ago. Now I
>remember why I saved them, and I am sho'nuf glad I did. They're clearly
>
>an indica strain and they made these monster buds as big as my dick.
>Well, OK, not that big, but as big as Kip's anyway. And they were
>everywhere! Screen-O-Green is a brilliant technique. pH, I don't know
>if you thought it up, but whoever did ought to get royalties, two buds
>every harvest.
>
>Sorry, no YOR entry because I don't have a scale. Strictly personal you
>
>know.
>
>Scrog rules. Try it.
>
I definitely have to agree with you. The ScrOG is fantastic. I
started my babies on 12/12 light two weeks ago after growing them
under the screen for about 3 weeks. I've sexed them and removed the
males. After removing the male plants from the grow space I could
easily see the positive impact of the trellis on the growth and
exposure to light.
I expect to harvest in 4 more weeks or so, and I'm certain that my
output will be significantly greater due to the screen. :)
Happy scroggin'!
-George
From beachbud@nym.alias.net Wed Apr 29 11:38:22 1998
Newsgroups: alt.drugs.pot.cultivation
Subject: ScrOG training ??
From: beachbud@nym.alias.net
Date: 29 Apr 1998 15:38:22 -0000
Message-ID: <19980429153822.21938.qmail@nym.alias.net>
I am starting to plan for my next crop, my first under Screen of Green.
My intent is to start two plants near the center of the 13.5 sq ft grow room (3' x 4.5'), top them once at about node 4-5, and train the shoots outward from there, each covering half the grow. When the shoots reach the walls, turn them back inward towards the center, in a cloverleaf kind of pattern. This would allow each main stem to end up in the center of the room, which would be getting the best lighting. It would also give the plants the best lighting early on, to minimize stretching under HPS.
Is this a reasonable way to do this? I have read a couple of postings from people suggesting starting plants at the corners and growing them towards the center. Will there be so much side growth that turning them back into the center will become impossible?
Opinions from experienced ScrOGgers appreciated.
Note to The Dude: Did you get my email??
********
BeachBUD
From phlo@nym.alias.net Wed Apr 29 15:03:29 1998
Newsgroups: alt.drugs.pot.cultivation
Subject: ScrOG training ??
From: phlo <phlo@nym.alias.net>
Date: 29 Apr 1998 19:03:29 -0000
References: <19980429153822.21938.qmail@nym.alias.net>
Message-ID: <19980429190329.2112.qmail@nym.alias.net>
BeachBUD was talkin about:
>I am starting to plan for my next crop, my first under Screen of
>Green.
Right there with you ...
>My intent is to start two plants near the center of the 13.5 sq
>ft grow room (3' x 4.5'), top them once at about node 4-5, and
>train the shoots outward from there, each covering half the grow.
>When the shoots reach the walls, turn them back inward towards
>the center, in a cloverleaf kind of pattern. This would allow
>each main stem to end up in the center of the room, which would
>be getting the best lighting. It would also give the plants the
>best lighting early on, to minimize stretching under HPS.
Sounds like a plan, provided the strain you have will give you
enough growth to make it all the way out to the edge and back
while your still youthful =) ... I've been wondering how easy it
will be to turn 180 degrees and head back at that stage of growth?
The stems aren't exactly pliable by then from my past experience!
>Is this a reasonable way to do this? I have read a couple of
>postings from people suggesting starting plants at the corners
>and growing them towards the center. Will there be so much side
>growth that turning them back into the center will become
>impossible?
I don't know the answer to this, however, we'll have to compare
results down the road and see how things worked out. However,
it's going to be tough comparison because I have to stay at the
fluoro level due to very performance damaging vertical height
constraint. I'm staying w/ soil too, as my little hydro setup
worked, but provided me only COMPRABLE growth as my soil plants.
I have to comment on the argument between pH and Kip about
soil-vs-hydro and state that I think the theoretical maximum
yields etc are embedded not in the grow medium or nutrients, but
in the genetics of the plant. A good hydro grower can grow to the
top of the potential, as well as a good soil grower. However, I
would venture to comment that mistakes made in hydro nutrients are
FAR MORE harmful than those made in soil, as the nature of soil is
to buffer and what not ...
Are you going to do any outdoor ScROG'in? ... that's where I'm
hoping to really have some fun! I've been looking forward to this
upcoming Florida sun for months now, growth rates should be
phenomenal. I've already got some guerilla ladies out and about
on the island too, hopefully to become 12 footers like I dream
about ...
See ya at the finish line!
ph]o
From Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1] Wed Apr 29 19:09:13 1998
Newsgroups: alt.drugs.pot.cultivation
Subject: Re: ScrOG training ??
From: pH <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]>
Date: 29 Apr 1998 23:09:13 -0000
References: <19980429153822.21938.qmail@nym.alias.net> <19980429190329.2112.qmail@nym.alias.net>
Message-ID: <19980429230913.25586.qmail@nym.alias.net>
On 29 Apr 1998 19:03:29 -0000 phlo <phlo@nym.alias.net> wrote:
>X-No-Archive : Yes
>
>BeachBUD was talkin about:
>
>>I am starting to plan for my next crop, my first under Screen of
>>Green.
>
>Right there with you ...
>
>>My intent is to start two plants near the center of the 13.5 sq
>>ft grow room (3' x 4.5'), top them once at about node 4-5, and
>>train the shoots outward from there, each covering half the grow.
>>When the shoots reach the walls, turn them back inward towards
>>the center, in a cloverleaf kind of pattern. This would allow
>>each main stem to end up in the center of the room, which would
>>be getting the best lighting. It would also give the plants the
>>best lighting early on, to minimize stretching under HPS.
>
>Sounds like a plan, provided the strain you have will give you
>enough growth to make it all the way out to the edge and back
>while your still youthful =) ... I've been wondering how easy it
>will be to turn 180 degrees and head back at that stage of growth?
>The stems aren't exactly pliable by then from my past experience!
True, one should know the variety's habits in order to plan an outcome. The
180 degree change in direction is not a sharp one, and will depend on the
pliabilty of the shoot. Tips are always more pliable than lower down on the
shoot. I usually see anywhere from about a 3 to 6 inch loop where the bend is.
>
>>Is this a reasonable way to do this? I have read a couple of
>>postings from people suggesting starting plants at the corners
>>and growing them towards the center. Will there be so much side
>>growth that turning them back into the center will become
>>impossible?
There will be mucho side growth, and the turned shoot will be headed into
traffic:-) The key here is selecting who wins the competition for space. If
you have to choose between a recent quadernary shoot that's just beginning to
grow, and the thick juicy shoot you just turned around, you be the judge:-)
I'd put the recent shoot under the juicy one or place it facing in another
direction. You have control over who wins the competition for space:-) Heh
heh In reality, you're probably more likely to take notice of the sparser spots
in the canopy as "turning time" approaches. and direct the turned shoots to
those spots.
Heh heh If yer not overgrown there will be a space for everything:-))
Ya know I've gotten buds (yes more than one) from further down on a shoot, that
were just a big as the main cola on the shoot. So don't underestimate what
side growth can do. A tertiary shoot going into full flower with a 1/8" stem
tip diameter can yield just a much as a primary shoot with a 1/8" diameter.
The best thing a ScrOGger can know is his variety's growth habits.
>
>I don't know the answer to this, however, we'll have to compare
>results down the road and see how things worked out. However,
>it's going to be tough comparison because I have to stay at the
>fluoro level due to very performance damaging vertical height
>constraint. I'm staying w/ soil too, as my little hydro setup
>worked, but provided me only COMPRABLE growth as my soil plants.
>I have to comment on the argument between pH and Kip about
>soil-vs-hydro and state that I think the theoretical maximum
>yields etc are embedded not in the grow medium or nutrients, but
>in the genetics of the plant.
--snip--
pH
>
>Are you going to do any outdoor ScROG'in? ... that's where I'm
>hoping to really have some fun! I've been looking forward to this
>upcoming Florida sun for months now, growth rates should be
>phenomenal. I've already got some guerilla ladies out and about
>on the island too, hopefully to become 12 footers like I dream
>about ...
>
>See ya at the finish line!
>
>ph]o
From Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1] Wed Oct 01 19:09:13 1996
Subject: !! ScrOG-O-RAMA - Q&A's and Misc. Info - READ ME FIRST !!
From: AA <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]>
Date: 01 Oct 1996 23:09:13 -0000
Message-ID: <1996 10 01 190913.25586.qmail@nym.alias.net>
ScrOG-O-RAMA
Last Updated: 6/11/98
Included here are questions and answers gathered from various posts
and other texts regarding ScrOG.
Some are Q&A type texts with the only question being the subject line
and the answer being the message body. These will be evident from the
fact that only one message is contained in the thread.
The bulk of the ScrOG-O-RAMA are a.d.p.c threads, these will be evident
by the different authors and the dates listed in the headers for the
replies. Some text may be snipped by me where I find it off-topic or
redundant, I hope the respective authors don't mind the snips. If they
don't like their email address being shown just let me know and I'll
remove it.
pH
From Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1] Wed Oct 01 19:09:13 1997
Subject: How do you train and when do you top the plants?
From: pH <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]>
Date: 01 Oct 1997 23:09:13 -0000
Message-ID: <1997 10 01 190913.25586.qmail@nym.alias.net>
Actually I top the plants when they reach the netting, they're about 12 inches tall at that point. The 10" mentioned in the post refers to headroom between the netting and the lights, for maturing buds. Don't bend tops over anymore since only the shoots make for better, more even, horizontal growth.
I try not to weave the shoots (over/under) the netting, but rather tuck them down under and redirect them to the next 2" opening once they've outgrown the one they're in.
Once they hit the netting ALL grwoth remains at 2" from the fluoro tubes, they hang just above the netting and are only raised when the flowering tops start to "slowly" grow upward, at this point I have also stopped training the shoots under the netting.
You're correct in saying the "lower" internodes get more light, but that is not the purpose of the netting. I want to make that point here. In fact lower internodes are still lower internodes no matter what system is used, "they wont ever" be as good as nodes closer to the light. I still cut off lower shoots that never make it to the netting, because that's where all the action is happening as far as I'm concerned. The purpose of the netting is to get all growing tips that will be used for buds to grow at the same height relative to the lights, and it accomplishes this task superbly. My harvest consists of many, many, tertiary and quadernary shoots that have grown into buds between 3 to 6 inches long, and primary and secondary shoots that can be as long as 10 inches. I would venture to say that if I used HID lights instead of flouros the buds would be even longer and fuller, but I would lose the headroom the low profile (about 3 inches) of the fluoros provide and therefore could not have one shelf on top of the other.
In a trellised horizontal configuration the canopy is where the rubber meets the road, it receives ALL the light with NO gaps allowed. In a vertical configuration the spaces between plants is where you lose most of your production (either in yield or quality), not the shoots that can be considered undergrowth. You'll always have undergrowth, but you don't always have to have gaps if you manage horizontal growth to fill them. I found a trellis to be the best way to do this.
If you've never seen it, you have to try to visualize a 2x4 foot section of 2" wire netting with at least one, but usually two (and sometimes three) good buds growing from EACH hole. Of course, practice makes perfect:-) Using this method I get 10-12 oz of primo bud, with 40WATTS/sq ft, from each harvest using two shelves in 2x4 ft of floor space. BTW I have normal 8ft ceilings.
pH
From Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1] Wed Oct 01 19:09:13 1997
Subject: How fast does the canopy fill?
From: pH <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]>
Date: 01 Oct 1997 23:09:13 -0000
Message-ID: <1997 10 01 190913.25586.qmail@nym.alias.net>
With the trellis the canopy fills very fast, about 2-4 weeks. Try to
visualize these two examples. One topped clone, in a corner of a 2x4 ft
area with a trellis 10 inches above. By the time primary shoots have grown
horizontally 4 ft to reach the other side, I am starting to tuck 6"
tertiary and 2" quadernary shoots under the center of the netting. One
layer of shoots under the netting is a full canopy, any more than that is
overgrowth and either interferes with existing bud sites or replaces them.
Another easier way may be to imagine a 4 ft plant sandwiched flat between
two 2x4 ft panes of glass, then put under a 2x4 ft bank of fluoros. The
profile of each shoot may be seen clearly through the glass with one plant,
but put a second plant in that sandwich and you can see what I mean by
overgrowth.
The art is in timing induction to the number of plants, so overgrowth is
avoided yet the canopy is full.
From Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1] Wed Oct 01 19:09:13 1997
Subject: What kind of netting is used?
From: pH <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]>
Date: 01 Oct 1997 23:09:13 -0000
Message-ID: <1997 10 01 190913.25586.qmail@nym.alias.net>
>pH,
>I'm really interested in the poultry netting that you use at 10". This
>poultry netting, is it chicken wire? Could you describe it to me?
Yes, it is run-of-the-mill chicken wire.
>-Are the holes in the netting 2" big, square, round?
They are 2 inches. That's the way chicken wire is avalable, at least in my area. I can buy either 1" or 2" chicken wire (or poultry netting as it is sometimes called), 1" is too small. The shape is actally more like an octagon. I can buy it in 2 foot wide rolls, I think 4 foot is available, but not certain.
>-Should I double stalk as usual?
With the trellis, yes. You can just bend over the top of the plant, but I found shoots grow faster if it is topped.
>-You wrote that "I try not to weave the shoots (over/under) the netting,
>but rather tuck them down under and redirect them to the next 2" opening
>once they've outgrown the one they're in." I take it you do this cause
>you have limited height available. If I don't have those limitations
>should I just let them grow up through the wires unattended?
No, not during veg growth. That's where you're actually controlling the horizontal growth, and the upward growth is very fast. As the plants are flowering AND UPWARD GROWTH SLOWS TO A CRAWL is the time to stop training the shoots under the netting. At that point shoot tips growing through the holes are slow growing buds, and the time you spend training shoots will no longer be needed.
>-On the other hand, I can also take the plants out of the closet and put
>them outside. In my part of the world daylight is never more than 12.5
>hours a day during the long days. After getting 18 hours a day of MH
>light they would probably bud outdoors all by themselves. What do you
>think?
It would be murder to untangle the plants from the netting once they have grown through. That's why I emphasized that I don't weave the plants over/under.
But if you set it up so that the trellis can simply be lifted straight up, AND no shoots have been allowed to grow through the holes too far, you could move them outdoors. If you've moved them outdoors to bud previously with success that is.
From Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1] Wed Oct 01 19:09:13 1997
Subject: Should the trellis be left on all the time?
From: pH <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]>
Date: 01 Oct 1997 23:09:13 -0000
Message-ID: <1997 10 01 190913.25586.qmail@nym.alias.net>
>Do you know of any reasons to/not to leave the trellis in place all the
>way through flowering until harvest time?
>
>Seems to me that I remember reading in the original thread discussing
>trellises that the wire is removed when the lights go on 12/12, but I
>don't remember why.
At one time someone asked about removing the trellis in order to move plants outdoors to bud. I believe this is where you're confused.
Normally the trellis is not removed.
When buds start to form heavily on shoot tips and upward growth slows down to a crawl (about 2-4 weeks after induction), you can stop training the shoot tips under the netting and allow the buds to grow through until harvest. Until this time arrives you're simply training shoot tips under the netting so each hole in the netting will have buds when they do start to form. Try to anticipate when the trellised canopy will be full, so you can start induction early enough to avoid overgrowth. Don't wait for the canopy to be full before inducing flowering. This takes a little practice and a familiarity with the variety you grow.
The trellis is what keeps the sea of buds horizontal and at an equal distance from the lights. I never remove the trellis, no need to.
From Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1] Wed Oct 01 19:09:13 1997
Subject: #of plants under a trellis...
From: pH <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]>
Date: 01 Oct 1997 23:09:13 -0000
Message-ID: <1997 10 01 190913.25586.qmail@nym.alias.net>
> Hi Ph..
> Hey, I read your file on using a trellis and it's just what im
>looking for, Im going to use it... I hope you dont mind a couple small
>questions: I am growing three plants in a small tub (about 1.5'x2'x5'')
>*sigh* *overzealous* Its designed for one, maybe two plants, but i
>figured i'd chop a plant if one turns out male. Anyway. The question
>is: Am I going to have room for all three plants under a 2'x4' chicken
>net?
How many plants depends entirely on the variety and its growth habits once
switched to 12/12. If you haven't grown this variety before, or start each
crop from seed you'll need to experiment. The trellis is best suited for a
variety whose growth can be predicted so you can prevent overgrowth.
You'd be better served by using known females with the trellis. Consider
this. By the time you know the sex the plants will be filling the netting,
and flowering will be underway. If you have to remove a male at this point
it will be difficult since its shoots will be intermingled with the other
plants. It is not only a pain in the ass to remove just the male, but it
will leave gaps in the trellis where buds could be growing.
>should i use 4'x4' if i can find it?
Depends on light coverage, and how many watts/sq ft you want. The 430
watt HPS comes to 27w/sq ft for a 4'x4' canopy (16sq ft), and 54w/sq ft
for the 2'x4'. I'd stick with the 2x4 space. Regarding coverage, I use
fluoros that cover every inch of my 2x4 canopies. With a HID you just have
to make sure the periphery of the canopy doesn't suffer, and that the
center doesnt get too much. Although the trellis itself allows you to
control the upward growth you'll still want to promote even growth once
buds start forming. The trellis will permit you to train the shoots
during veg growth, but once buds start to form the training stops. At this
point you'll want the light to be as evenly distributed as possible so buds
will mature evenly.
> and should i top the plants w/so little space for thee plants?
Once again it depends if the variety is a strong brancher. I always top
mine at about 10 inches because my current variety tends to branch little
unless topped, and because my headroom is limited by the second shelf.
The 10" trellis height also allows lower shoots to reach the netting
sooner, as well as allowing the fluoros to not be too far away when the
plants are small.
>I am going to get a 430 watt hps soon, so that should beef up the watt/ft
>nicely.
It should. I plan on getting a 430 HID soon also. My game plan is to
first set it up with a 2x4 trellised canopy using a linear light mover.
Then later add another 2x4 section (making it 2x8), extending the light
mover track, and adding a second 430 watter.
I don't know what lights you plan to start using with the trellis, and so
far my only experience is with the fluoros, which gives me 40w/sq ft. With
my variety and that lighting I wouldn't use 3 plants, even when flowered
very early the overgrowth would be too much. I am just finishing a harvest
with 2 plants and my last crop had just one plant. I think the single
plant was easier to work with and yielded as much if not slightly more than
two plants.
If I were you I'd try:
1-Using ONE known female in your 2x4 space with the 430 HPS.
2-Allow the plant to grow about 5 inches above the trellis then top the
plant. Make the 45 degree cut even with the netting or slightly below it,
removing the top that sticks above the netting. Use the cut top for a
clone if you wish.
3-Keep the plant in veg until about 1/4 to 1/3 of the trellis is filled
with the shoots, then switch to 12/12. hehehe I usually determine the
fullness of the canopy by looking up through the canopy from below and
noting how much light can be seen through it. I would estimate this to be
when the longest shoots are around 14" long. The rest of the canopy
should fill during flowering. If you timed it right the rapid
upward/outward growth of the flowering plant will stop just as the canopy
fills and buds heads start to thicken. If you timed it wrong, at best
you'll have a few gaps, at worst you will have to continue training shoots
"and budheads:-(" into an already full fowering canopy. This is not fun,
and something you want to avoid, trust me on this. It's better to have a
slightly underfilled canopy than one that is overgrown. Since all the good
buds to be harvested will be above the netting, it serves no good purpose,
is frustrating, and wastes time to have too much growth under the netting.
4-Take note of how long the shoots were when you started 12/12 so next crop
you can fine tune your timing with that variety.
I think you'll like the trellis after learning the ins and outs of using it
first hand.
pH
From abig10_4@hotmail.com Sat May 30 07:53:36 1998
Subject: SCROG??? ** and the stretch **
From: abig10_4@hotmail.com
Date: Sat, 30 May 1998 11:53:36 GMT
Message-ID: <6kos00$gjt$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
I'm having trouble finding a quick & dirty intro to SCROG methodology. I've
checked NPK's FAQ.
It's "Screen of Green", right? I'm familiar with Sea of Green.
Is SCROG pretty much "whatever you want, but just train the plants to a
trellis?"
Thanks!
ABig10_4
From Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1] Sat May 30 10:30:34 1998
Subject: Re: SCROG??? ** and the stretch **
From: pH <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]>
Date: 30 May 1998 14:30:34 -0000
Message-ID: <19980530143034.16021.qmail@nym.alias.net>
References: <6kos00$gjt$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
On Sat, 30 May 1998 11:53:36 GMT abig10_4@hotmail.com wrote:
>I'm having trouble finding a quick & dirty intro to SCROG methodology. I've
>checked NPK's FAQ.
>
>It's "Screen of Green", right?
Right.
>I'm familiar with Sea of Green.
>
>Is SCROG pretty much "whatever you want, but just train the plants to a
>trellis?"
I'll put it this way, the trellis is used for training "in lieu" of other
methods of training. It will allow more plant matter to be at an equal
distance from the light source thereby maximizing use of the canopy and the
yield it produces.
There is no definitive text on ScrOG other than what you've seen at NPK's site
and a collection of posts (Q&A's) that I've compiled within the ScrOG-O-RAMA.
Below is text that I think is mirrored at NPK's site, but may contain some info
not at his site, I'm just not sure if both texts match at this time. When I
send this reply I'll also make the post mentioned below to alt.binaries.misc.
pH
>
>Thanks!
>
>ABig10_4
--snip--
From Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1] Sat May 30 15:37:22 1998
Subject: Re: SCROG??? ** and the stretch **
From: Kal Natrium <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]>
Date: 30 May 1998 19:37:22 -0000
Message-ID: <19980530193722.9559.qmail@nym.alias.net>
References: <19980530143034.16021.qmail@nym.alias.net>
pH wrote:
>I'll put it this way, the trellis is used for training "in lieu" of other
>methods of training. It will allow more plant matter to be at an equal
>distance from the light source thereby maximizing use of the canopy and the
>yield it produces.
>There is no definitive text on ScrOG other than what you've seen at NPK's site
>and a collection of posts (Q&A's) that I've compiled within the ScrOG-O-RAMA.
The only thing that can prepare you for the training of the plants under the trellis is first hand experience. Every plant is a little different and there are so many options when training. Nothing but first hand experience will really adequately prepare you. Don't get me wrong, I'm a ScrOGer, I find it incredibly efficient even if you don't get it quite right the first couple of times. Once you try it, you will realize(mentally) the potential the technique has even if you don't achieve maximum potential the first time around. As you do it, you will get better at it. Plus if you like to hang out in your garden, this allows you to get in lots of quality time with your plants.
Pay close attention, read your plants(where have I heard that before?), learn quickly, and have fun.
Kal
From Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1] Sun May 31 10:05:08 1998
Subject: Re: SCROG??? ** and the stretch **
From: A Controlled Experiment <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]>
Date: 31 May 1998 14:05:08 -0000
Message-ID: <19980531140508.3743.qmail@nym.alias.net>
References: <19980530193722.9559.qmail@nym.alias.net>
Kal Natrium <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in article <19980530193722.9559.qmail@nym.alias.net>...
> pH wrote:
>
> >I'll put it this way, the trellis is used for training "in lieu" of other
> >methods of training. It will allow more plant matter to be at an equal
> >distance from the light source thereby maximizing use of the canopy and the
> >yield it produces.
>
> >There is no definitive text on ScrOG other than what you've seen at NPK's site
> >and a collection of posts (Q&A's) that I've compiled within the ScrOG-O-RAMA.
Kal wrote:
> The only thing that can prepare you for the training of the plants under the trellis is first hand experience. Every plant is a little different and there are so many options when training. Nothing but first hand experience will really adequately prepare you.
>
My experience so far can second that motion. I don't think there is any way to fill the canopy with a new plant, without ending up with overgrowth (which I haven't seen yet), is to use more plants than you think you need. If you use to many remove the ones that aren't needed.
I have in mind after the last few months fooling with the screen that it would be best to grow a plant SOG while collecting height data to find the stretch characteristics before using it under the screen. When I did that with the nl x shiva I found the next screen attempt a piece of cake and filled all but a square quarter foot in a 4' area. ( I left the corner empty on purpose but by a little too much)
kal:
>Don't get me wrong, I'm a ScrOGer, I find it incredibly efficient even if you don't get it quite right the first couple of times. Once you try it, you will realize(mentally) the potential the technique has even if you don't achieve maximum potential the first time around.
>
I got that mental picture all right but I sure do want to see the real one.
Have a new grower opening up and I'll be setting up the grow--it's going ScrOG because I don't have very many plants I can give them. This will be the first "this better fill the canopy" attempt. In other words yield is a concern unlike cc jr. so we shall see.
>As you do it, you will get better at it. Plus if you like to hang out in your garden, this allows you to get in lots of quality time with your plants.
> Pay close attention, read your plants(where have I heard that before?), learn quickly, and have fun.
Just gotta instigate don't ya ;-)
stay free
flick
From Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1] Sun May 31 23:02:40 1998
Subject: Re: SCROG??? ** and the stretch **
From: Kal Natrium <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]>
Date: 1 Jun 1998 03:02:40 -0000
Message-ID: <19980601030240.28714.qmail@nym.alias.net>
References: <19980531140508.3743.qmail@nym.alias.net>
flick wrote:
> I have in mind after the last few months fooling with the screen that it would be best to grow a plant SOG while collecting height data to find the stretch characteristics before using it under the screen. When I did that with the nl x shiva I found the next screen attempt a piece of cake and filled all but a square quarter foot in a 4' area. ( I left the corner empty on purpose but by a little too much)
>
Would you care to elaborate on how you extrapolated stretch to screen filling? How did you factor in branching?
> Just gotta instigate don't ya ;-)
> stay free
> flick
It's a dangerous job, but someone has to do it.
Kal
From Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1] Mon Jun 01 01:24:16 1998
Subject: Re: SCROG??? ** and the stretch **
From: A Controlled Experiment <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]>
Date: 1 Jun 1998 05:24:16 -0000
Message-ID: <19980601052416.3424.qmail@nym.alias.net>
References: <19980601030240.28714.qmail@nym.alias.net>
Kal Natrium <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in article <19980601030240.28714.qmail@nym.alias.net>...
> flick wrote:
>
> > I have in mind after the last few months fooling with the screen that it would be best to grow a plant SOG while collecting height data to find the stretch characteristics before using it under the screen. When I did that with the nl x shiva I found the next screen attempt a piece of cake and filled all but a square quarter foot in a 4' area. ( I left the corner empty on purpose but by a little too much)
> >
>
> Would you care to elaborate on how you extrapolated stretch to screen filling? How did you factor in branching?
>
For you Kal, sure anything..see. I read the stretch--I'm serious ;-)
I made an educated guess with the stretch info + what was already known. The stretch wasn't the sole determining factor in figuring how to fill the canopy but it helped a great deal. (It worked the first time I used it) These might not be the actual numbers but they will be close..
The plant slowed to a crawl somewhere around the 12th day when I grew it SOG spaced 9 per sq'. You may remember the post with the height data right around the time pH and cougar hatched the 40/60 theory, well that's the harvest I'm talking about.
Knowing that the plant was going to pretty much stop upward growth around the 12th day I planned to stop training on the 8th. (which I did except for some stray cats here and there)
As far as figuring the branching -training experience helped with that, plus the fact that I grew the plant under the screen once prior. Add the stretch info and I had a winner. Too bad I took the plants out of the screen in order to reschedule everything or I could have given you some interesting numbers.
No biggy though we'll get plenty of those later.
I think if I have the stretch info on a strain I will come much closer to filling the screen the first time out than I would without it. With that said I still think the easiest way is to start more plants and remove the ones that aren't needed if you find you will overgrow the screen. Can't get much easier than that in my book.
If good notes are taken it won't be long till you figure out what you have to do to use less plants.
Truth is if it wasn't for the mental exercise of figuring out how to fill the screen, shoot placement and all,
this would be a pain in the butt. The chess game makes it quite enjoyable though.
> > Just gotta instigate don't ya ;-)
> It's a dangerous job, but someone has to do it.
You do it so well, you made me slip up in today's am posts and I'm trying to be good..
Even thinkin about goin back into a state of ding as soon as my work is done..we'll see
stay mellow
flick
From Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1] Mon Jun 01 13:18:33 1998
Subject: Re: SCROG??? ** and the stretch **
From: pH <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]>
Date: 1 Jun 1998 17:18:33 -0000
Message-ID: <19980601171833.26482.qmail@nym.alias.net>
References: <19980601030240.28714.qmail@nym.alias.net> <19980601052416.3424.qmail@nym.alias.net>
On 1 Jun 1998 05:24:16 -0000 ccone <AT> nym <DOT> alias <DOT> net wrote:
>Kal Natrium <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in article
><19980601030240.28714.qmail@nym.alias.net>...
>> flick wrote:
>>
>> > I have in mind after the last few months fooling with the screen that it
>would be best to grow a plant SOG while collecting height data to find the
>stretch characteristics before using it under the screen. When I did that with
>the nl x shiva I found the next screen attempt a piece of cake and filled all
>but a square quarter foot in a 4' area. ( I left the corner empty on purpose
>but by a little too much)
>> >
>>
>> Would you care to elaborate on how you extrapolated stretch to screen
>filling? How did you factor in branching?
>>
>
>For you Kal, sure anything..see. I read the stretch--I'm serious ;-)
>
>I made an educated guess with the stretch info + what was already known. The
>stretch wasn't the sole determining factor in figuring how to fill the canopy
>but it helped a great deal. (It worked the first time I used it) These might
>not be the actual numbers but they will be close..
>
>The plant slowed to a crawl somewhere around the 12th day when I grew it SOG
>spaced 9 per sq'. You may remember the post with the height data right around
>the time pH and cougar hatched the 40/60 theory, well that's the harvest I'm
>talking about.
>
>Knowing that the plant was going to pretty much stop upward growth around the
>12th day I planned to stop training on the 8th. (which I did except for some
>stray cats here and there)
>
>As far as figuring the branching -training experience helped with that, plus
>the fact that I grew the plant under the screen once prior. Add the stretch
>info and I had a winner.
Me thinks days of stretch is more valuable than stretch distance. Although
both are really good to know in advance, the former is key.
Branching, where it relates to non-primary shoots, is something you have to get
a feel for. Also, there's not much you can do about it except to train as
needed since it's the primary shoots that do most of the travelling and for the
most part determine when the canopy is ready for flowering. IOW the secondary
growth just comes, it doesn't bear into my determination of when to flower,
when the primaries reach the "mark" it's time to flower.
I've just about got my first canopy with a shorter internodal length variety
ready to flower. I've noticed that while the slower growing primary shoots
take a little more time to fill the canopy to the point of flowering (compared
to my other longer internodal variety) , the extra time and shorter internodes
of earlier growth produces slightly more intense secondary, tertiary, etc.
growth in the "early" canopy. This crop was with one plant on one side of my
2x4 area, IOW to fill the canopy enough to start flowering most of the plants
primary shoots had to grow toward the other side of the 4 foot space.
It's really amazing how the immediate area around the mainstem of a freshly
topped plant seems void of shoots shortly after topping and once the primaries
have spread their wings, so to speak. At the time, one would think it would be
a sparsely filled part of the finished canopy, but in the end it really
surprises you how much the secondary growth fills it:-)))
Next time I will most likely start the plant in the center so primary shoots
only have half the distance to reach thus reducing some of the intense middle
growth, and maybe even shortening the veg time a bit. Heh heh I've formed
ScrOGgin' habits from so many harvests with my old variety that now I gotta
shift gears a bit with the new one, not only because of the 70 vs. 106 days to
mature and associated stretch timing, but also because of the shorter
internodal length.
>Too bad I took the plants out of the screen in order
>to reschedule everything or I could have given you some interesting numbers.
>No biggy though we'll get plenty of those later.
>
>I think if I have the stretch info on a strain I will come much closer to
>filling the screen the first time out than I would without it. With that said
>I still think the easiest way is to start more plants and remove the ones that
>aren't needed if you find you will overgrow the screen. Can't get much easier
>than that in my book.
>
>If good notes are taken it won't be long till you figure out what you have to
>do to use less plants.
>Truth is if it wasn't for the mental exercise of figuring out how to fill the
>screen, shoot placement and all,
>this would be a pain in the butt. The chess game makes it quite enjoyable
>though.
Heh heh the pace of the chess match picks up quite a bit during the stretch,
eh. It's nice when check-mate time finally rolls around and you find yourself
with
a boardful of Kings:-)
pH
>
>
>> > Just gotta instigate don't ya ;-)
>
>> It's a dangerous job, but someone has to do it.
>
>You do it so well, you made me slip up in today's am posts and I'm trying to
be
>good..
>Even thinkin about goin back into a state of ding as soon as my work is
>done..we'll see
>
>stay mellow
>flick
From Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1] Mon Jun 01 00:20:06 1998
Subject: Scrog question ** number of plants, rotating harvests **
From: Anonymous Sender <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]>
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1998 01:20:06 -0300
Message-ID: <a28ac3e0cf0db50c2d0bdddd880778b5@anonymous.poster>
Hello folks ..
When trying to learn about a particular variety, what areas of the
plants should I look at while they grow? What key areas would I need
to pay close attention to so that for my next grow, I can get closer to
filling up the canopy but yet avoiding the dreaded overgrowth Ph warns
about.
Oh yeah ...Is Ph the creator of SCrog?
-P-
From Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1] Mon Jun 01 19:44:39 1998
Subject: Re: Scrog question ** number of plants, rotating harvests **
From: pH <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]>
Date: 1 Jun 1998 23:44:39 -0000
Message-ID: <19980601234439.936.qmail@nym.alias.net>
References: <a28ac3e0cf0db50c2d0bdddd880778b5@anonymous.poster>
On Mon, 1 Jun 1998 01:20:06 -0300 nobody <AT> privacy <DOT> nb <DOT> ca wrote:
>Hello folks ..
>
>When trying to learn about a particular variety, what areas of the
>plants should I look at while they grow? What key areas would I need
>to pay close attention to so that for my next grow, I can get closer to
>filling up the canopy but yet avoiding the dreaded overgrowth Ph warns
>about.
Veg growth rate:
I gage growth rate by logging the length of the longest shoot (once it hits the
screen) appx once a week during veg. This will give you an idea of how long it
will take to fill the canopy "to a point" where 12/12 and the flowering growth
and stretch will take over to completely fill the rest of the canopy.
Flowering growth rate & stretch:
The first day you put the plant into flowering note the date and the length of
the longest shoot(s). When the stretch stops measure the same shoot(s) again
to see how much they grew during the stretch. Also, get a feel for how much of
your canopy fills during this time. Because the longest shoots are not the
only ones to stretch, getting a feel for secondary shoots etc. helps a lot.
Knowing how much the longest shoots grow will give you an idea of where these
"best shoots" will come to rest when upward growth stops.
Branching:
Observe nodesites in the upper canopy to see how well the branching qualities
of the variety are. Every node there should produce a shoot (and later a bud).
If it's a good brancher you'll probably see buds from quadernary shoots (or
greater) depending on how many plants are used, or how large the plant(s) are
allowed to become.
>
>Oh yeah ...Is Ph the creator of SCrog?
Heh heh I just brought the concept indoors. I named it ScrOG (Screen Of Green)
because of its indoor counterpart Sea Of Green (SOG), which ScrOG was to mimic.
I think N.P.Kaye suggested the name. IOW a sea of buds, all equidistant from
the light source. Heh heh Sea, meaning no spaces between the waves ya know,
hope you get my drift here. The primary differences being ScrOG buds are from
trained shoots (not mainstem tops), and because of this much fewer plants can
be used. The screen simply makes training easier and more productive than
conventional training techniques. RC Clarke, in MJ Botany, actually gave me
the idea:-)
pH
>
>-P-
From buzzbuds@hotmail.com Mon Jun 01 21:33:52 1998
Subject: Re: Scrog question ** number of plants, rotating harvests **
From: "green man" <buzzbuds@hotmail.com>
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 1998 18:33:52 PDT
Message-ID: <19980602013352.22764.qmail@hotmail.com>
x-no-archive: yes
I asked this once before but didn't see the answer.
I like the idea of scrog, I think it may be the
future of growing in this country with the present
legal system. My question is this; I always see the
description of scrog starting with veg and going to
12/12 after it has filled the canopy. This seems
like the only drawback, if it is one, of this
system. A lot of people like to have a continuous
flowering room with a separate veg room. Why not
train the clones in the veg room and when they are
ready, put them into the flowering room to replace
the plant that was just harvested. Would this work
or would it be so much trouble it wouldn't be worth
it? A continuous harvest would allow you to put your
flowering room to more efficient use instead of
having to go back to veg over and over.
if it aint broke fix it anyway
green man
From Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1] Tue Jun 02 10:08:18 1998
Subject: Re: Scrog question ** number of plants, rotating harvests **
From: The Dude <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]>
Date: 2 Jun 1998 14:08:18 -0000
Message-ID: <19980602140818.23164.qmail@nym.alias.net>
References: <19980602013352.22764.qmail@hotmail.com>
Scrog question
>I asked this once before but didn't see the answer.
>I like the idea of scrog, I think it may be the
>future of growing in this country with the present
>legal system. My question is this; I always see the
>description of scrog starting with veg and going to
>12/12 after it has filled the canopy. This seems
>like the only drawback, if it is one, of this
>system. A lot of people like to have a continuous
>flowering room with a separate veg room. Why not
>train the clones in the veg room and when they are
>ready, put them into the flowering room to replace
>the plant that was just harvested. Would this work
>or would it be so much trouble it wouldn't be worth
>it? A continuous harvest would allow you to put your
>flowering room to more efficient use instead of
>having to go back to veg over and over.
>
>if it aint broke fix it anyway
>
>green man
>
>
>
Heh!
I've been thinking an awful lot about this the past 2
days since I stayed up all night making a TTMOG (Twist-Tie Maze
Of Green). I basically bent, crimped, tied up, tied down, and
cajoled my canopy into a 2' x 2' flat surface using a box of
twist ties and a ball of yarn. Now I really see the possibilities
here. There are so many secondary and even tertiary bud sites
pointing their little virgin heads up at the light! At least
100 of them!
First off, I'm making the assumption that you could use 1 plant
to fill a 2'x2' screen, correct?
Now, basing this on the traditional SOG formula where you divide
your grow-space into 6 parts, harvesting 1/6 of your plants
every two weeks, could you not use 6 2'x2' screens, each w/
one plant, harvesting one every two weeks?
You could lay them out 3 X 2 (so 6'x4"). You might even be able to
get away w/ using a 400W HPS if you used a light rail. (Maybe,
I'm thinking of trying this, and I would buy a 1000W if I did).
Or you could use 6' floros.
OK, so that would mean that you ould only need to start flowering
one new clone every two weeks, so one mother would be more than
sufficient. Assuming 2 weeks to root and... oh shit! I have no idea
how long a plant would need to veg! oh well, doesn't REALLY matter.
Once you know, you would just have to factor that in, and plan ahead
accordingly.
In any event, I don't see there ever being a need for more than
12 to 15 plants at a time in such a setup (and probably less).
So, if one were to use hydro and a good light I think it would
be safe to estimate around 30 grams / sq', sound right? OK, call
it 28 :) good, round number. OK, so 4 ounces every two weeks,
24 sq' and only 12 plants.
Does anybody see any obvious flaws with this? I'm going to have
a large room soon (14' X 12') w/ its own closet for clones/veg.
I don't plan on filling it, but space (and ventelation) will no
longer be a problem. So I was thinking I would try this in one
half of the flowering room, and a traditional SOG in the other 1/2.
It'll take me a while to get this all going (few months) but I'll
be *starting* soon, kind of a long-range plan. I'd also like
to build my little aeroponic system and race it against my drip
system, then pick the winner. I bet it will be the aero, based
on the performance of the Rainforest (more on that later). And
I figure I could build custom aero "buckets" to fit under the
screens...
I have good genetics on the way; Durban Poison, BubbleBerry, and
Jack Herer. Plus I have 15 clones of my Moroccon Mystery...
So hopefully by late fall, early winter I'll have plenty of AWESOME
bud. (But I should have a decent amount of pretty damn good
bud by July 4!)
Damn.
I guess that's the plan!
I'll take good notes!
Love and Herb,
The Dude
From nobody@sind.hyperreal.art.pl Tue Jun 02 19:55:20 1998
Subject: Re: Scrog question ** number of plants, rotating harvests **
From: hyperreal-anon-remailer <nobody@sind.hyperreal.art.pl>
Date: 3 Jun 1998 01:55:20 +0200
Message-ID: <199806022355.BAA09738@serek.arch.pwr.wroc.pl>
References: <19980602013352.22764.qmail@hotmail.com>
On Mon, 01 Jun 1998 18:33:52 PDT "green man" wrote:
Hiya green man... Cougar here...
>I asked this once before but didn't see the answer.
>I like the idea of scrog, I think it may be the
>future of growing in this country with the present
>legal system. My question is this; I always see the
>description of scrog starting with veg and going to
>12/12 after it has filled the canopy. This seems
>like the only drawback, if it is one, of this
>system.
Stop there green man. :)
The idea isn't to fill the screen and then induce... the idea is to
induce at the right time so that the expected future growth will fill the
screen. Admittedly, it can take a grow or two to nail the timing of
induction down so that future growth does indeed fill the screen.
> A lot of people like to have a continuous
>flowering room with a separate veg room. Why not
>train the clones in the veg room and when they are
>ready, put them into the flowering room to replace
>the plant that was just harvested. Would this work
>or would it be so much trouble it wouldn't be worth
>it? A continuous harvest would allow you to put your
>flowering room to more efficient use instead of
>having to go back to veg over and over.
My last scrog was done in the manner you speak of... I vegged them under
fluoros, topped them and installed a temporary screen to train them
under. It was a pita because the veg area is only 2' tall, which left
little head room to work with, but that can be easily changed. After I
moved them into the flowering closet I vegged them for an additional 5
days before induction, but that time could be eliminated if you veg them
to your goals under fluoros or mh. (I'm a dirt guy, so moving plants
under a screen is easy - just put some blocks under the bucket to raise
the plant to the screen in the flowering area.)
Frankly though, I think scrog would be a pain for a large grow with
constant production - too labor intensive for most growers. My humble
opinion is that it's a great way for us home growers to maximize a closet
though! 8.9 ounces from 2 plants under a 2x4 screen is not a bad thing,
considering that 2 sq ft were empty. Two grows per year can easily
produce 18-24 ounces, which should handle most peoples annual usage. :)
>if it aint broke fix it anyway
ummmm.... maybe tomorrow. ;)
-Cougar (taking the summer off)
ps. thanks for the seed bank updates!
>
>green man
From buzzbuds@hotmail.com Wed Jun 03 16:33:32 1998
Subject: Re: Scrog question ** number of plants, rotating harvests **
From: "green man" <buzzbuds@hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 1998 13:33:32 PDT
Message-ID: <19980603203333.7203.qmail@hotmail.com>
x-no-archive: yes
The Dude wrote:
>Scrog question
>>
>>I asked this once before but didn't see the answer.
>>I like the idea of scrog, I think it may be the
>>future of growing in this country with the present >>legal system. My
question is this; I always see the
>>description of scrog starting with veg and going to
>>12/12 after it has filled the canopy. This seems
>>like the only drawback, if it is one, of this
>>system. A lot of people like to have a continuous
>>flowering room with a separate veg room. Why not
>>train the clones in the veg room and when they are >>ready, put them
into the flowering room to replace >>the plant that was just harvested.
Would this work >>or would it be so much trouble it wouldn't be worth
>>it? A continuous harvest would allow you to put your
>>flowering room to more efficient use instead of
>>having to go back to veg over and over.
>>>
>>if it aint broke fix it anyway
>>>
>>green man
>>>
>Heh!
>>
>I've been thinking an awful lot about this the past 2
>days since I stayed up all night making a TTMOG
>(Twist-Tie Maze Of Green). I basically bent, crimped,
>tied up, tied down, and cajoled my canopy into a 2' x
>2' flat surface using a box of twist ties and a
>ball of yarn. Now I really see the possibilities here.
>There are so many secondary and even tertiary bud sites
>pointing their little virgin heads up at the light!
>At least 100 of them!
It does seem to bring out the potential of the plant doesn't it?
>>
>First off, I'm making the assumption that you could
>use 1 plant to fill a 2'x2' screen, correct?
pH has said that you can fill about 8 sq ft so 2x2 would be easy. I'm
surprised pH hasn't jumped in here yet.
>>
>Now, basing this on the traditional SOG formula where
>you divide your grow-space into 6 parts, harvesting
>1/6 of your plants every two weeks, could you not use
>6 2'x2' screens, each w/one plant, harvesting one
>every two weeks?
I don't see why not.
>You could lay them out 3 X 2 (so 6'x4"). You might
>even be able to get away w/ using a 400W HPS if you
>used a light rail. (Maybe, I'm thinking of trying this,
>and I would buy a 1000W if I did). Or you could use 6'
>floros.
I think a 400w would be too little for 24 sq'. A light mover helps some
but 16w/foot aint gonna get there. The 1000w on the other hand would be
good at 40w/ft.
>OK, so that would mean that you ould only need to start
>flowering one new clone every two weeks, so one mother
>would be more than sufficient. Assuming 2 weeks to
>root and... oh shit! I have no idea how long a
>plant would need to veg! oh well, doesn't REALLY matter.
Thats the great thing about Scrog over Sog. Less plants means less
mothers and a smaller veg chamber.
>Once you know, you would just have to factor that in,
>and plan ahead accordingly.
>>
>In any event, I don't see there ever being a need for
>more than 12 to 15 plants at a time in such a setup
>(and probably less).
Which means also that if worse came to worse, you wouldn't be in for
enhanced penalties.
>So, if one were to use hydro and a good light I think
>it would be safe to estimate around 30 grams / sq',
>sound right? OK, call it 28 :) good, round number. OK,
>so 4 ounces every two weeks, 24 sq' and only 12 plants.
You should get that easily.
>Does anybody see any obvious flaws with this? I'm
>going to have a large room soon (14' X 12') w/ its own
>closet for clones/veg. I don't plan on filling it,
>but space (and ventelation) will no longer be a
>problem. So I was thinking I would try this in one
>half of the flowering room, and a traditional SOG
>in the other 1/2.
>>
>It'll take me a while to get this all going (few months)
>but I'll be *starting* soon, kind of a long-range plan.
>I'd also like to build my little aeroponic system and
>race it against my drip system, then pick the winner.
>I bet it will be the aero, based on the performance
>of the Rainforest (more on that later). And
>I figure I could build custom aero "buckets" to fit
>under the screens...
Sounds ambitious, let us know how it turns out.
>I have good genetics on the way; Durban Poison,
>BubbleBerry, and Jack Herer. Plus I have 15 clones
>of my Moroccon Mystery...So hopefully by late fall,
>early winter I'll have plenty of AWESOME bud. (But
>I should have a decent amount of pretty damn good
>bud by July 4!)
>>
>Damn.
>>
>I guess that's the plan!
>I'll take good notes!
>>
>Love and Herb,
>The Dude
Take 'er easy Dude and stay high.
peace
green man
From Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1] Thu Jun 04 00:42:53 1998
Subject: Re: Scrog question ** number of plants, rotating harvests **
From: pH <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]>
Date: 4 Jun 1998 04:42:53 -0000
Message-ID: <19980604044253.13959.qmail@nym.alias.net>
References: <19980603203333.7203.qmail@hotmail.com>
On Wed, 03 Jun 1998 13:33:32 PDT "green man" <buzzbuds@hotmail.com> wrote:
>x-no-archive: yes
>
>The Dude wrote:
>>Scrog question
>>>
>>>I asked this once before but didn't see the answer.
>>>I like the idea of scrog, I think it may be the
>>>future of growing in this country with the present >>legal system. My
>question is this; I always see the
>>>description of scrog starting with veg and going to
>>>12/12 after it has filled the canopy. This seems
>>>like the only drawback, if it is one, of this
>>>system. A lot of people like to have a continuous
>>>flowering room with a separate veg room. Why not
>>>train the clones in the veg room and when they are >>ready, put them
>into the flowering room to replace >>the plant that was just harvested.
>Would this work >>or would it be so much trouble it wouldn't be worth
>>>it? A continuous harvest would allow you to put your
>>>flowering room to more efficient use instead of
>>>having to go back to veg over and over.
>>>>
>>>if it aint broke fix it anyway
>>>>
>>>green man
>>>>
>>Heh!
>>>
>>I've been thinking an awful lot about this the past 2
>>days since I stayed up all night making a TTMOG
>>(Twist-Tie Maze Of Green). I basically bent, crimped,
>>tied up, tied down, and cajoled my canopy into a 2' x
>>2' flat surface using a box of twist ties and a
>>ball of yarn. Now I really see the possibilities here.
Heh heh And if you just happened to read MJ Botany that same night, and
stumbled onto Clarke's illustration of Da Screen, you would have been up alllll
night rethinking the possibilites for indoor use:-))
>>There are so many secondary and even tertiary bud sites
>>pointing their little virgin heads up at the light!
>>At least 100 of them!
>It does seem to bring out the potential of the plant doesn't it?
>>>
>>First off, I'm making the assumption that you could
>>use 1 plant to fill a 2'x2' screen, correct?
>pH has said that you can fill about 8 sq ft so 2x2 would be easy. I'm
>surprised pH hasn't jumped in here yet.
I think I did, but am missing a bunch of my posts from my server. I don't
think they ever made it to usenet. Since I don't have copies I'll inject here
what I might have said.
Yep, 2x2, no problem mon.
>>>
>>Now, basing this on the traditional SOG formula where
>>you divide your grow-space into 6 parts, harvesting
>>1/6 of your plants every two weeks, could you not use
>>6 2'x2' screens, each w/one plant, harvesting one
>>every two weeks?
>I don't see why not.
>>You could lay them out 3 X 2 (so 6'x4"). You might
>>even be able to get away w/ using a 400W HPS if you
>>used a light rail. (Maybe, I'm thinking of trying this,
>>and I would buy a 1000W if I did). Or you could use 6'
>>floros.
>I think a 400w would be too little for 24 sq'. A light mover helps some
>but 16w/foot aint gonna get there. The 1000w on the other hand would be
>good at 40w/ft.
I agree. I'd watch the size of the ScroGged area though. A 6x4 area, unless
you had access to two opposite sides, wouldn't allow you to reach the center
for training..
If this wasn't about a rotating harvest, ScrOG would have a neat benefit here
regarding sq ft area and light. Generally to add more "growth" area more
plants & pots need to be added. Now let's say you have a 2x4 ScrOG area with
two plants (one at each end). Normally you'd train each plant toward the
center. Now let's assume when you set up that 2x4 screen that you didn't cut
the poultry netting, but rather left the excess rolled up at the end. If you
rolled out four more feet you would now have a 2x8 area, where one plant would
utilize the original screen and the other plant (closest to the new area) would
fill that screen. With just an added light and a little more veg time you
could double your gross yield. No need to fart around with adding, or
maintaining more plants, pots, trays or hydro plumbing.
>>OK, so that would mean that you ould only need to start
>>flowering one new clone every two weeks, so one mother
>>would be more than sufficient. Assuming 2 weeks to
>>root and... oh shit! I have no idea how long a
>>plant would need to veg! oh well, doesn't REALLY matter.
>Thats the great thing about Scrog over Sog. Less plants means less
>mothers and a smaller veg chamber.
When I'm not experimenting, and have just one variety to grow, I only need one
mother to be just big enough to give me 4 cuttings in order to harvest 16 sq
ft. 2 cuttings for the harvest, 1 for clone insurance, and 1 to replace the
mother. Heh heh Even one tron can do much more than that. Think of the mother
and clone space, and especially the extra work & time, needed for a SOG grow of
the same size. Two plants (not multilevel like mine are right now) could be
grown in one hydro tray appx 1.5 sq ft (just big enough to hold two 8" high
grow bags). IOW the harvest would be 16sq ft, but there would only be one
small container to maintain under the canopy. What would be under the canopy
with SOG? When I tried SOG, the first thing I didn't like was the number of
plants and all the work attached to them. I prefer ScrOG training over
spending time with the large number of SOG plants and containers.
>>Once you know, you would just have to factor that in,
>>and plan ahead accordingly.
Yep, either find a variety that would fill the 2x2 space when put there
directly upon rooting, or find what size your particular variety would need to
be to fill the space and how long it would take to veg to that size. Once you
know that it can be like clockwork.
>>>
>>In any event, I don't see there ever being a need for
>>more than 12 to 15 plants at a time in such a setup
>>(and probably less).
Sounds about right, maybe even 10 to 12. 6 flowering, 1 mother, 1 rooting, and
1 or 2 vegging.
>Which means also that if worse came to worse, you wouldn't be in for
>enhanced penalties.
>>So, if one were to use hydro and a good light I think
>>it would be safe to estimate around 30 grams / sq',
>>sound right? OK, call it 28 :) good, round number. OK,
>>so 4 ounces every two weeks, 24 sq' and only 12 plants.
>You should get that easily.
>>Does anybody see any obvious flaws with this? I'm
>>going to have a large room soon (14' X 12') w/ its own
>>closet for clones/veg. I don't plan on filling it,
>>but space (and ventelation) will no longer be a
>>problem. So I was thinking I would try this in one
>>half of the flowering room, and a traditional SOG
>>in the other 1/2.
>>>
>>It'll take me a while to get this all going (few months)
>>but I'll be *starting* soon, kind of a long-range plan.
>>I'd also like to build my little aeroponic system and
>>race it against my drip system, then pick the winner.
>>I bet it will be the aero, based on the performance
>>of the Rainforest (more on that later). And
>>I figure I could build custom aero "buckets" to fit
>>under the screens...
>Sounds ambitious, let us know how it turns out.
Heh heh While ambition is running high why not dream up a way to make it a
modular unit since you'll be dealing with 2x2 modules anyway. 2x2 seems small
enough to me make a Buck-O-ScrOG:-)) A pot (or container) with the screen
being an integral part of its constuction. IOW The pot and the screen are
attached. That way one could shift them around as desired in the flowering
area to allow the more mature ones the best spot for light, and the newer ones
placed on the periphery for easiest access for training. A self contained unit
like that could even be vegged in a separate room and training could be started
there if needed, then the whole thing (screen and all) brought into the
flowering area to finish.
pH
>>I have good genetics on the way; Durban Poison,
>>BubbleBerry, and Jack Herer. Plus I have 15 clones
>>of my Moroccon Mystery...So hopefully by late fall,
>>early winter I'll have plenty of AWESOME bud. (But
>>I should have a decent amount of pretty damn good
>>bud by July 4!)
>>>
>>Damn.
>>>
>>I guess that's the plan!
>>I'll take good notes!
>>>
>>Love and Herb,
>>The Dude
>Take 'er easy Dude and stay high.
>
>peace
>green man
>
From beachbud@nym.alias.net Thu Jun 04 15:20:33 1998
Subject: Re: Scrog question ** number of plants, rotating harvests **
From: beachbud@nym.alias.net
Date: 4 Jun 1998 19:20:33 -0000
Message-ID: <19980604192033.21772.qmail@nym.alias.net>
References: <19980603203333.7203.qmail@hotmail.com> <19980604044253.13959.qmail@nym.alias.net>
On 4 Jun 1998 04:42:53 -0000 ph <AT> nym <DOT> alias <DOT> net wrote:
>Heh heh While ambition is running high why not dream up a way to make it a
>modular unit since you'll be dealing with 2x2 modules anyway. 2x2 seems small
>enough to me make a Buck-O-ScrOG:-)) A pot (or container) with the screen
>being an integral part of its constuction. IOW The pot and the screen are
>attached. That way one could shift them around as desired in the flowering
>area to allow the more mature ones the best spot for light, and the newer ones
>placed on the periphery for easiest access for training. A self contained
>unit
>like that could even be vegged in a separate room and training could be
>started
>there if needed, then the whole thing (screen and all) brought into the
>flowering area to finish.
>
It could even be moved outside for more light, as appropriate. Probably need to be on wheels though.
BIG wheels... :-))
bb
From buzzbuds@hotmail.com Thu Jun 04 18:05:38 1998
Subject: Re: Scrog question ** number of plants, rotating harvests **
From: "green man" <buzzbuds@hotmail.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 1998 15:05:38 PDT
Message-ID: <19980604220539.14899.qmail@hotmail.com>
x-no-archive: yes
On 4 Jun 1998 04:42:53 -0000 ph <AT> nym <DOT>
alias <DOT> net wrote:
>Heh heh While ambition is running high why not
dream
>up a way to make it a modular unit since you'll be
>dealing with 2x2 modules anyway. 2x2 seems
>small enough to me make a Buck-O-ScrOG:-)) A pot
(or
>container) with the screen being an integral part
>of its constuction. IOW The pot and the screen are
>attached. That way one could shift them around as
>desired in the flowering area to allow the more
mature
>ones the best spot for light, and the newer ones
>placed on the periphery for easiest access for
>training. A self contained unit
>like that could even be vegged in a separate room
and
>training could be started there if needed, then the
>whole thing (screen and all) brought into the
>flowering area to finish.
>>>
That's a good idea, pH. You could potentially make a
lot of money on that. You could build them and
advertize them in HT. The nice thing about it is
that it would be legal. Maybe call it the
Scrogatron. Oh, wait a minute, it would bring a lot
of attention and heat on you wouldn't it? Oh well,
you were rich for an instant. Someone will make the
big money on it.
I had a little idea of my own. Why not have the
dedicated flowering room and veg area like I
suggested so as to have max production. You could
have a training screen in the veg area to get the
clones ready to replace the plants that get
harvested. The training screen could be on a 2x2 or
2x4 frame and just lifted up off the plant when it's
time to transfer. You could have the training screen
1" lower than the flowering screen so it would be
easy to put the vegged clone under the flowering
screen. This way your flowering room could run
continuously with an almost full canopy at all
times. The only gaps would be when a new clone was
put in, there would be some gap to allow for the
stretch.
Even if you didn't invent Scrog you have played a
big role in researching and promoting it. Maybe we
should call you the godfather of Scrog, the hardest
working man in adpc. When anybody has a problem they
come to the godfather. You could say (in your best
Marlon Brando accent) "OK I'll take care of this
little problem, but I ask one thing of you in
return" (they say) "of course godfather, anything"
(you) "I want you to name your first born son after
me" They mumble their thanks, kiss the ring and
leave bowing.
grow gobs of green goodies
green man
From gardening@dagrowroom.com Fri Jun 05 12:45:11 1998
Subject: Re: Scrog question ** number of plants, rotating harvests **
From: kaka <gardening@dagrowroom.com>
Date: 5 Jun 1998 18:45:11 +0200
Message-ID: <199806051645.SAA04739@basement.replay.com>
References: <19980604220539.14899.qmail@hotmail.com>
green man wrote:
x-no-archive: yes
>I had a little idea of my own. Why not have the
>dedicated flowering room and veg area like I
>suggested so as to have max production. You could
>have a training screen in the veg area to get the
>clones ready to replace the plants that get
>harvested. The training screen could be on a 2x2 or
>2x4 frame and just lifted up off the plant when it's
>time to transfer. You could have the training screen
>1" lower than the flowering screen so it would be
>easy to put the vegged clone under the flowering
>screen. This way your flowering room could run
>continuously with an almost full canopy at all
>times. The only gaps would be when a new clone was
>put in, there would be some gap to allow for the
>stretch.
~more snip~
>grow gobs of green goodies
>green man
How bout two 2x4 areas. The original could be flowering with HID. The
second could have a clone started so it has just enough time to veg
until you harvest the orig. Then switch lighting systems, turn the hid
on #2 and harvest and clean #1. Then chill for say 30 days (depending
on varieties,) then start another clone in #1 using yer fluoros. Repeat
process.
Scrog sure is popular in deez parts nowadays. Wonder where it will be
next year? Probably the most popular grow method here, we shall see.
Thank God Its Freakin' Friday,
k k k ka
From nobody@samson.ml.org Fri Jun 05 18:37:00 1998
Subject: Re: Scrog question ** number of plants, rotating harvests **
From: Samson <nobody@samson.ml.org>
Date: 6 Jun 1998 00:37:00 +0200
Message-ID: <199806052234.RAA08616@samson.ml.org>
References: <19980604220539.14899.qmail@hotmail.com> <199806051645.SAA04739@basement.replay.com>
kaka said:
>How bout two 2x4 areas. The original could be flowering with HID.
>The second could have a clone started so it has just enough time
>to veg until you harvest the orig. Then switch lighting systems, turn
>the hid on #2 and harvest and clean #1.
I think that's a good idea, kaka. Rotate the lights, not the plants.
Much easier to switch the lights rather than moving the plants
and screen around.
With another light, you could have a mother and clones going
and have a steady cycle of buds.
From nobody@sind.hyperreal.art.pl Thu Jun 04 22:35:02 1998
Subject: Re: Scrog question ** number of plants, rotating harvests **
From: hyperreal-anon-remailer <nobody@sind.hyperreal.art.pl>
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1998 04:35:02 +0200
Message-ID: <199806050235.EAA04417@serek.arch.pwr.wroc.pl>
Hi pH et al,
Just had a thought, wouldn't it solve a problem if the tiered system of Scrogging were to be mounted on an industrial shelving unit which was fitted with small wheels?
You'd then be able to simply unplug each Scrog unit and wheel it from the vegging room to the flowering room without disturbing the plants at all.
I envisage a Dexion shelving unit, having say, at least 2 but maybe 3 shelves; each being, of necessity, 4' x 2'. The entire module would be about 6' tall and shouldn't present too much of a challenge to move on 6" wheels.
Presto! Undisturbed plants, and still all the advantages of Scrog. And absolutely no reason why it couldn't be hydro too........
Now, I think I saw some ex-factory shelving advertised somewhere...........
Dave the Rev.
From buddyboy@nym.alias.net Tue Jun 02 12:58:09 1998
Subject: More SCROG questions ** lights & headroom, stretch, vegging time **
From: buddyboy@nym.alias.net
Date: 2 Jun 1998 18:58:09 +0200
Message-ID: <199806021658.SAA21578@basement.replay.com>
I've been lurking, reading, asking (when remailers work!), lurking
more. I even read the scrog.zip, and I've finally come to a decision.
I'm going SCROG!
I have a 2x4 area but not going two levels like pH (wish I had the
height!). I'm probably going to use homemade drip/hydro. Either
"Aquafarm" bucket from plans or NPK "Cheap&Easy". Any thoughts about
which is better?
I will use the tried and true GH nutes, purified water and good seeds.
I don't have any clones so I have to start with seeds. Any advice on
which strain is best suited for this size SCROG with 2 plants?
For this size area would you use floros or HID? I know HID is always
preferable but I'm worried about heat and electricity. pH, have you
gone HID yet? I'd like to hear your thoughts, as you are the SCROG
king!
I've heard you guys talk about "the stretch" what exactly is it?
Do you suggest 24/0 or 20/4 or 18/6 for veg before going 12/12 to
flower?
I think that will fill in my knowledge gaps.
Time to gather all my goodies and get growing. Wish me luck.
BuddyBoy
From Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1] Tue Jun 02 21:34:16 1998
Subject: Re: More SCROG questions ** lights & headroom, stretch, vegging time **
From: pH <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]>
Date: 3 Jun 1998 01:34:16 -0000
Message-ID: <19980603013416.8091.qmail@nym.alias.net>
References: <199806021658.SAA21578@basement.replay.com>
On 2 Jun 1998 18:58:09 +0200 buddyboy@nym.alias.net wrote:
>I've been lurking, reading, asking (when remailers work!), lurking
>more. I even read the scrog.zip, and I've finally come to a decision.
>
>I'm going SCROG!
>
>I have a 2x4 area but not going two levels like pH (wish I had the
>height!). I'm probably going to use homemade drip/hydro. Either
>"Aquafarm" bucket from plans or NPK "Cheap&Easy". Any thoughts about
>which is better?
That's up to the tinkerer:-))) Make sure you opt for a larger reservoir. If
you must use a small one, build in such a way that will allow you to upgrade
later. Me thinks 15 or 20 gal would do you nicely with 8 sq ft.
>
>I will use the tried and true GH nutes, purified water and good seeds.
>I don't have any clones so I have to start with seeds. Any advice on
>which strain is best suited for this size SCROG with 2 plants?
Best suited is kind of subjective, I'll just say beware of using a very late
maturing variety and flowering it too late. IMO what's best suited for someone
starts with the kind of high he wants, and ends with a search for answers about
maturity times.
- How fast of a crop turnover do you want?
- How much time you can spend vegging?
- How few or how many plants do you find acceptable to get the above?
Maturity and veg time will determine your turnover, and the number of plants
will determine the veg time needed to prepare the canopy for flowering (taking
into account the stretch).
>
>For this size area would you use floros or HID? I know HID is always
>preferable but I'm worried about heat and electricity. pH, have you
>gone HID yet? I'd like to hear your thoughts, as you are the SCROG
>king!
Heh heh... pH, rockin' in his ScroGking chair, spake for all the land to
hear:-)
For a 2x4 area you could use either. Fluoros fit that space like a glove and
provide a low vertical profile. With HID's you'll need more headroom because
the light fixures have a higher vertical profile than fluoros, and because
you'll need more distance between light and plants.
I haven't set mine up yet, let alone used it. The first use will be with a 2x4
area (I'll add to the 4 foot length later as needed), but the problem was
covering the entire 4 foot span without jacking the lights up so high that I'd
lose some overall lumen power. It appears a fixture-to-screen distance of just
under 2 feet would cover only 3 of the 4 feet adequately with the 400W light
and the reflector I have. Reshaping the area to about 3x3 is OK if the ScrOG
is accessable from more than one side so one can reach the far end for
training, maybe you can, I don't know.
In anticipation of adding to the 4 foot length I also got a linear light mover
so wont have that space limitation, and will be able to get the light even
closer because of the mover.
I'll be replacing 320 watts of fluoro with 400 watts of HID so electricity is
really a minor consideration for me. Heat is a valid concern if the space is
enclosed.
>
>I've heard you guys talk about "the stretch" what exactly is it?
The nemesis of the unprepared:-( The stretch is a burst of really rapid growth
that starts occuring shortly after starting flowering. It comes mostly from
unusually long stem growth between internodes. Internodal length will double
or triple during this time, and some shoots can double in length. Then, all of
a sudden, over the course of a couple of days, the growth will slow then almost
stop. You will know the stretch when you see it. It could also be called the
growth that fills the canopy after flowering has begun.
The stretch is used by ScroGgers to fill the last of the open canopy, so it's
good (actually vital) to know how much space a variety can fill during the
stretch. How long it lasts depends on the variety, the longer it lasts the
more canopy will be filled. FWIW The 40/60 thread is about calculating stretch
time and/or maturity time.
A long maturing variety can fill the canopy if flowered with only 20% of the
canopy is filled. A short maturing variety might not even fill the canopy if
flowered with 60% of the canopy is filled. It's all tied to the stretch and
the maturity times.
>
>Do you suggest 24/0 or 20/4 or 18/6 for veg before going 12/12 to
>flower?
I do 24 hours.
>
>I think that will fill in my knowledge gaps.
May your stretch do the same for your ScrOG:-))
>
>Time to gather all my goodies and get growing. Wish me luck.
Good Luck,
pH
>
>BuddyBoy
>
>
>
From buddyboy@nym.alias.net Wed Jun 03 03:41:24 1998
Subject: Re: More SCROG questions ** lights & headroom, stretch, vegging time **
From: buddyboy@nym.alias.net
Date: 3 Jun 1998 09:41:24 +0200
Message-ID: <199806030741.JAA29094@basement.replay.com>
References: <199806021658.SAA21578@basement.replay.com> <19980603013416.8091.qmail@nym.alias.net>
O.k. In my 2x4 area it looks like the NPK Drip (sounds like a disease
hehe) in a 20 gallon rubbermaid clone with 2 plants. 400w HID with a
light mover.
Now I just need to pick the perfect exotic.
On 3 Jun 1998 01:34:16 -0000 pH <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]>
wrote:
>Best suited is kind of subjective, I'll just say beware of using a very late
>maturing variety and flowering it too late. IMO what's best suited for someone
>starts with the kind of high he wants, and ends with a search for answers about
>maturity times.
>- How fast of a crop turnover do you want?
60-70 Days. It that do able? I guess that's an early maturer.
>- How much time you can spend vegging?
20-30 Days? I guess it's really up to the plant. Once it fills 1/3 to
1/2 of the screen I'll go to 12/12. But as you always say, it takes a
few crops to get it right.
>- How few or how many plants do you find acceptable to get the above?
I'd like to have 2 plants. One on each side growing towards each
other. Is this the best config. for two plants?
Any suggestion on seeds?
BuddyBoy
From Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1] Thu Jun 04 00:43:00 1998
Subject: Re: More SCROG questions ** lights & headroom, stretch, vegging time **
From: pH <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]>
Date: 4 Jun 1998 04:43:00 -0000
Message-ID: <19980604044300.8865.qmail@nym.alias.net>
References: <199806021658.SAA21578@basement.replay.com> <19980603013416.8091.qmail@nym.alias.net> <199806030741.JAA29094@basement.replay.com>
On 3 Jun 1998 09:41:24 +0200 buddyboy@nym.alias.net wrote:
>
>O.k. In my 2x4 area it looks like the NPK Drip (sounds like a disease
>hehe) in a 20 gallon rubbermaid clone with 2 plants. 400w HID with a
>light mover.
>Now I just need to pick the perfect exotic.
>
>On 3 Jun 1998 01:34:16 -0000 pH <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]>
>wrote:
>>Best suited is kind of subjective, I'll just say beware of using a very late
>>maturing variety and flowering it too late. IMO what's best suited for
>someone
>>starts with the kind of high he wants, and ends with a search for answers
>about
>>maturity times.
>>- How fast of a crop turnover do you want?
>
>60-70 Days. It that do able? I guess that's an early maturer.
I would say so, especially after using bag seed 120 day varieties:-) My SK#1
matures in about 70 days.
>
>>- How much time you can spend vegging?
>
>20-30 Days? I guess it's really up to the plant. Once it fills 1/3 to
>1/2 of the screen I'll go to 12/12. But as you always say, it takes a
>few crops to get it right.
Indeed it does. I'd take it a little bit further than a 1/2 filled screen at
flowering with a 70 day variety though. I just put my 2nd crop of SK#1 into
flowering and it was about 70%-80% filled. The first crop was a test and I
severly under-did it, knowing myself I probably over-did it this time:-))
We'll see.
>
>>- How few or how many plants do you find acceptable to get the above?
>
>I'd like to have 2 plants. One on each side growing towards each
>other. Is this the best config. for two plants?
I would say it is, especially for a faster maturing variety. FYI I just filled
my 2x4 space to about 80% while vegging one SK#1 plant, it took 30 days. But
the plant was bigger than usual when it was put into the flowering unit so it
might have taken a week or two more. With two plants and an HID I think you'd
have no problems flowering in 20-30 days.
>
>Any suggestion on seeds?
Others with better overall experience would be of more help than I on that
topic.
pH
>
>BuddyBoy
From Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1] Sat Jun 06 04:57:25 1998
Subject: SCROG Placement ** number of plants **
From: pH <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]>
Date: 6 Jun 1998 08:57:25 -0000
Message-ID: <19980606085725.27199.qmail@nym.alias.net>
On 5 Jun 1998 19:19:12 +0200 buddyboy@nym.alias.net wrote:
>I'm really getting neroutic about this because I want to try to do it
>right.
>
>Anyone have an opinion on 2 plants in the center of a 2x4 SCROG with
>the primaries growing in opposite directions vs 2 plants on one end
>growing towards the other end.
Regarding two in the middle:
Depending on what kind of light you use and how it's set up, primaries that
stop their outward growth at the edge of the canopy space wont get as much
light as they could for most of the maturation time. Being the strongest of
all the shoots, the primaries will yield the largest of the buds especially if
they're located more in the center where the strongest light is usually found.
If you know the shoots will grow long enough to hit the edge then continue to
grow while being trained back around toward the center it'll be to your
advantage. Also the strongest primaries will produce the strongest
secondaries, etc. so having these nearer the center can produce amazing buds
from any subsequent downstream branching.
Regarding one on each end:
Needless to say the two sets of primaries will meet in the middle, and may very
likely pass each other during their growth or stretch. It's not hard to
visualize the primaries from one plant growing into the others space, but
between the primary shoots of the other plant where one would "think" there's
plenty of room. In reality the primary shoots from each plant will have grown
many secondary and tertiary shoots, so space between primaries will most likely
be more limited than first thought (this growth is always underestimated by
first time ScrOGgers). If the outward growth stops just as the two sets of
primaries are beginning to merge I would say that would be ideal, and wouldn't
cause the overgrowth problems you might find had the primaries penetrated deep
into the other plants territory.
Don't be neurotic about this the first time out if you don't know your
variety's growth habits. Expect to learn the variety so next crop will be that
much easier to control. Flower earlier than you might otherwise to avoid
overgrowth, or use the 40/60 theory to estimate post induction growth if you
only know the maturity time of your variety.
>
>The strain will most likely be Northern Lights as I've read they are
>short and early, which I think is suited for this type of set-up.
Some strains of NL will flower regardless of photoperiod. Controlling the
fullness of the canopy may be difficult if you can't control the veg time.
pH
>
>BuddyBoy
>
From Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1] Tue Jun 09 01:57:23 1998
Subject: Scrog plant placement ** number of plants **
From: pH <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]>
Date: 9 Jun 1998 05:57:23 -0000
Message-ID: <19980609055723.24339.qmail@nym.alias.net>
On Tue, 9 Jun 1998 04:59:07 +0200 (MET DST) nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous)
wrote:
>Hello A.D.P.C -
>
>I am sure this has been tossed around but here I go ...
>
>Was wondering what the best placement of plants is under the screen?
It's a matter of personal preference once you know how the plant behaves.
Before knowing that ya just want to leave a little room for error in case you
get one that's late to mature and might have a 50 day stretch.
>Using about 12 sq ft of screen wanting to have about 4-5 plants. Plan
>on flowering early to check out the stretch.
>
>Was thinking 1 in the middle and 4 in the corners. Under 40watts/sq ft
>of flouros with good light retention.
Why not? Bag seed, flower when the canopy is about 20-35% full. Da Exotic you
can probably fill more because of the shorter maturing time.
pH
>
>Any and all help appreciated.
>
>-P-
>
>
From Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1] Wed Apr 08 08:04:33 1998
Subject: The 40/60 Rule (or is it just a theory)
From: pH <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]>
Date: 8 Apr 1998 12:04:33 -0000
Message-ID: <19980408120433.12671.qmail@nym.alias.net>
For those who might have missed the thread mentioned below:
Message-ID: <19980405093912.15745.qmail@nym.alias.net>
Subject: Re: ScrOG Training and other stuff
Newsgroups: alt.drugs.pot.cultivation
References: <199804040003.CAA28535@basement.replay.com> <19980404013102.25324.qmail@nym.alias.net> <199804040637.IAA28231@basement.replay.com> <19980404100238.10779.qmail@nym.alias.net> <199804050057.CAA05815@basement.replay.com>
The 40/60 Rule is something that came up in that thread. Well, it's not a rule yet but might be.
Simply put it says that the first 40% of the time spent flowering is dedicated to the transition from veg to flowering. This includes continued outward veg growth, and the familiar stretching up to the point were outward growth stops. The last 60% is dedicated to the slow compact bud growth, where buds fill out.
This rule applies "no matter how long it takes for a variety to mature". IOW a variety that takes 100 days to mature at 12/12 will stop its outward growth at day 40 of flowering, a variety that takes 50 days to mature will stop in 20 days.
Barring any unusual circumstances like light leaks during the dark phase, or flowering photoperiods other than 12/12, does anyone have info to the contrary regarding this 40/60 rule? I'm looking for comments regarding
actual data logs you have for varieties you have grown.
pH
From Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1] Tue Jun 09 01:57:16 1998
Subject: ScrOG Flowering & Thanks to all ** bud layout, lighting, phases, training, stretch **
From: pH <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]>
Date: 9 Jun 1998 05:57:16 -0000
Message-ID: <19980609055716.20978.qmail@nym.alias.net>
On 9 Jun 1998 01:36:08 -0000 Satyr <NightBreed@nym.alias.net> wrote:
>I probably missed a post on this and I haven't been able to access Deja
>News...anyone know what the story is there?
>
>Anyway, 17 days ago I sent my babies into 12/12. Had a very nice
>canopy and, since I had read varying reports on growth after flowering,
>the newbie here opted for conservative growth.
>
>Not complaining, but I have a whole shitload of preflower growth up
>about 2" from the screen.
17days, I would assume the stretch isn't done yet, is that so?
IMHO 2 inches above the screen at this time is unacceptable, especially with
fluoros. I'm not talking about the occasional shoot that might have a longer
leaf sticking up, I'm talking about the actual length of shoot tip sticking
above the screen. I try to keep on training until the day the stretch stops so
that any bud growth that ensues will be at the screen hole as buds start to
fill out and slowly grow upward. IOW I want ALL the buds to be the same
distance from the lights at this time, I want to see slow growing budheads just
peeking their head from between a hole in the screen. The point is that this
is what ScrOG is supposed to do, everything that comes before is simply
preparation for this moment.
Although training has lately been the subject of ScrOG posts we mustn't lose
sight of the fact the it is the buds we are doing all the training and
preparation for in order to get a sea of buds that starts out flat. Heh heh A
calm sea. It could be said that veg training is part one (which starts out
with a flat screen), managing the stretch is part two (which is best managed by
starting it with a flat freshly trained screen), and preparing for bud growth
part three (which also should be started with a freshly trained flat screen).
All three parts would want to be begun with the flat profile of the screen.
You're in phase three. If you don't know your variety you have no idea how
long you're buds will become. The first time I had 11 inch buds with my
fluoros I tied down/bent the largest buds sideways because the lights would go
up any higher, the side of the bud on the bottom was definitely not as good as
the top side. So you want your buds to grow as vertically as possible within
the same horizontal plane with fluoros, that's the perfect world view. In the
process of attempting to achieve that goal, one ends up with a better canopy at
harvest IMO.
When all your buds are level with the screen and at the point in their
development when upward growth is the slowest (just after the stretch
finishes), the only growth you have to contend with from here on is the slow
growing bud length. For this reason you want as much headroom as you can
muster when the stretch stops. If some buds start off a couple inches above
the top of the screen where others are level with it, the buds further from the
light wont be as good as they could be come harvest time. IOW you'll end up
with two semistaggered tiers of canopy growth, the tier that was a couple
inches above the screen and the tier that was even with the screen.
With HIDs this shouldn't make much if any noticable difference. But with
fluoros you're playing with distances of a different scale. While just looking
at Jorge Cervantes Indoor MJ Hort. it came to me that where most HID folks are
speaking in terms of 2 or 3 feet for light distances, fluoro folks are speaking
in terms of 2 or 3 inches. One, two, and three seems to be the range of
numbers we speak in, but with a scale of 1:12 . Two inches of additional
growth to a HIDer isn't any reason to adj lights anymore than 1/8 inch is for a
fluoro guy, but that's when both are working in their respective scales. When
the plant grows two inches, it's two inches no matter what scale we might want
to use. So those with fluoros will act, where HIDers wont.
Although it might be simplisic I tend to apply Mr. Cervantes' Light and
Distance chart, etc to fluoros with the same zeal HIDers do. With the only
diff being inches instead of feet, some have called me anal when I bitch about
an inch:-)) I denied it. Heh heh Since then I've gotten an HID and I've
bitched to some about a foot and wasn't called anal for doing so...hmmm. So
using those scales, what is 6 inches to a HIDer is 1/2 inch to a fluoronian:-)
Now that I'm both a HIDer and a fluoronian I can say if you're not gonna bug me
about 6 inches with my HID, then don't bug me about 1/2 inch when I talk about
fluoros:-)) Anyhow, viewing Cervantes Light to Distance Chart and reading the
text on the same page that in effect says..... plants (or growth) four times
the distance from the light receive 4 times less light. Considering your
fluoro light tubes to be one inch above the tallest buds, and the bud tips two
inches above other buds, that would mean
the lower buds are three inches from the light, or receiving three times less
light.
>Is it a no no to mess with the plants repositioning within screen?
You shouldn't have to reposition the screen, just do some more training. If
you can no longer find pathways under the screen for the shoots then use
training wire, twist ties, or pipe cleaners to tie down the shoots onto the top
of the screen or to other shoots. BTW stretch training is the most frustrating
training IMO. Heh heh There seems to be two phases; the "holy shit" phase, and
the "there's no way in hell I can put these anywhere" phase:-) Then all of a
sudden the stretch stops:-)
When all upward growth from the stretch has stopped and your budheads are all
trained level with the screen you have finished with 95% of your ScrOGwork.
Instead of maybe adjusting lights up for a few inches then training and moving
the lights down again as during veg growth, now you'll only adjust lights up,
and strictly according to the slower bud growth. IMO this is where the inches
really count with fluoros.
Occasionally I've gotten a Da Rogue Bud:-) One that wants to outgrow the
others by a couple inches. The only problem I see is that keeping the lights
up for one real nice bud that might contribute only 3x3 inches (0.25 sq ft)
would give the rest of the canopy (the majority of the yield) 3 times less
light. To make a longer bud short I'll tie a long twist tie or pipe cleaners
twisted together to its branch somewhere under the screen. Then I'll pull the
branch straight down so the bud decends but doesn't tilt, then I'll fasten the
tie to something (sometimes even another branch). Tilt...hmmm... ScrOG
Pinball? Nahhhh, sticky flippers are a PITA.
>If not, since I'm using fluoros, is it
>acceptable to allow them to grow into the lights..a little..like in veg.
I wouldn't let the buds grow between the tubes on a large scale, I've found the
tips to get airy/stretchy and might tend toward leafier growth at the tips.
Possibly from the heat and sheltering from moving air, I really don't know why.
I only allow this on a temporary basis and only for a few buds just before
taking the harvest. IOW not long enough to affect growth.
>Finally, I'm thinking a max light position about 4" above screen, is
>that about the limit or could I push it to 6" if necessary.
Your max position regarding light distance should be determined by the length
of the biggest buds at harvest. When my fluoros are at their highest they're
8-10 inches above the screen.
>
>Everything is going grand. Thanks to all the NG for all the help on my
>1'st go round. At latest will report the first bud in the pipe (stash
>seeds so should be interesting).
Sure beats buying it.
pH
From nobody@REPLAY.COM Tue Jun 09 20:32:09 1998
Subject: Scrog .. the Training Process
From: nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous)
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 02:32:09 +0200 (MET DST)
Message-ID: <199806100032.CAA10070@basement.replay.com>
Hello Scogers -
O.K. to dive right in ..
When training with Scrog. I cut the tops when the plant is about 2-3"
above the trellis. They get cut even with the trellis. Going to use
the tops for clones. Now, here is where I get hazy ( heheh) ..once I
top the plants, I just keep pushing the stems under the trellis, moving
them to the opposite sides? Letting the leaves and such grow through
the screen? IF folliage is growing up through the screen, how do you
move the stem?
Am I making sens? (hopefully)
THanks
-P-
From Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1] Wed Jun 10 02:36:15 1998
Subject: Re: Scrog .. the Training Process
From: N.P.Kaye <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]>
Date: 10 Jun 1998 06:36:15 -0000
Message-ID: <19980610063615.20650.qmail@nym.alias.net>
References: <199806100032.CAA10070@basement.replay.com>
>Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 02:32:09 +0200 (MET DST)
>From: nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous)
>
>Hello Scogers -
>
>O.K. to dive right in ..
>
>When training with Scrog. I cut the tops when the plant is about 2-3"
>above the trellis. They get cut even with the trellis. Going to use
>the tops for clones. Now, here is where I get hazy ( heheh) ..once I
>top the plants, I just keep pushing the stems under the trellis, moving
>them to the opposite sides? Letting the leaves and such grow through
>the screen? IF folliage is growing up through the screen, how do you
>move the stem?
>
>Am I making sens? (hopefully)
>
>THanks
>
>-P-
I find that if you come back to the garden once every three days or so,
you'll find that many of your growing tips have grown up through your
screen toward the light. Rather than weaving them through the screen,
which makes getting them out that much more difficult, just pull (or push)
them back through the hole that they grew up through and point them the
direction you want, keeping the entire thing UNDER the screen. It's the
few days after the induction of flowering that you want to let them grow
up, up and away!
grow on...
NPKaye
From Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1] Wed Jun 10 11:01:46 1998
Subject: Re: Scrog .. the Training Process
From: pH <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]>
Date: 10 Jun 1998 15:01:46 -0000
Message-ID: <19980610150146.24670.qmail@nym.alias.net>
References: <199806100032.CAA10070@basement.replay.com>
On Wed, 10 Jun 1998 02:32:09 +0200 (MET DST) nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous)
wrote:
>Hello Scogers -
>
>O.K. to dive right in ..
>
>When training with Scrog. I cut the tops when the plant is about 2-3"
>above the trellis. They get cut even with the trellis. Going to use
>the tops for clones.
That's exactly what I do.
>Now, here is where I get hazy ( heheh) ..once I
>top the plants, I just keep pushing the stems under the trellis, moving
>them to the opposite sides?
Once a stem (or shoot) tip grows up through a hole in the screen, if it is long
enough to reach to the next hole (usually a couple inches) then, yes, it is
pushed under the trellis to the next hole where the process will be repeated.
>Letting the leaves and such grow through the screen?
Actually it's the shoot growth you're after above the trellis, the leaves just
happen to be unavoidable. In the end I try to reserve space above the screen
for shoot tips (bud tips), giving leaves secondary consideration by pushing
them down and out of the way when shoot tips want to occupy the same space.
>IF folliage is growing up through the screen, how do you move the stem?
Which stem, mainstem or shoot?
The mainstem never gets moved once training has begun, else you'd have to
remove the screen.
If you're talking about a shoot tip, simply put you hand under the trellis and
pull the shoot tip down through the hole it's now growing through then guide it
over to the next hole in the screen so it starts growing upward through that
hole. Then repeat the process once it's grown another couple inches in that
hole.
Needless to say if you let a shoot grow upward for tooooo long in the same hole
it'll be thicker and longer, so it'll be harder to bend it in the process of
moving it and might snap. Try to train shoots before they become too long and
unwieldy. I find the fuller the canopy the easier it is for a shoot to be
unwieldy because of the limited space under the canopy to handle it.
pH
>
>Am I making sens? (hopefully)
>
>THanks
>
>-P-
>
>
From Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1] Sun Jun 14 04:02:39 1998
Subject: Veg time, filling the canopy, and variety.
From: pH <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]>
Date: 14 Jun 1998 08:02:39 -0000
Message-ID: <19980614080239.24013.qmail@nym.alias.net>
On 14 Jun 1998 04:23:43 +0200 Llama@Yer.Mamas wrote:
>I have been reading your trellis file (very bueno, man)and it brings up
>some questions that I've had since the beginning:
>
>I understand the theory behind scrog, but doesn't it take more veg time
>to fill the canopy vs. sog?
You know me, I'm indecisive so I have to say, yes and no:-))
Generally I'd say even a SOG garden with fewer plants/sq ft than another SOG
garden would need a little more veg time to fill the extra space.
>
>How much more time (I know that it depends upon the variety--just in
>general)? (iow-how long do you usually veg)
First let's talk in terms of most of my growing experience with ScrOG, with
long maturing varieties around 100-120+ days. These varieties have such a long
stretch time that most of the canopy gets filled "during" the stretch. I've
flowered these varieties after only an initial rooting-in veg period of about a
week, sometimes two, we'll use 10 days. This is one plant filling about 80% of
an 8sq ft ScrOG area "during flowering". The canopy was about 15-20% filled
when the plants were put into flowering. The stretch lasted around 50-55 days.
So I guess you could sorta say the stretch was the veg period when you speak
of it in terms of "veg" growth.
Now let's talk in terms of an earlier maturing variety. My only experience is
with two crops of SK#1 (incl this crop), a 25 day stretcher with about 70 days
to mature. Its internodal length is shorter than the above, so it grows
outwardly slightly slower. In the same ScrOG system as above one SK#1 plant
took 30 days to fill about 75-80% of the screen on 24 hours of light. The
clone was much older and slightly larger than it would normally have been upon
introduction to the main unit, so I would say adding an extra 2-3 weeks to that
30 day figure would be fair. So let's say 50 days to fill to 80%. I'm in the
middle of Da Stretch now so I can't say for sure if my estimate is good. But
let's look at what we have so far.
Late maturer:
20% filled in 10 days of veg
80% filled in 50 days of stretch
Add appx 60 days to mature.
TOTAL 120 days
Early maturer:
80% filled in 50 days of veg
20% filled in 25 days of stretch
Add appx 45 days to mature
TOTAL 120 days
Heh heh whaddya know!!!
Now here it comes, ya ready? This has everything to do with the number of
plants.
With the long maturing variety, more than one plant made for a lousy day of
training at the screen. IOW if one plant filled the canopy when flowered after
only one week of veg, what do ya think two plants would be like to train. It's
overgrowth, and the veg period is so short it doesn't really help to shorten it
any more.
With the earlier maturing variety all I can say is look at the numbers then
toss the coin:-))) I'm just starting the HID and will be using three SK#1 in
the same size ScrOG as above. Heh heh The Fat Lady is just startin' to hum:-)
So far is seems to me that the earlier maturing the variety is, the better your
options are for using more plants to reduce veg time. And that would be sized
to your particular ScrOG size.
Going by the numbers for my example, three plants should cut veg time by 1/3,
from 50 to 17, bringing the numbers to:
Late maturer:
20% filled in 10 days of veg
80% filled in 50 days of stretch
Add appx 60 days to mature.
TOTAL 120 days
Early maturer:
80% filled in 17 days of veg
20% filled in 25 days of stretch
Add appx 45 days to mature
TOTAL 87 days (three plants)
When I started the late maturers with ScrOG I had no idea what to expect from
all fronts. I used 3 plants, then 2, then finally 1 before I finally found a
point where yield didn't suffer from an undergrown canopy. I also wanted to
find out how using one plant would affect the timing of the end of the veg
period, and a point at which I felt I had control over the canopy. As it stood
I cound not force the canopy to be undergrown. Yield stayed the same whether
one or three plants were used, so did the timing because of the long period of
growth during the long stretch. The only thing that increased with the number
of plants was my work and time:-(
With an early maturer yielding a more definable line at the point where
undergrowth becomes possible for the grower to control, he now has the option
to control his veg time by the number of plants he chooses to use. A late
maturer doesn't have that much of an option. This is something I have yet to
explore. I would imagine with more plants there would be more primary shoots
hence a greater number of stronger shoots being present in the canopy. The
assumption being large buds displacing smaller ones, but not necessarily more
yield. Well, maybe more yield, but I do believe that once you find the point
where yield is maxed out that all your doing is changing the shape of the yield
and not the weight of it. If your growing methods are sound you're only going
to get as much as yield as the light can provide, IOW yer maxed:-)
Heh heh I have one last crop of SK#1 in the fluoro ScrOG, it'll be the only Da
Exotic brought to a full canopy with one plant, and the last. So it'll be my
"only" chance to see if 17-20g/sq ft was a limitation of the previous variety
or the system. In any event I'll have numbers for gross harvest weight to
compare. I'm guessing I'll see more wieght in good buds but the same gross
weight. We'll see.
I'll have to save this one for the ScrOG-O-RAMA.
pH
>
>TIA,
>
>Airborne
>
From Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1] Mon Jun 15 21:10:33 1998
Subject: Fixed/Moveable Screen & Lights, Conventional Training vs ScrOG
From: pH <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]>
Date: 16 Jun 1998 01:10:33 -0000
Message-ID: <19980616011033.13016.qmail@nym.alias.net>
References: <19980615225452.9856.qmail@nym.alias.net>
On 15 Jun 1998 22:54:52 -0000 electron <electron@nym.alias.net> wrote:
>Maybe I'm going blind / losing my marbles or something,
>but I still haven't found answers to questions I have, viz.
>
>1. Is the trellis fixed in place at a pre-determined height from day 1 ?
Mine is.
>2. Is the light(s) fixed in place at a certain height, from day 1 ?
My fluoros and HID are not, but the HID "may" be at some future time.
>
>If both these are true, then the plants will suffer from too little, and
>then too much light leading to poor growth and then burning.
I never remove my screen, there's no need for me to do so. Because upward
growth is dynamic both during veg training and especially during bud growth,
the lights should have some vertical adjustment. My fluoros have a max of
about 10 inches. I can't answer for HIDs yet, since they are new to me I built
in much adjustability just to be on the safe side.
>
>I realise there will be little (effective) upward growth as the shoots are
>trained laterally
>but I still can't fully understand the concept as its only a theory for me at
>the moment - (anyone produced a diy illustrated guide yet ?)
Just the ScrOG-O-RAMA and what's at NPKaye's site. Have you seen them? The
update has a short text called "The ScrOG Concept".
>
>Sorry to be a PITA but I have a feeling there are a lot of confused growers
>here.
Hmmmm....
Have you ever trained plants by conventional means? If not, you'll be at a
disadvantage trying to understand ScrOG. My experience has been to do
conventional training when some shoots outgrow the others, to keep them more on
a level horizontal plane with the bulk of the rest of the growth so it all can
flourish equally under equal light intensity. Usually the main reason is to
avoid getting shoots too close to the lights, however this only addresses
keeping the primary shoots from getting out of hand but says nothing about
methodically promoting growth elsewhere on the plant unless it's by chance.
On a conventionally trained canopy, take a slice off the top (let's say 6
inches thick starting from the tip of the tallest bud). Now look at nothing
but that 6 inch thick slice. What you'll see 9 out of 10 times is just a few
of the strongest buds poking their heads up into that slice with the rest of
the space being void of bud growth. I'd even bet that the tallest bud is
taking up the top 2 or 3 inches all by itself:-) The idea is to fill those
voids by, first promoting growth to fill it, and second giving the growth a
reserved space at the top of the canopy into which it can grow and flourish
just as much as the primary buds.
Conventional training will promote growth to some degree but that growth is
generally further down in the canopy and will not receive max light (light yes,
but not max light), and stands of good chance of being shaded by stronger
growth. Also, conventional training will not guarantee a place at the top of
the canopy for that growth. IOW ya just can't make some shoots grow long
enough to be at the top of the canopy where the strongest growth occurs. Heh
heh Now what if those shoots weren't growing upward? What if they were already
at the top of the canopy but growing sideways (horizontally) instead? Then
any shoots growing from nodes on those shoots would also be at the top of the
canopy when they start to grow (and they will because they're also as close to
the lights as possible, like everything else).
So what you end up with is all the growth at the top of the canopy. When buds
start to form they'll all be be doing so at the same distance from the lights.
Primaries, secondaries, terts, quads, etc., etc., all shoots with buds will be
forming at the top of the canopy and level with the screen. Come back in a few
weeks after the buds have grown 6 inches or so. Now take another 6 inch slice
off the top, it should look a whole lot different than that with the
conventional training.
pH
>
>many thanks,
>
>Electron
>
From Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1] Thu Oct 01 18:12:30 1998
Subject: ScrOG questions for the ScrOGfather **Light Mover & Coverage **
From: "green man" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]>
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 1998 15:12:30 PDT
Message-ID: <19981001221231.7749.qmail@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: alt.drugs.pot.cultivation
x-no-archive: yes
High, all
I'm forwarding this for someone. To learn how to post anonymously go to:
http://www.replay.com or see the several posts put here every week
usually on Fri or the weekend.
Scrogfather, I like that:-)
green man
Anon wrote:
I am in the process of setting up my first garden. I have a 250 W MH and
a 430 W Son Agro HPS. I will be using soil.
>
My questions for the ScrOGFather (pH), green man and others who are
using this system are:
>
If I used both the 430 HPS and the 250 MH would that be effective with a
garden area of 4'x4' (with access on three sides)? Or would I be
better off going 2x8 and using a lightrail? If I went 2x8 would one 430
W lamp be sufficient?
>
pH, I read the ScrOG-O-RAMMA but I am unclear of when you switched from
MH to HPS. Do you switch when you first go to 12/12 or after the
stretch stops?
>
I will be getting some clones in a couple of weeks. Anyone have
experience with Bubble Gum?
>
Thanks for any assistance you can provide
>
>
From Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1] Thu Oct 01 20:58:13 1998
Subject: Re: ScrOG questions for the ScrOGfather **Light Mover & Coverage **
From: pH <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]>
Date: 2 Oct 1998 00:58:13 -0000
Message-ID: <19981002005813.16026.qmail@anon.efga.org>
References: <19981001221231.7749.qmail@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: alt.drugs.pot.cultivation
On Thu, 01 Oct 1998 15:12:30 PDT buzzbuds <AT> hotmail <DOT> com wrote:
>x-no-archive: yes
>
>High, all
>
>I'm forwarding this for someone. To learn how to post anonymously go to:
>http://www.replay.com or see the several posts put here every week
>usually on Fri or the weekend.
>
>Scrogfather, I like that:-)
>
>green man
>
>Anon wrote:
>
>I am in the process of setting up my first garden. I have a 250 W MH and
>a 430 W Son Agro HPS. I will be using soil.
>>
>My questions for the ScrOGFather (pH), green man and others who are
>using this system are:
>>
>If I used both the 430 HPS and the 250 MH would that be effective with a
>garden area of 4'x4' (with access on three sides)?
pH rose from his ScroGGing chair and said.... W/sq ft is fine but me thinks ya
might want to do some shape shiftin'. I don't think my 400watter would cover 4
feet very well after seeing growth that was just 4-6 inches outside of direct
light contact compared to that which wasn't. A second light might give you 4
ft coverage in one direction (say front to back), but you'd still be lacking in
the other direction (left to right).
>Or would I be better off going 2x8 and using a lightrail? If I went 2x8
would one
>430 W lamp be sufficient?
A 430 would give you only 27w/sq ft for 16sq ft. If you have the 250 why not
try to use it.
The Light Rail 3 linear mover comes std with a 6 foot track, there is an
Add-a-light option for adding a second light and comes with 3 more feet of
track (I think). The rail is rated at 50 lbs so you can't have ballasts in the
fixtures me thinks. A 6 foot track will cover about 7 feet of canopy when you
figure how far the reflector projects away from dead center where it hangs from
the drive motor. It's the drive motor that stops at the end of the track, so
you gain about 6 inches on each end with a std 400w reflector.
2x8 is a nice space for a linear mover, especially if it's against a reflective
wall. If you could use both lights, you would of course have a slight
imbalance in growth at each end of the ScrOG where the light pauses for 30
seconds before reversing direction. One end gets the 430 the other the 250.
Another option is to figure the best coverage path when both lights are hung
next to one another. Let's just say 4 feet. Passing this over a 4x4 canopy,
one side would get the 430 the other the 250.
Another option is to hang the 250 fixed at one end of the 2x8 ScrOG, while just
the 430 is on the mover. Say 2 feet (4 sq ft @ 62.5w/sq ft) of the end of a
2x8 ScrOG for the 250, and the remaining 6 feet for the mover and the 430. The
430 would give you 36w/sq ft for that 6 foot span (12 sq ft). But hey, one of
the joys of a linear mover with adjustable stops is that you can easily shorten
your run and canopy space in order to increase your w/sq ft:-)))) You can do
the math. Their also good for concentrating light on certain parts of the
canopy you might think need more light so growth can catch up. I think this
might be the best option considering the difference in lights and how far each
would want to be hung from the plants.
A circular mover might be good option too, but I don't know what area they
cover. Since it's a constant motion, not back and forth, that would seem to
eliminate the imbalance in growth you would see with the linear mover.
You have a lot of choices. My advice is to try to maintain a minimum of 40 to
50w/sq ft rather than spread the watts thinly over more space.
>>
>pH, I read the ScrOG-O-RAMMA but I am unclear of when you switched from
>MH to HPS. Do you switch when you first go to 12/12 or after the
>stretch stops?
I don't think I used HIDs in any of the ScrOG-O-RAMA texts.
I switch after the stretch. The idea of switching is not to allow the HPS's
tendency toward stretching to make plants stretch even more during the stretch.
Once the stretch stops internodes are growing their shortest so any stretch
brought about by the HPS would be minimal.
Next time around I'm going to wait for a week or two after the stretch stops
before introducing the HPS. Just to see if it helps with a little post stretch
stretch that may have occured from changing "on" that day:-))
pH
ScrOGFather, heh heh
>>
>I will be getting some clones in a couple of weeks. Anyone have
>experience with Bubble Gum?
>>
>Thanks for any assistance you can provide
>>
>>
From scrogit@hotmail.com Sat Oct 03 00:45:37 1998
Subject: RE: ScrOG questions for the ScrOGfather **Light Mover & Coverage **
From: Kush <scrogit@hotmail.com>
Date: 3 Oct 1998 06:45:37 +0200
Message-ID: <199810030445.GAA16241@replay.com>
Newsgroups: alt.drugs.pot.cultivation
ScrOGfather,
Thanks for the help. I picked up a linear light mover today and will set my
garden up in a 2x4 space. Since this is my first attempt I figured why push
it.
Kush
From Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1] Sat Oct 03 20:30:50 1998
Subject: RE: ScrOG questions for the ScrOGfather **Light Mover & Coverage **
From: pH <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]>
Date: 4 Oct 1998 00:30:50 -0000
Message-ID: <19981004003050.2293.qmail@anon.efga.org>
References: <199810030445.GAA16241@replay.com>
Newsgroups: alt.drugs.pot.cultivation
On 3 Oct 1998 06:45:37 +0200 Kush <scrogit@hotmail.com> wrote:
>ScrOGfather,
>
>Thanks for the help. I picked up a linear light mover today and will set my
>garden up in a 2x4 space. Since this is my first attempt I figured why push
>it.
>
>Kush
Since you'll have extra track space, try to set up the ScrOG in such a way that
you can position it under the track so the light fixture can stop with the bulb
almost directly over the edges of the canopy. My mistake was letting the
screen project out about one foot beyond the end of the track on one side
hoping the reflector would take up the slack. That side happened to be the
side where the ballast cable enters the light fixture where the bulb socket is.
I'm not sure if that side of the fixture reflects as well as the other sides,
but the end 6" of the canopy didn't get as much reflected light as planned,
partially becuase I could get the light down closer to the plants than I
anticipated.
Have fun:-)
pH
From scrogit@hotmail.com Sat Oct 03 21:59:31 1998
Subject: Re: ScrOG questions for the ScrOGfather **Light Mover & Coverage **
From: Kush <scrogit@hotmail.com>
Date: 4 Oct 1998 03:59:31 +0200
Message-ID: <199810040159.DAA06725@replay.com>
References: <199810030445.GAA16241@replay.com>
Newsgroups: alt.drugs.pot.cultivation
The ScrOGfather wrote in a post a while back:
Although I'm still experimenting with light-to-plant distance, the fixture was
less than 6"
from the plants. IMHO a canopy 2 feet wide along the line of travel of the
mover is about
maxed out at that light height once buds start to grow above the trellis, any
wider and
growth along those edges will be less. If I had a wider canopy I would make it
narrower
and add to its length to make up for the lost space.
Since I have not yet assembled my garden space, would I be better off only
making it 20" deep and say 6" long? That would give me an area of 10 sq ft.
It sounds as though this would give me 43 W per sq ft of good light.
Does it make any difference which direction I hang the reflector? My
reflector is 15"x17" with the bulb entering on the 15" end. It seems to me
that I might get slightly better coverage if I was to hang the reflector so
that the 17" side would run from the front to the back of the 20" garden
depth.
Does that make any sense?
From Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1] Sun Oct 04 07:21:08 1998
Subject: Re: ScrOG questions for the ScrOGfather **Light Mover & Coverage **
From: pH <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]>
Date: 4 Oct 1998 11:21:08 -0000
Message-ID: <19981004112108.7631.qmail@anon.efga.org>
References: <199810030445.GAA16241@replay.com> <199810040159.DAA06725@replay.com>
Newsgroups: alt.drugs.pot.cultivation
On 4 Oct 1998 03:59:31 +0200 Kush <scrogit@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>The ScrOGfather wrote in a post a while back:
>
>Although I'm still experimenting with light-to-plant distance, the fixture was
>less than 6"
>from the plants. IMHO a canopy 2 feet wide along the line of travel of the
>mover is about
>maxed out at that light height once buds start to grow above the trellis, any
>wider and
>growth along those edges will be less. If I had a wider canopy I would make it
>narrower
>and add to its length to make up for the lost space.
>
>Since I have not yet assembled my garden space, would I be better off only
>making it 20" deep and say 6" long? That would give me an area of 10 sq ft.
>It sounds as though this would give me 43 W per sq ft of good light.
Judging from the reflector size in your next paragraph I tend to agree on
making the space narrower. However the angle of your reflector may differ from
mine so I'm hesitant to say so for certain. Perhaps an experiment would serve
you well. Turn on the light and put some white paper or something under it.
See what light pattern size you come up with using different distances from the
fixture. I get less than 6 inches with my room temps, so my canopy only
extends 2 inches beyond the fixture on each side, 4" total (20" fixture, 24"
canopy).
Also I find having the fixture that close to the edge of the canopy is
favorable for hanging a travelling styrofoam reflector from the side of the
fixture that isn't against the wall. That was covered in another thread.
>
>Does it make any difference which direction I hang the reflector?
I think so.
>My reflector is 15"x17" with the bulb entering on the 15" end. It seems to me
>that I might get slightly better coverage if I was to hang the reflector so
>that the 17" side would run from the front to the back of the 20" garden
>depth.
>
>Does that make any sense?
Yep and, if I understand you correctly, you're right. For mounting purposes
the coverage across the width of the ScrOG is more important than coverage of
the length because the length can be adjusted by the motion of the mover via
the adjustable stops.
The outside of my reflector measures 20x20, but measures 19x20 when I measure
just the hole (inside reflective area) where the light eminates from.
The lost 1 inch is at the end where the light screws in the socket. I don't
think this end reflects light as well as the other three sides (probably
because it receives light from the socket end of the bulb), and the opposite
side most likely doesn't reflect as well as the two remaining sides ( probably
because those sides reflect light from the entire length of the bulb). The
best coverage for my 24" wide space comes from the 20" hole space where the
entire length of the bulb is reflected across the narrow 24" span of the 24x48
ScrOG. IOW the travel of the fixture is in same direction as that of the
orientation of the bulb.
Heh heh Screw the text description, even a crude pic is worth 1000 words:-)
-----------------ScrOG Length-----------------------
#1 <<<- BULBx ->>> This bulb orientation is what I use with the mover.
-----------------ScrOG Length-----------------------
The <- arrows -> indicate the travel of the mover.
The "x" indicates the socket.
-----------------ScrOG Length-----------------------
x
B
U
#2 <- L ->
B
-----------------ScrOG Length-----------------------
I suppose if one was mounting a light for "stationery" use with a rectangular
space, then #2 orientation would be to his advantage.
IMO if #2 was used with a mover, the ScrOG width would have to be slightly
narrower (than if #1 was used) to insure the edges along the length received
the same light as the rest of the canopy.
I think a lot depends on the fixture, but in any case I can't see where the
reflecting material in the fixture facing the tip and socket ends of the bulb
will reflect as much light as those on the sides of the bulb. So even though
the reflector is square, the pattern of strongest light seems to favor the
rectangular shape of the bulb. This might not make much difference when the
fixture is far from the canopy, and that's the use these things were designed
for
IMO. But the closer the fixture gets to the canopy, the sharper the angles,
and
the more defined and critical the pattern becomes.
pH
From scrogit@hotmail.com Mon Oct 05 02:08:37 1998
Subject: Re: ScrOG questions for the ScrOGfather **Light Mover & Coverage **
From: Kush <scrogit@hotmail.com>
Date: 5 Oct 1998 08:08:37 +0200
Message-ID: <199810050608.IAA19590@replay.com>
References: <19981004112108.7631.qmail@anon.efga.org>
Newsgroups: alt.drugs.pot.cultivation
I wanted to place my reflector like you had in diagram 2. But after further
review I see what you are talking about. In looking at the inside of the
reflector I see that the socket that the bulb screws into extends a good 4"
into the reflector.
>Also I find having the fixture that close to the edge of the canopy is
>favorable for hanging a travelling styrofoam reflector from the side of the
>fixture that isn't against the wall. That was covered in another thread.
My plan was to use mylar on the sides and back of the garden. On the front I
was going to place mylar on sheets of cardboard for easy removal to train the
plants. I was then going to have a squirrel cage fan blow cool air into the
bottom of the garden and let the heat rise out of the top. I read that
non-ScrOG gardeners have oscilating fans blowing onto the plants to make them
stronger and able to hold up large buds. It does't seem to me that that is as
much a problem in the ScrOG system as long as the plants are getting some air
movement to bring them CO2. Am I correct on this or way off base?
Thanks for all your help
Kush
From Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1] Mon Oct 05 15:41:26 1998
Subject: Re: ScrOG questions for the ScrOGfather **Light Mover & Coverage **
From: pH <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]>
Date: 5 Oct 1998 19:41:26 -0000
Message-ID: <19981005194126.8559.qmail@anon.efga.org>
References: <19981004112108.7631.qmail@anon.efga.org> <199810050608.IAA19590@replay.com>
Newsgroups: alt.drugs.pot.cultivation
On 5 Oct 1998 08:08:37 +0200 Kush <scrogit@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I wanted to place my reflector like you had in diagram 2. But after further
>review I see what you are talking about. In looking at the inside of the
>reflector I see that the socket that the bulb screws into extends a good 4"
>into the reflector.
Yep. Even though the bulb is still centered in the interior of the fixture I
just don't think light from that side is reflected as well as the other sides.
>
>>Also I find having the fixture that close to the edge of the canopy is
>>favorable for hanging a travelling styrofoam reflector from the side of the
>>fixture that isn't against the wall. That was covered in another thread.
>
>My plan was to use mylar on the sides and back of the garden. On the front I
>was going to place mylar on sheets of cardboard for easy removal to train the
>plants. I was then going to have a squirrel cage fan blow cool air into the
>bottom of the garden and let the heat rise out of the top. I read that
>non-ScrOG gardeners have oscilating fans blowing onto the plants to make them
>stronger and able to hold up large buds. It does't seem to me that that is as
>much a problem in the ScrOG system as long as the plants are getting some air
>movement to bring them CO2. Am I correct on this or way off base?
I guess it depends to some extent on the variety and training technique you use
near the end of the stretch, but just because there's a screen where shoots do
have an anchor point doesn't mean buds wont grow far enough above it to bend
from their own weight. However, they're packed so closely that each lends
support to the next, so only those on the edges are the ones that might need
some support later on when buds get heavy.
I still use an oscillating fan, so air is delivered to the side of my canopy,
hence my use of the travelling styrofoam reflector so it wont be a permanent
barrier to that air flow coming from the side. I can't see why air flow from
under the vegging canopy wouldn't work as long as it's distributed well, but
wonder about it with a dense canopy of buds. I like to think of the fan
primarily as a tool for removing water vapors from around the plant parts, and
that CO2 delivery is simply a secondary natural byproduct of this process.
FWIW I think the book "Hydro Water Culture" used squirrel cage fans to pump air
into a false hollow floor under the plants. The floor looked like "peg board"
with may small holes drilled in to. The idea was to deliver the air flow from
beneath directly to the stomata on the undersides of the leaves where water
vapors could be removed more efficiently (than air flow from other directions)
thus increasing water uptake. However, his setup was one plant per 5 gal
bucket, and they were not spaced close together at all, he was growing full
sized plants I believe. I don't recall if there was also an oscillating fan in
the room. I think that idea is great for vegging. When a dense canopy (like
ScrOG) is filled with large dense buds I personally think it's better to
deliver air from the side so it can penetrate into, and easily pass through,
the bud to remove water vapors from within the bud. Heh heh Maybe I'm a bit
paranoid over bud rot but it works ok for me:-)
pH
>
>Thanks for all your help
>
>Kush
>
From invent@intergate.bc.ca Mon Oct 05 12:59:19 1998
Subject: Re: ScrOG questions for the ScrOGfather **Light Mover & Coverage **
From: James <invent@intergate.bc.ca>
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 1998 09:59:19 -0700
Message-ID: <3618FAE7.525D@intergate.bc.ca>
References: <19981004112108.7631.qmail@anon.efga.org> <199810050608.IAA19590@replay.com> <19981005194126.8559.qmail@anon.efga.org>
Newsgroups: alt.drugs.pot.cultivation
pH wrote:
> I can't see why air flow from under the vegging canopy wouldn't work as long as it's distributed well, but wonder about it with a dense canopy of buds. I like to think of the fan primarily as a tool for removing water vapors from around the plant parts, and
> that CO2 delivery is simply a secondary natural byproduct of this process.
>
> FWIW I think the book "Hydro Water Culture" used squirrel cage fans to pump air
> into a false hollow floor under the plants. The floor looked like "peg board"
> with may small holes drilled in to. The idea was to deliver the air flow from
> beneath directly to the stomata on the undersides of the leaves where water
> vapors could be removed more efficiently
>
>
What about hooking up a system of hoses (perforated tubing, like for
CO2) that lay below the canopy, connected to a squirrel
fan/compressor/air pump? If sufficicently powerful, air could be brought
in from outside and pumped into the hose setup, thereby blowing water
vapour and heat upwards. An occilating fan could blow it to a room
corner, removed by another blower.
The setup would need some tweaking, as air pressure would be greatest
near the pump (requiring the smallest holes), and vice versa farther
away. The system might be cheap and easy to setup/remove :) The entire
garden could be curtained (short sides only) w/mylar - Co2 addition
would be more efficient (no need to co2 the entire room, just your
enclosed system. Add air/water-cooling......
From nymname@aol.com Fri Oct 09 20:16:52 1998
Message-ID: <19981009201652.29917.00004639@ng55.aol.com>
Newsgroups: alt.drugs.pot.cultivation
Subject: ScrOG questions for the ScrOGfather ** Overgrowth **
From: nymname@aol.com (NymName)
Date: 10 Oct 1998 00:16:52 GMT
What if the veg/stretch growth is a little out of control? Any pruning advice,
or is it best to let `em strangle each other.
Is keeping the fattest stems the way to go?
From Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1] Sat Oct 10 01:09:08 1998
Subject: Re: ScrOG questions for the ScrOGfather ** Overgrowth **
From: pH <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]>
Date: 10 Oct 1998 05:09:08 -0000
Message-ID: <19981010050908.25438.qmail@nym.alias.net>
References: <19981009201652.29917.00004639@ng55.aol.com>
Newsgroups: alt.drugs.pot.cultivation
On 10 Oct 1998 00:16:52 GMT nymname@aol.com (NymName) wrote:
>
>What if the veg/stretch growth is a little out of control?
Got away from ya, eh:-) Heh heh A little out of control.. isn't that like
being a little pregnant?
>Any pruning advice, or is it best to let `em strangle each other.
If it's out of control, it's probably pretty far into flowering. A bad time
for pruning.
Did ya let shoots grow so far above the screen that you can't get them back
under the screen without snapping the stems? Try bending them over and tying
them down to the top of the screen with twist ties or training wire. That way
you wont have to pull the shoot down through the screens' hole and fish it
through the maze of growth under the screen.
>
>Is keeping the fattest stems the way to go?
Yep. As far as I'm concerned the fattest stemmed shoots get priority. So
when/if you bend and tie to the top of the screen, don't cover another fat
stemmed shoot with the one you're tying down. Try to cover the weakest growth
you can find. What you want are the best and thickest shoot tips to populate
the "top" of the canopy when the stretch stops. These shoot tips will be your
best buds at harvest, and (depending on light type) what's under them usually
ends up in the butter bucket:-) Normally the screen "is" the top of the
canopy, but in your case overgrowth is making that impossible. You're getting
one layer of growth on top of the other instead of next to the other, in
essence covering up all your previous training efforts:-(. That's the bitch
about overgrowth, lotsa extra work and headaches with no extra yield to show
for it.
pH
From Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1] Mon Sep 28 04:23:12 1998
Subject: A travelling syrofoam reflector for a linear light mover.
From: pH <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 04:23:12 -0000
Newsgroups: alt.drugs.pot.cultivation
Message-ID: <19980928042312.25438.qmail@nym.alias.net>
With a linear light mover installation where one side of the canopy is against
a wall, the wall acts as a reflector. On the other side the light empties into
the room. So, what to do to prevent losing useful light to the room without
building something that will be cumbersome and get in my way, and at the same
time will not prevent air flow from the circulating fan from getting to the
canopy?
Thought I'd pass on my solution, but a lot depends on how close to the edge of
your canopy the fixture's edge is. FWIW I have a 24" canopy and a 22" fixture.
I can't see why the same wouldn't work for a circular mover.
Get a piece of white styrofoam insulation from a home center. I found them
1/2inch x 1 foot x 2 feet, perfect size for a light fixture. Also get two,
reasonably strong "U" shaped magnets. Punch a couple small holes near the edge
of the long side of the styrofoam about a foot apart. Run a short length (appx
5") of string through each hole, then tie the ends so you have two loops, one
in each hole. Use the "U" shaped magnets to fasten the styrofoam to the light
fixture by the loops of string. The loops will run through the U of the
magnet.
The styrofoam is light enough not to throw the fixture off balance.
It hangs down below the glass in the fixture and reflects light back to the
outside of the canopy.
You can adjust its height simply by sliding the magnets up or down on the
fixture.
The angle of the styrofoam is also changed as it's being raised and conforms
more to the angle of the fixture, great for when buds on the edge want to hang
out:-))
SInce it moves with the fixture it only temporarily interferes with air
circulation, but is always being used because it travels with the light.
It can be swung up if you want to keep it out of your way while you work on the
plants.
pH
From Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1] Wed Nov 11 10:47:39 1998
Subject: Re: SCROG 400hps ** Small HIDs, Coverage Area **
From: pH <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]>
Date: 11 Nov 1998 15:47:39 -0000
Message-ID: <19981111154739.19845.qmail@anon.efga.org>
References: <19981109230254.23684.qmail@anon.efga.org> <19981110234603.29363.qmail@anon.efga.org>
Newsgroups: alt.drugs.pot.cultivation
On 10 Nov 1998 23:46:03 -0000 hOOter <hOOter@redneck.efga.org> wrote:
>On 9 Nov 1998 23:02:54 -0000,
>pH <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>
>>On 9 Nov 1998 18:31:55 GMT nymname@aol.com (NymName) wrote:
>
>>>Looks like there should be an optimum range that would maximize growing area
>>>without sacrificing light penetration. Where do you think you would start?
>
>>
>>By keeping plants as short as possible, and having the light as close as
>>possible to the plant tops. You'll have to find your own heat limit or
>>distance, too many variables ya know:-) My ScrOGged plants get topped at the
>>screen, that's 10" tall plants that have quickly reached their ceiling and
>have
>>started growing horizontally to fill the canopy. IOW veg time is quickly
>>counting down. If the plants (and screen) were taller it would simply take
>>longer for the mainstem and shoots to hit the ceiling.
>
>Ok, how about the opposite. Has anyone done any tinkering with a shorter
height
>to the trellis?
I've tried, but because I didn't want to remove the screen to remove the bags
of geolite from the tall planter boxes I use as trays, I had to keep the
distance to 10" so I had room to lift the bags over the planter box. The bags
can be 8+ inches deep. That was in the fluoro unit though.
A shorter height would mean fewer primary shoots. I'm sure it would throw a
twist of it's own into training. You'd be more dependent on secondaries to
fill the screen. Might take a little longer to fill, but might also be less
cluttered when working with it. Interesting....
>
>>That said, from my
>>example above I have 17" of distance from the light fixture to the screen at
>>harvest. When the stretch stopped the light was just 8" at its shortest
>>distance, as buds grew in length that distance grew to the 17" figure.
>>
>>I hold to the conclusion that "the closer the better" idea will get the most
>>from your light. However, the optimun intensity of light is debated here now
>>and then. It looks like the 50-60w/sq ft range is where increased yields
>>aren't commensurate with increased light.
>
>Yep, and combine that with certain lights and the numbers can be misleading.
>Take for example my current setup. (175MH,150HPS,175MH)
>Total watts canopy(sq/ft) watts(sq/ft)
>500 6.7(20"x48") 75.0
>500 8.0(24"x48") 62.5
>Someone looking at that 75w/ft2 might think ... wow, rockin'. But they are
just
>a bunch of little lights and that number is really bogus and misleading. Just
>by shortening the width of my canopy by 4" _increases_ available wattage but,
>the coverage just isn't there otherwise even at 62w sq/ft, the upper end of
>your stated range.
It can be misleading. Not just in coverage area, but also in the depth the
light penetrates into the canopy.
>
>I think there are several interesting ways of lighting a ScrOG. Of course
there
>are the flouro's, and pH has probably the best all around size of bulb to
match
>the width constraints for training a trellis. Even with the 400w though I
>believe you've stated that the light mover was almost a requisite for coverage
>of the full length.
At the distance I wanted to put the fixture it was. I could have jacked up the
light to cover 4 feet but it would not have delivered as many lumens to my
canopy, or as deeply into it.
> You could get around the need for a light mover by getting
>out of the 4 ft length and into 5 or 6 to whatever feet with multiple 400's
>paying attention to heat buildup of course.
Then you're just swapping the light mover need for the multiple light need:-)))
Part of my decision to use a mover was based on avoiding a second light, and
the increased heat and power consumption. I wanted to produce the same or
slightly better than the 640 watts of fluoros were yielding me, and believed I
could do it with less wattage. I just wasn't sure what the extra lumens of the
HID would do for me. It turned out my gross yield was matched. Two lights
would have been overkill, but I didn't rule that possibility out, just didn't
want to start with it. As it stands, a second light can be added to the mover,
and the screen can be extended toward the unused section of mover track.
After one or two more HID harvests I should know pretty well just how to handle
an expansion should I need to do that. I'd probably opt for a MH to compliment
the HPS.
The reflector has probably as much to do with coverage as the size of the bulb.
Mine would cover about 3 feet at the height I originally aniticipated. Even
if the screen was 3 feet long, growth wouldn't have been even IMO, and not as
productive because of the added distance. Heat buildup would be a major
concern with a stat light if it was low, and would most likely be managed in a
way that protects a small part of the canopy while the rest suffers from the
lower lumens. i saw the difference being just 4 inches outside the edge of one
side of the reflector made in yield with the first crop. So unless a single
ScrOG light is moving, or the reflector fits almost perfectly over the entire
screen, growth will always be more in the middle and less on the edges.
>
>I've tried the many little light approach and believe that will work well
>enough with the reduced width of the canopy. With flat white painted plywood
>reflectors all around I can say it's pretty bright in there. :-) But I believe
>penetration will be an issue on these smaller lights with a tall budding
plant.
>I haven't had that problem yet but this a different strain, time will tell.
Me thinks you're right about the pentration with smaller lights. That's one
good reason for closer light distances with those bulbs. Ya wanna eek all ya
can outta them.
>
>But I keep looking at my 1000w'ers and wondering just what the the best way
>might be to make use of them. They really are overkill for a width of 2 ft or
>less.
Hang a home made reflector from the fixture along the long side of the screen
so it focuses the light across the 2 feet. What are ya doing fartin around
with those little HIDs when you've got a 1000 watter sittin' 'round?
>Four feet would be ideal so two placed "side by each" maybe, but I don't
>have the space for that in my closet. ;-)
Aw c'mon, yer puttin us on...:-) You wouldn't try to squeeze just one in
there?
pH
>
>hOOter
>
>>IOW Efficiency falls off.
>>So I size my growspace by what w/sq ft I want to use first, then keep lights
>as
>>close as possible, and keep light evenly distributed. I consider my
>>penetration range to be that 8-17inches, with the 8" distance applying all
>>through veg, and into the end of the stretch. Then that distance starts to
>>climb as buds grow longer.
>>
>>>
>>>PS I have no experience with hps
>>
>>I don't have much more:-)
>>
>>pH
From hOOter@redneck.efga.org Thu Nov 12 13:16:54 1998
Subject: Re: SCROG 400hps ** Small HIDs, Coverage Area **
From: hOOter <hOOter@redneck.efga.org>
Date: 12 Nov 1998 18:16:54 -0000
Message-ID: <19981112181654.22812.qmail@anon.efga.org>
References: <19981111154739.19845.qmail@anon.efga.org>
Newsgroups: alt.drugs.pot.cultivation
On 11 Nov 1998 15:47:39 -0000,
pH <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>On 10 Nov 1998 23:46:03 -0000 hOOter <hOOter@redneck.efga.org> wrote:
>>
>>Ok, how about the opposite. Has anyone done any tinkering with a shorter
>height
>>to the trellis?
>
>I've tried, but because I didn't want to remove the screen to remove the bags
>of geolite from the tall planter boxes I use as trays, I had to keep the
>distance to 10" so I had room to lift the bags over the planter box. The bags
>can be 8+ inches deep. That was in the fluoro unit though.
>
>A shorter height would mean fewer primary shoots. I'm sure it would throw a
>twist of it's own into training. You'd be more dependent on secondaries to
>fill the screen. Might take a little longer to fill, but might also be less
>cluttered when working with it. Interesting....
The reason I ask is that in effect I have that now. From the top of the medium to the trellis is 10". After topping and a few days of training the upper primaries, the bottom couple of primaries are still about 4 inches away from the trellis and frankly may never reach it. By then the upper canopy is robbing most of the light and those lower few branches are spindly and weak so I cloned them about a week ago. So of course the next logical question was "if your going to do that, then why grow 10 inches? How about 8 or 7?"
Now these plants were held back with minimal light and hours early on cause I wasn't ready for them. Normally those lower primaries would have been better developed and at the trellis soon enough. At least it was last time and I expect it will be next time as well. But this time just got me to wondering ... with side wall 2x4's spaced at premeasured intervals for support of lights, trellis, and NFT pipe for 2 ScrOG's along with fresh paint, I'm not about to change it, just curious.
>snip<
>The reflector has probably as much to do with coverage as the size of the bulb.
> Mine would cover about 3 feet at the height I originally aniticipated. Even
>if the screen was 3 feet long, growth wouldn't have been even IMO, and not as
>productive because of the added distance. Heat buildup would be a major
>concern with a stat light if it was low, and would most likely be managed in a
>way that protects a small part of the canopy while the rest suffers from the
>lower lumens. i saw the difference being just 4 inches outside the edge of one
>side of the reflector made in yield with the first crop. So unless a single
>ScrOG light is moving, or the reflector fits almost perfectly over the entire
>screen, growth will always be more in the middle and less on the edges.
Yep, just what my last attempt gave. The 2 175MH's were positioned "on the thirds" of the 4 foot length if you follow, so the distance to the ends of the trellis from either light was 16 inches. Bright enough in the center, but out at the sides it just wasn't happening, duh. Now they are 6" from the ends off the trellis to the outside of the bulbs and 1 HPS dead center with lots of room for more if required. So far heat is not as big a problem as I though it might be with an average of 80 degrees F at the canopy top. Right now, just an oscillating fan on the floor aiming up at the canopy on the low setting.
I think your bang on about a light mover. For a trellis it's probably the very best way to go for all the reasons you've stated. Unfortunately, that's just not in the cards for me so hopefully it's not the only way.
Besides, you had a multi-shelf thingey! Can't fault the rest of us for wantin' one! Ha, Ha. And both a light mover and a 1000 watter, probably even a 400, will interfere with that plan for me. Wifey was very specific about the 4x3 closet! (see below)
>
>>
>>I've tried the many little light approach and believe that will work well
>>enough with the reduced width of the canopy. With flat white painted plywood
>>reflectors all around I can say it's pretty bright in there. :-) But I believe
>>penetration will be an issue on these smaller lights with a tall budding
>plant.
>>I haven't had that problem yet but this a different strain, time will tell.
>
>Me thinks you're right about the pentration with smaller lights. That's one
>good reason for closer light distances with those bulbs. Ya wanna eek all ya
>can outta them.
I'm eeking. :-)
>
>>
>>But I keep looking at my 1000w'ers and wondering just what the the best way
>>might be to make use of them. They really are overkill for a width of 2 ft or
>>less.
>
>Hang a home made reflector from the fixture along the long side of the screen
>so it focuses the light across the 2 feet. What are ya doing fartin around
>with those little HIDs when you've got a 1000 watter sittin' 'round?
Ha, Ha, Ya, I hear ya. Wish wifey could. The rules of the game for having plants in the house was no more than 5 plants at any time, no honkin' lights, closet ONLY. But she is sweet and understanding ya know. :-) So like water going downhill, I took the path of least resistance. I do think in time I might get one in there so it's good to have a plan. Patience is a virtue they say.
So when a local garage was being torn down and they were going to toss all those little lights, I got the 6 HPS's and 2 halides for $80. Kinda hard to turn down really and they just might be useful after all.
>>Four feet would be ideal so two placed "side by each" maybe, but I don't
>>have the space for that in my closet. ;-)
>
>Aw c'mon, yer puttin us on...:-) You wouldn't try to squeeze just one in
>there?
You know it! But I like sex. :-)
hOOter
>
>pH
>
>>
>>hOOter
>>
>>>IOW Efficiency falls off.
>>>So I size my growspace by what w/sq ft I want to use first, then keep lights
>>as
>>>close as possible, and keep light evenly distributed. I consider my
>>>penetration range to be that 8-17inches, with the 8" distance applying all
>>>through veg, and into the end of the stretch. Then that distance starts to
>>>climb as buds grow longer.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>PS I have no experience with hps
>>>
>>>I don't have much more:-)
>>>
>>>pH
From Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1] Thu Nov 12 21:33:00 1998
Subject: Re: SCROG 400hps ** Small HIDs, Coverage Area **
From: pH <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]>
Date: 13 Nov 1998 02:33:00 -0000
Message-ID: <19981113023300.7344.qmail@anon.efga.org>
References: <19981111154739.19845.qmail@anon.efga.org> <19981112181654.22812.qmail@anon.efga.org>
Newsgroups: alt.drugs.pot.cultivation
On 12 Nov 1998 18:16:54 -0000 hOOter <hOOter@redneck.efga.org> wrote:
>On 11 Nov 1998 15:47:39 -0000,
>pH <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>
>>On 10 Nov 1998 23:46:03 -0000 hOOter <hOOter@redneck.efga.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>Ok, how about the opposite. Has anyone done any tinkering with a shorter
>>height
>>>to the trellis?
>>
>>I've tried, but because I didn't want to remove the screen to remove the bags
>>of geolite from the tall planter boxes I use as trays, I had to keep the
>>distance to 10" so I had room to lift the bags over the planter box. The
>bags
>>can be 8+ inches deep. That was in the fluoro unit though.
>>
>>A shorter height would mean fewer primary shoots. I'm sure it would throw a
>>twist of it's own into training. You'd be more dependent on secondaries to
>>fill the screen. Might take a little longer to fill, but might also be less
>>cluttered when working with it. Interesting....
>
>The reason I ask is that in effect I have that now. From the top of the medium
>to the trellis is 10". After topping and a few days of training the upper
>primaries, the bottom couple of primaries are still about 4 inches away from
>the trellis and frankly may never reach it. By then the upper canopy is
robbing
>most of the light and those lower few branches are spindly and weak so I
cloned
>them about a week ago. So of course the next logical question was "if your
>going to do that, then why grow 10 inches? How about 8 or 7?"
I don't see why not. For that matter you could even go lower and have even
fewer primaries.
I really wonder if your little lights are doing much good with those lower
primaries. I've never had the canopy fill to a point where at least some lower
shoots don't make it to the screen, even with fluoros. I don't expect 100% of
the primaries to be strong growers at the screen, there's always a couple weak
shoots.
FWIW you can top plants later, allowing the top to grow through the screen, or
bent over. It takes extra time, but may allow the lower shoots more light
without the faster growth from shoots just above them to shade them.
Something I do often is to bring lower primary shoots almost straight up,
paralleling the mainstem and fasten them to the screen with a couple inches of
tip running under the screen. This goes against their natural tendency to grow
bowed (where they reach outwardly as much as upwardly). But where a bowed
shoot might hit the screen at 20" when left to grow naturally, it could have
been there at 10" and growing stronger a lot sooner. BTW I do this with a lot
of bowed shoots, usually the strongest lower ones, sometimes secondaries of
lower shoots. When ya pull down a lower primary shoot for training that's say
4" above the screen, not just the tip comes down everytime, the rest of the
shoot will bend down too. Maybe a couple inches at its center, this sometimes
pulls down a few shoots you just previosly trained there. Fastening these
shoots to the screen with training wire prevents that.
>
>Now these plants were held back with minimal light and hours early on cause I
>wasn't ready for them. Normally those lower primaries would have been better
>developed and at the trellis soon enough. At least it was last time and I
>expect it will be next time as well. But this time just got me to wondering
..
>with side wall 2x4's spaced at premeasured intervals for support of lights,
>trellis, and NFT pipe for 2 ScrOG's along with fresh paint, I'm not about to
>change it, just curious.
>
>>snip<
>
>>The reflector has probably as much to do with coverage as the size of the
>bulb.
>> Mine would cover about 3 feet at the height I originally aniticipated. Even
>>if the screen was 3 feet long, growth wouldn't have been even IMO, and not as
>>productive because of the added distance. Heat buildup would be a major
>>concern with a stat light if it was low, and would most likely be managed in
>a
>>way that protects a small part of the canopy while the rest suffers from the
>>lower lumens. i saw the difference being just 4 inches outside the edge of
>one
>>side of the reflector made in yield with the first crop. So unless a single
>>ScrOG light is moving, or the reflector fits almost perfectly over the entire
>>screen, growth will always be more in the middle and less on the edges.
>
>Yep, just what my last attempt gave. The 2 175MH's were positioned "on the
>thirds" of the 4 foot length if you follow, so the distance to the ends of the
>trellis from either light was 16 inches. Bright enough in the center, but out
>at the sides it just wasn't happening, duh. Now they are 6" from the ends off
>the trellis to the outside of the bulbs and 1 HPS dead center with lots of
room
>for more if required. So far heat is not as big a problem as I though it might
>be with an average of 80 degrees F at the canopy top. Right now, just an
>oscillating fan on the floor aiming up at the canopy on the low setting.
>
>I think your bang on about a light mover. For a trellis it's probably the very
>best way to go for all the reasons you've stated. Unfortunately, that's just
>not in the cards for me so hopefully it's not the only way.
>
>Besides, you had a multi-shelf thingey! Can't fault the rest of us for wantin'
>one! Ha, Ha. And both a light mover and a 1000 watter, probably even a 400,
>will interfere with that plan for me. Wifey was very specific about the 4x3
>closet! (see below)
Ahhh, the military, eh..
>>
>>>
>>>I've tried the many little light approach and believe that will work well
>>>enough with the reduced width of the canopy. With flat white painted plywood
>>>reflectors all around I can say it's pretty bright in there. :-) But I
>believe
>>>penetration will be an issue on these smaller lights with a tall budding
>>plant.
>>>I haven't had that problem yet but this a different strain, time will tell.
>>
>>Me thinks you're right about the pentration with smaller lights. That's one
>>good reason for closer light distances with those bulbs. Ya wanna eek all ya
>>can outta them.
>
>I'm eeking. :-)
>
>>
>>>
>>>But I keep looking at my 1000w'ers and wondering just what the the best way
>>>might be to make use of them. They really are overkill for a width of 2 ft
>or
>>>less.
>>
>>Hang a home made reflector from the fixture along the long side of the screen
>>so it focuses the light across the 2 feet. What are ya doing fartin around
>>with those little HIDs when you've got a 1000 watter sittin' 'round?
>
>Ha, Ha, Ya, I hear ya. Wish wifey could. The rules of the game for having
>plants in the house was no more than 5 plants at any time, no honkin' lights,
>closet ONLY. But she is sweet and understanding ya know. :-) So like water
>going downhill, I took the path of least resistance. I do think in time I
might
>get one in there so it's good to have a plan. Patience is a virtue they say.
Just make sure the general's rations of top grade buds dries up first. A
little extra grow power could help solve that:-))) wink wink
Heh heh hope she smokes...
>
>So when a local garage was being torn down and they were going to toss all
>those little lights, I got the 6 HPS's and 2 halides for $80. Kinda hard to
>turn down really and they just might be useful after all.
I hear ya.
pH
>
>>>Four feet would be ideal so two placed "side by each" maybe, but I don't
>>>have the space for that in my closet. ;-)
>>
>>Aw c'mon, yer puttin us on...:-) You wouldn't try to squeeze just one in
>>there?
>
>You know it! But I like sex. :-)
>
>hOOter
--snip--
From hOOter@redneck.efga.org Sun Nov 15 14:23:59 1998
Subject: Re: ScrOG Training ** Small HIDs, Coverage Area **
From: hOOter <hOOter@redneck.efga.org>
Date: 15 Nov 1998 19:23:59 -0000
Message-ID: <19981115192359.6864.qmail@anon.efga.org>
References: <19981113023300.7344.qmail@anon.efga.org>
Newsgroups: alt.drugs.pot.cultivation
On 13 Nov 1998 02:33:00 -0000,
pH <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>On 12 Nov 1998 18:16:54 -0000 hOOter <hOOter@redneck.efga.org> wrote:
>>On 11 Nov 1998 15:47:39 -0000,
>>pH <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>>
>>>On 10 Nov 1998 23:46:03 -0000 hOOter <hOOter@redneck.efga.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Ok, how about the opposite. Has anyone done any tinkering with a shorter
>>>height
>>>>to the trellis?
>>>
>>>I've tried, but because I didn't want to remove the screen to remove the bags
>>>of geolite from the tall planter boxes I use as trays, I had to keep the
>>>distance to 10" so I had room to lift the bags over the planter box. The
>>bags
>>>can be 8+ inches deep. That was in the fluoro unit though.
>>>
>>>A shorter height would mean fewer primary shoots. I'm sure it would throw a
>>>twist of it's own into training. You'd be more dependent on secondaries to
>>>fill the screen. Might take a little longer to fill, but might also be less
>>>cluttered when working with it. Interesting....
>>
>>The reason I ask is that in effect I have that now. From the top of the medium
>>to the trellis is 10". After topping and a few days of training the upper
>>primaries, the bottom couple of primaries are still about 4 inches away from
>>the trellis and frankly may never reach it. By then the upper canopy is
>robbing
>>most of the light and those lower few branches are spindly and weak so I
>cloned
>>them about a week ago. So of course the next logical question was "if your
>>going to do that, then why grow 10 inches? How about 8 or 7?"
>
>I don't see why not. For that matter you could even go lower and have even
>fewer primaries.
>
>I really wonder if your little lights are doing much good with those lower
>primaries.
Yes, I think they would, but I should clarify. These, and all plants are brought up to about 13 inches under flouros so I've not used them for that purpose. I have no doubts at all they would do at least as well as the flouros and most likely quite better IMO. (they are HID's after all) I have a homemade 6 bulb flouro unit and a 2 bulb shoplight. For reasons too long to bother with, these plants were raised to about 10" under the shoplight with no reflectors anywhere but overhead. Obviously not yer best conditions for optimum growth at any level let alone the lower primaries. ;-) But certainly healthy enough that after trimming the lower 3 or 4, they are going great now. The last time, and from here on, the 6 bulb unit will be used and it too works very best for that purpose and should be even more so combined with your training suggestions below.
>Something I do often is to bring lower primary shoots almost straight up,
>paralleling the mainstem and fasten them to the screen with a couple inches of
>tip running under the screen. This goes against their natural tendency to grow
>bowed (where they reach outwardly as much as upwardly). But where a bowed
>shoot might hit the screen at 20" when left to grow naturally, it could have
>been there at 10" and growing stronger a lot sooner. BTW I do this with a lot
>of bowed shoots, usually the strongest lower ones, sometimes secondaries of
>lower shoots. When ya pull down a lower primary shoot for training that's say
>4" above the screen, not just the tip comes down everytime, the rest of the
>shoot will bend down too. Maybe a couple inches at its center, this sometimes
>pulls down a few shoots you just previosly trained there. Fastening these
>shoots to the screen with training wire prevents that.
Excellent. I just recently caught on to tying branches so that when the tip is pulled, not everything back to the main stem comes down as well, as you've noted. But bringing lower primaries straight up along the main step is a nifty idea. The last grow had lower primaries at roughly a 45 degree angle and by the time they hit the trellis they were over a foot and a half or more. A lot of wasted time (and secondaries) actually.
Good stuff, I'll give that a go next time.
hOOter
From Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1] Wed Nov 11 10:48:39 1998
Subject: Re: Hey pH, SCROG question. ** Light Distance, Training **
From: pH <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]>
Date: 11 Nov 1998 15:48:39 -0000
Message-ID: <19981111154839.19871.qmail@anon.efga.org>
References: <19981107170254.6175.qmail@anon.efga.org> <19981110234734.29396.qmail@anon.efga.org>
Newsgroups: alt.drugs.pot.cultivation
On 10 Nov 1998 23:47:34 -0000 hOOter <hOOter@redneck.efga.org> wrote:
>On 7 Nov 1998 17:02:54 -0000,
>pH <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 7 Nov 1998 04:19:13 -0700 "Hollywood" <sykhome@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>I guess the choice would be HID. What do you like better?
>>
>>I don't use the fluoros for flowering anymore:-) Getting the same "gross"
>>yield from half the grow area meant that training, number of plants, number
>of
>>containers, and associated cleanup and maintenence was also cut in half.
>>
>>>How close do you keep the HID?
>>
>>Still experimenting, but during flowering with the HPS bulb and light mover,
>>between 4-6 inches worked good.
>
>In the absence of a light mover and with smaller bulbs (175MH,150HPS,175MH)
>I've been able to get them to 2-3 inches with a good comfort level. But I'm
>thinking that they don't need to be that low as I believe I'm into coverage
>area loss at that point. Once they're that low, a 150/175w bulb doesn't seem
to
>give more than 6" effective coverage on either side of its center point. As it
>is I'll probably reduce the available width of the canopy area from 24"x48" to
>20"x48".(plants growing almost to that width now) I'm still experimenting with
>these lights for effective coverage tradeoff with maximum lumens for budding
in
>any one area.
I should say the 4-6" I mentioned was to the glass on the fixture, the bulb
center is 4" above that.
With all the planning I did in advance, the first harvest still had about 4-6"
of canopy on one end that didn't stack up to the rest. It's simpler to fix
with just one light, you'll have a fun time with multiple light sources:-) A
light meter might prove useful, especially where light patterns merge with
other lights. Multiple lights would perform a function similar to a light
mover in that some direct light from one bulb could find its way to places left
in shade by another bulb.
I think anything one does is a compromise between lumens, coverage area, even
light distribution, and heat.
>Since I have them, adding more HPS lights to cover length isn't a
>problem. This will eventually happen to go from 4, to 5 or 6 feet, but the
>width is the problem for me. So far, I'm finding your 4-6" height probably
best
>for both coverage and lumens out to that 20" width. I think this will also
help
>reaching the back of the trellis as even 24" is a stretch for me for training.
>(more on that below)
>
>>FWIW I think I'm going to use the MH til the end of Da Stretch this time,
>>instead of putting in the HPS when I go 12/12. Last time the canopy was
>>slightly overgrown and some shoots stretched enough to make them unwieldy to
>>train with the overgrowth. I'm hoping the MH will keep them tighter, and
>when
>>upward growth stops I'll put in the HPS. At least that's the plan as it
>stands
>>now:-)
>>
>>pH
>>
>
>Ha, you're looking to tighten up and I'm looking to spread out. :-) Been also
>thinking of going to 2HPS'S and 1MH. I've only just added the HPS a few days
>ago so I'll wait and see how that loosens them up. Right now I've got 3 and 4
>shoots all trying for the same hole. That's fine when they're less than an
inch
>or two. Once those shoots grow to a point that you want to pull them back down
>thru the screen (at least 2-3 inches???) and aim them somewhere else, it then
>becomes "no fun", doncha think?
Only during the stretch it becomes not too much fun for me. A lot harder to
keep up with. There's nothing I like better than to fill a few more inches of
horizontal space in one shot, unless that space isn't empty:-(
Heh heh I'm just now refining the art of crossing shoots early so the biggest
ones end up with some space between them. I don't like it when 3 big shoots
end up at the same place, too much secondary growth. I try to make those
shoots intersect and cross over each other long before that happens.
>
>I seem to find the immediate 6" to 1' area surrounding the main stem where
it's
>topped at the screen to be the most troublesome area. I find trying to keep
>that area uncongested to be "quite annoying". My node spacing is about an inch
>and a half max at the moment so not every hole has 3 or 4 shoots, but quite a
>few do depending on how the main branch is positioned. Most have 2 shoots per
>hole to start off with. The further each branch gets from the main stem, the
>easier it seems to be to achieve 1 shoot per hole.
With a short internode plant I think outward growth will generally be slower.
I had the same problem as you, around the mainstem, when I grew just one plant.
It was my error to treat it the same as I had a previous long internode
variety. It was placed at one end of the 2x4 ScrOG. By the time the longest
primaries finally reached the other side, the number of nodesites back at the
mainstem must have increased ten fold. While one end was just being reached
the other was overgrown.
In hindsight I should have tried the plant in the center. But that was with
fluoros, if that occured now I'd just change the travel of the light mover to
concentrate most of its time where the growth is needed most. This past crop I
used three plants. Some of the primaries from one plant would grow to occupy
the reasonably barren center mainstem area of the next, at least it's barren to
start out unless enough time passes for the tertiary and quadernary shoots to
kick in and fill the space. Anyhow, without having to fill a 4 foot length
with one plant, the canopy was able to be flowered sooner and without as much
small growth near the mainstems.
>
>So on this training thing, you've said that nothing gets higher than 2" above
>the trellis until the end of Da Stretch. (You _have_ said that, right? :)
Yep, but it was an estimate, and on the short side me thinks.
>I seem to find almost 3-4" required to be able to pull them down and aim for
the
>next hole along the way. Which puts the growing tip into the next hole and
>generally leaves 2 shoots at the hole you've just vacated. As those shoots
grow
>up 3-4" then they are pulled down and redirected as well.
That's more realistic, sometimes even 5 inches. I'll wait for shoots to grow
longer if they're among the strongest ones. The thickest ones have a tendency
to resist being trained down, and want to pop up unless it runs under enough
sections of wire to take the bulk of the pressure off the softest most flexible
part of the tip. If I start having a lot of growth to fish the big shoots
through, I'll just do it sooner to avoid the handling and possibly snapping it.
>
>I don't know that I have a specific question here, just wondering if you can
>confirm, deny, redirect, cross-examine. :-) I've got about 30-40% canopy
>coverage with about 10" main branches. I will probably have to get to 75%
>coverage before inducing 12/12. I am just starting to get heavy into training
>and want my facts straight.
It sounds like just one plant.
>
>Do you keep ALL leaf, except for small ones on the growing tips, under the
>trellis?
Yep, I try to. I'll let leaves be until a shoot tip needs its place, then I'll
tuck the leaf down as the shoot comes up into that hole. That's the simple
view:-) Of course there will come shoots crossing over or under that one,
leaving a couple nodesites and leaves behind, the same happens there too. Now
the first leaf ya tucked is a few deep, I leave them unless they yellow.
> (So far I have been trying to but with the short nodal length there is
>an abundance of shoots and leaf especially near the main stem as you can
>imagine)
Do you fit my above scenario? ie-taking so long to fill the outer space that
inside growth has exponentially exploded near the mainstem. If so it would fit
that you have one slow growing short internode plant. With just 40 of 70%
filled canopy you have a lot of hair pulling to do yet me thinks.
>
>Do you ever snip occasional leaf to open an area for a shoot? (I'd rather not
>but occasionaly it seems like the best thing to do)
I occasionally do snip leaves. But usually not before the canopy is mostly
full. Once most of the canopy has a good carpet of leaves under the screen
(you can't see much light from under the canopy looking up) I feel it does no
good to have 3 or more plies of leaves, only one or two are going to serve as
good solar collectors. Also, when broad surfaces of leaves rest on one another
(bottom of one on the top of another) a lot of moisture can collect there. I
try to prevent that, as well as dense thickets.
>
>Do you ever snip shoots cause, "yer no good there and I don't know what else
to
>do with ya!" (same as above)
Heh heh Overgrowth, eh? :-) Well, little shoots aren't enough to worry ya, so
I have to assume it's a good size shoot to get that much in the way:-) In
overgrowth emergency mode you can try a couple things. First... You can lay
the shoot down on the top of the screen and use a twist tie or training wire to
secure it, that worked real good for me. Second... Use it for crimping
practice:-) Crimp the shoot over sideways and let it fall between two
adjacent buds. The former works best, crimped shoots usually need repeated
recrimping.
But the answer is no, I don't prune at all except to top the plants.
If the growth is really bad, then snipping off some of the newest and smallest
shoots would thin out the clutter and make room for some of the existing,
larger shoots to develop. Keeping thick stemmed shoots over skinny stemmed
shoots would by my preference. You'd probably want to remove the entire skinny
shoot (all the nodes), not just part of it. You'd avoid forcing more skinny
shoots that way.
>
>I envision after Da Stretch having nothing but a bud head (maybe two) in each
>hole and only an inch or two above the screen at most. (Do you consider that
>the main goal?)
If you mean when upward growth is down to, say, 1/4" per day. At the first
sign of that moment is when I like to have the canopy as even a possible, it's
the last training session of the crop, last chance to get things in order. If
it's 1, 2, or 4 inches it doesn't really matter if you have the headroom, as
long as it is even and no buds are being smothered down at the screen while
others are 6 inches above the screen. Now, there's always going to be some
unevenness, some small buds will get smothered, but the major buds that are
developing should be on the same plane IMO.
I don't really concern myself with how many holes are filled. It's the general
fullness I look at, the holes kinda take care of themselves.
>But achieving that with this "not very stretchy" variety is
>going to be difficult near as I can tell. Needing more HPS as opposed to MH is
>probably a given and I'm in the process of wiring up a couple more 150HPS's.
>
>My last grow had numerous shoots at the 6-8" height after the stretch stopped
Then you had much stem above the screen before the upward growth stopped?
Where some other buds, at the screen, got ripped off of light because your
light had to be up higher to make way for the useless stem. If there was more
shoot than bud near the bottom (just above the screen), then I would think
training for those shoots should have continued a little longer to the end of
the stretch.
>and with these smaller HID's and a generally crowded canopy, only the very
tops
>were developing sufficient bud.
The closer ALL bud heads are to the screen when the upward growth stops the
more likely it becomes that you'll have mostly just bud growing above the
screen, and practically no bare stem.
That's kind of similar to the problem I had with fluoros and one variety I
grew. It was a late maturing variety (120 or 140 days I think), it grew tight
colas for a long long time. Even though they were close to the screen when the
upward growth stopped, some got to be over 11". The base of the bud was never
as good at the top half of the bud. If any were crimped over that would solve
the distance problem, but then one side of the bud on the bottom never
developed as well because the fluoros couldn't do any good on the shady side.
Even though you have HIDs, the low wattage doesn't seem to give the intensity
at the distances you might need. A larger wattage would penetrate deeper.
> So I've told myself to pay more attention
>during the training phase to ensure that as much as possible is only 2" above
>at the end of the stretch ensuring that the most bud sites and very little
else
>are available to the light. I think I've got the right idea (do you?) but I
>think it's going to be pretty crowded non the less.
I think you have the right idea. It might get crowded too, but you can adjust
for that next crop:-)
pH
>
>A note on the strain: I got a clone from a friend last spring and put it
>outside for the summer. He swears up and down (on several occasions) that it
is
>Blueberry (seeds ordered from Jocks apparently) BUT, in the fall after
>harvesting there was absolutely NO smell, very little if anything in the way
of
>taste (certainly not _fruity_), but a super buzz. A few comments in this
>newsgroup regarding Blueberry would lead me to think that what I have is NOT
>it, but my buddy is very insistent! It's a branchier strain than the one I
used
>for my last ScrOG grow and the lack of smell is a bonus actually but, I'm
>wondering if anyone has any thoughts on that as well.
>
>hOOter
From hOOter@redneck.efga.org Thu Nov 12 17:18:04 1998
Subject: Re: Hey pH, SCROG question. ** Light Distance, Training **
From: hOOter <hOOter@redneck.efga.org>
Date: 12 Nov 1998 22:18:04 -0000
Message-ID: <19981112221804.30028.qmail@anon.efga.org>
References: <19981111154839.19871.qmail@anon.efga.org>
Newsgroups: alt.drugs.pot.cultivation
On 11 Nov 1998 15:48:39 -0000,
pH <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>On 10 Nov 1998 23:47:34 -0000 hOOter <hOOter@redneck.efga.org> wrote:
>>So on this training thing, you've said that nothing gets higher than 2" above
>>the trellis until the end of Da Stretch. (You _have_ said that, right? :)
>
>Yep, but it was an estimate, and on the short side me thinks.
>
>>I seem to find almost 3-4" required to be able to pull them down and aim for
>the
>>next hole along the way. Which puts the growing tip into the next hole and
>>generally leaves 2 shoots at the hole you've just vacated. As those shoots
>grow
>>up 3-4" then they are pulled down and redirected as well.
>
>That's more realistic, sometimes even 5 inches.
Ok then.
>I'll wait for shoots to grow
>longer if they're among the strongest ones. The thickest ones have a tendency
>to resist being trained down,
Sure do.
>and want to pop up unless it runs under enough
>sections of wire to take the bulk of the pressure off the softest most flexible
>part of the tip. If I start having a lot of growth to fish the big shoots
>through, I'll just do it sooner to avoid the handling and possibly snapping it.
Ok. There's a trick. Recognizing potential problem areas ahead of time and dealing with them before they are. I'm afraid that the last grows approach was to let it grow and now and then go in and pull some down and over. But by then you are overloaded and in deep shit. This time around I'm trying to be much more proactive instead of reactive.
>
>>
>>I don't know that I have a specific question here, just wondering if you can
>>confirm, deny, redirect, cross-examine. :-) I've got about 30-40% canopy
>>coverage with about 10" main branches. I will probably have to get to 75%
>>coverage before inducing 12/12. I am just starting to get heavy into training
>>and want my facts straight.
>
>It sounds like just one plant.
Two actually, one at each end of the trellis.
>>
>>Do you keep ALL leaf, except for small ones on the growing tips, under the
>>trellis?
>
>Yep, I try to. I'll let leaves be until a shoot tip needs its place, then I'll
>tuck the leaf down as the shoot comes up into that hole. That's the simple
>view:-) Of course there will come shoots crossing over or under that one,
>leaving a couple nodesites and leaves behind, the same happens there too. Now
>the first leaf ya tucked is a few deep, I leave them unless they yellow.
>
>> (So far I have been trying to but with the short nodal length there is
>>an abundance of shoots and leaf especially near the main stem as you can
>>imagine)
>
>Do you fit my above scenario?
I think so, yep.
>ie-taking so long to fill the outer space that
>inside growth has exponentially exploded near the mainstem. If so it would fit
>that you have one slow growing short internode plant. With just 40 of 70%
>filled canopy you have a lot of hair pulling to do yet me thinks.
Me too. :(
>>Do you ever snip occasional leaf to open an area for a shoot? (I'd rather not
>>but occasionaly it seems like the best thing to do)
>
>I occasionally do snip leaves. But usually not before the canopy is mostly
>full. Once most of the canopy has a good carpet of leaves under the screen
>(you can't see much light from under the canopy looking up) I feel it does no
>good to have 3 or more plies of leaves, only one or two are going to serve as
>good solar collectors. Also, when broad surfaces of leaves rest on one another
>(bottom of one on the top of another) a lot of moisture can collect there. I
>try to prevent that, as well as dense thickets.
>
>>
>>Do you ever snip shoots cause, "yer no good there and I don't know what else
>to
>>do with ya!" (same as above)
>
>Heh heh Overgrowth, eh? :-) Well, little shoots aren't enough to worry ya, so
>I have to assume it's a good size shoot to get that much in the way:-)
Well, they were when trying to keep _everything_ under two inches, but after your responses I think I will let some go a little now.
>In
>overgrowth emergency mode you can try a couple things. First... You can lay
>the shoot down on the top of the screen and use a twist tie or training wire to
>secure it, that worked real good for me.
Yep, been doing that.
>Second... Use it for crimping practice:-) Crimp the shoot over sideways and let it fall between two
>adjacent buds. The former works best, crimped shoots usually need repeated
>recrimping.
>
>But the answer is no, I don't prune at all except to top the plants.
>
>If the growth is really bad, then snipping off some of the newest and smallest
>shoots would thin out the clutter and make room for some of the existing,
>larger shoots to develop. Keeping thick stemmed shoots over skinny stemmed
>shoots would by my preference. You'd probably want to remove the entire skinny
>shoot (all the nodes), not just part of it. You'd avoid forcing more skinny
>shoots that way.
I think I will let some of the smaller ones go a little as they won't jump as much anyways. If that's not enough, then I will cut a few select ones out of the way.
I started out with pre-concieved ideas about training them in a nice orderly fashion, but of course plants being plants, what I want and they want, well ...
>
>>
>>I envision after Da Stretch having nothing but a bud head (maybe two) in each
>>hole and only an inch or two above the screen at most. (Do you consider that
>>the main goal?)
>
>If you mean when upward growth is down to, say, 1/4" per day.
Ya.
>At the first
>sign of that moment is when I like to have the canopy as even a possible, it's
>the last training session of the crop, last chance to get things in order. If
>it's 1, 2, or 4 inches it doesn't really matter if you have the headroom, as
>long as it is even and no buds are being smothered down at the screen while
>others are 6 inches above the screen.
Another problem from last time, yep.
>Now, there's always going to be some
>unevenness, some small buds will get smothered, but the major buds that are
>developing should be on the same plane IMO.
Ok, 'bout what I figured and so far, what I have.
>I don't really concern myself with how many holes are filled. It's the general
>fullness I look at, the holes kinda take care of themselves.
>
>>But achieving that with this "not very stretchy" variety is
>>going to be difficult near as I can tell. Needing more HPS as opposed to MH is
>>probably a given and I'm in the process of wiring up a couple more 150HPS's.
>>
>>My last grow had numerous shoots at the 6-8" height after the stretch stopped
>
>Then you had much stem above the screen before the upward growth stopped?
Oh yeah. Not good.
>Where some other buds, at the screen, got ripped off of light because your
>light had to be up higher to make way for the useless stem. If there was more
>shoot than bud near the bottom (just above the screen), then I would think
>training for those shoots should have continued a little longer to the end of
>the stretch.
Yep, I did figure that out finally. About a month ago you reposted your trellis.zip file and that's the first time I've been able to get it. It cleared up a few things, but that was after the last grow. That file and this have brought it all into better focus. I mostly needed to just confirm some things here and now that you have ...
>
>>and with these smaller HID's and a generally crowded canopy, only the very
>tops
>>were developing sufficient bud.
>
>The closer ALL bud heads are to the screen when the upward growth stops the
>more likely it becomes that you'll have mostly just bud growing above the
>screen, and practically no bare stem.
>
>That's kind of similar to the problem I had with fluoros and one variety I
>grew. It was a late maturing variety (120 or 140 days I think), it grew tight
>colas for a long long time. Even though they were close to the screen when the
>upward growth stopped, some got to be over 11". The base of the bud was never
>as good at the top half of the bud. If any were crimped over that would solve
>the distance problem, but then one side of the bud on the bottom never
>developed as well because the fluoros couldn't do any good on the shady side.
>
>Even though you have HIDs, the low wattage doesn't seem to give the intensity
>at the distances you might need. A larger wattage would penetrate deeper.
Yep it would, and based on the last grow, a good part of the problem because of the finished height of the plants and not having them low enough to start with at the end of the stretch. Repositioning lights, more of them, better understanding of and attention to training should do the trick. I believe that if everything is as low as possible at the end of the stretch, then these lights will give enough penetration for the duration.
>> So I've told myself to pay more attention
>>during the training phase to ensure that as much as possible is only 2" above
>>at the end of the stretch ensuring that the most bud sites and very little
>else
>>are available to the light. I think I've got the right idea (do you?) but I
>>think it's going to be pretty crowded non the less.
>
>I think you have the right idea. It might get crowded too, but you can adjust
>for that next crop:-)
Yes sir, I think so too. Thanks for the assist. By enlarge, I'm pleased with what I have going now. And with a few more training details now worked out, I should be able to settle in and wait for the fat lady. :-)
hOOter
>
>pH
>
>>
>>A note on the strain: I got a clone from a friend last spring and put it
>>outside for the summer. He swears up and down (on several occasions) that it
>is
>>Blueberry (seeds ordered from Jocks apparently) BUT, in the fall after
>>harvesting there was absolutely NO smell, very little if anything in the way
>of
>>taste (certainly not _fruity_), but a super buzz. A few comments in this
>>newsgroup regarding Blueberry would lead me to think that what I have is NOT
>>it, but my buddy is very insistent! It's a branchier strain than the one I
>used
>>for my last ScrOG grow and the lack of smell is a bonus actually but, I'm
>>wondering if anyone has any thoughts on that as well.
>>
>>hOOter
>
From Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1] Thu Nov 12 21:32:57 1998
Subject: Re: Hey pH, SCROG question. ** Light Distance, Training **
From: pH <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]>
Date: 13 Nov 1998 02:32:57 -0000
Message-ID: <19981113023257.7337.qmail@anon.efga.org>
References: <19981111154839.19871.qmail@anon.efga.org> <19981112221804.30028.qmail@anon.efga.org>
Newsgroups: alt.drugs.pot.cultivation
On 12 Nov 1998 22:18:04 -0000 hOOter <hOOter@redneck.efga.org> wrote:
>On 11 Nov 1998 15:48:39 -0000,
>pH <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>
>>On 10 Nov 1998 23:47:34 -0000 hOOter <hOOter@redneck.efga.org> wrote:
>
>>>So on this training thing, you've said that nothing gets higher than 2"
>above
>>>the trellis until the end of Da Stretch. (You _have_ said that, right? :)
>>
>>Yep, but it was an estimate, and on the short side me thinks.
>>
>>>I seem to find almost 3-4" required to be able to pull them down and aim for
>>the
>>>next hole along the way. Which puts the growing tip into the next hole and
>>>generally leaves 2 shoots at the hole you've just vacated. As those shoots
>>grow
>>>up 3-4" then they are pulled down and redirected as well.
>>
>>That's more realistic, sometimes even 5 inches.
>
>Ok then.
>
>>I'll wait for shoots to grow
>>longer if they're among the strongest ones. The thickest ones have a
>tendency
>>to resist being trained down,
>
>Sure do.
>
>>and want to pop up unless it runs under enough
>>sections of wire to take the bulk of the pressure off the softest most
>flexible
>>part of the tip. If I start having a lot of growth to fish the big shoots
>>through, I'll just do it sooner to avoid the handling and possibly snapping
>it.
>
>Ok. There's a trick. Recognizing potential problem areas ahead of time and
>dealing with them before they are. I'm afraid that the last grows approach was
>to let it grow and now and then go in and pull some down and over. But by then
>you are overloaded and in deep shit.
And tips are forcing lights so far above the screen that you're not benefitting
from the fast growth you could be having from secondary shoots further down.
>This time around I'm trying to be much more proactive instead of reactive.
It takes a few crops. The first is usually enough to see your possibilities.
>>
>>>
>>>I don't know that I have a specific question here, just wondering if you can
>>>confirm, deny, redirect, cross-examine. :-) I've got about 30-40% canopy
>>>coverage with about 10" main branches. I will probably have to get to 75%
>>>coverage before inducing 12/12. I am just starting to get heavy into
>training
>>>and want my facts straight.
>>
>>It sounds like just one plant.
>
>Two actually, one at each end of the trellis.
>
>>>
>>>Do you keep ALL leaf, except for small ones on the growing tips, under the
>>>trellis?
>>
>>Yep, I try to. I'll let leaves be until a shoot tip needs its place, then
>I'll
>>tuck the leaf down as the shoot comes up into that hole. That's the simple
>>view:-) Of course there will come shoots crossing over or under that one,
>>leaving a couple nodesites and leaves behind, the same happens there too.
>Now
>>the first leaf ya tucked is a few deep, I leave them unless they yellow.
>>
>>> (So far I have been trying to but with the short nodal length there is
>>>an abundance of shoots and leaf especially near the main stem as you can
>>>imagine)
>>
>>Do you fit my above scenario?
>
>I think so, yep.
>
>>ie-taking so long to fill the outer space that
>>inside growth has exponentially exploded near the mainstem. If so it would
>fit
>>that you have one slow growing short internode plant. With just 40 of 70%
>>filled canopy you have a lot of hair pulling to do yet me thinks.
>
>Me too. :(
>
>>>Do you ever snip occasional leaf to open an area for a shoot? (I'd rather
>not
>>>but occasionaly it seems like the best thing to do)
>>
>>I occasionally do snip leaves. But usually not before the canopy is mostly
>>full. Once most of the canopy has a good carpet of leaves under the screen
>>(you can't see much light from under the canopy looking up) I feel it does no
>>good to have 3 or more plies of leaves, only one or two are going to serve as
>>good solar collectors. Also, when broad surfaces of leaves rest on one
>another
>>(bottom of one on the top of another) a lot of moisture can collect there. I
>>try to prevent that, as well as dense thickets.
>>
>>>
>>>Do you ever snip shoots cause, "yer no good there and I don't know what else
>>to
>>>do with ya!" (same as above)
>>
>>Heh heh Overgrowth, eh? :-) Well, little shoots aren't enough to worry ya,
>so
>>I have to assume it's a good size shoot to get that much in the way:-)
>
>Well, they were when trying to keep _everything_ under two inches, but after
>your responses I think I will let some go a little now.
>
>>In
>>overgrowth emergency mode you can try a couple things. First... You can lay
>>the shoot down on the top of the screen and use a twist tie or training wire
>to
>>secure it, that worked real good for me.
>
>Yep, been doing that.
>
>>Second... Use it for crimping practice:-) Crimp the shoot over sideways and
>let it fall between two
>>adjacent buds. The former works best, crimped shoots usually need repeated
>>recrimping.
>>
>>But the answer is no, I don't prune at all except to top the plants.
>>
>>If the growth is really bad, then snipping off some of the newest and
>smallest
>>shoots would thin out the clutter and make room for some of the existing,
>>larger shoots to develop. Keeping thick stemmed shoots over skinny stemmed
>>shoots would by my preference. You'd probably want to remove the entire
>skinny
>>shoot (all the nodes), not just part of it. You'd avoid forcing more skinny
>>shoots that way.
>
>I think I will let some of the smaller ones go a little as they won't jump as
>much anyways. If that's not enough, then I will cut a few select ones out of
>the way.
>
>I started out with pre-concieved ideas about training them in a nice orderly
>fashion, but of course plants being plants, what I want and they want, well
Heh heh I'm still looking for an orderly system, nada:-) Me thinks you'd have
to grow a variety for a long time to know it well enough, and have the
opportunity to experiment enough times with it before that would be possible.
But ya know what happens doncha, you change varieties before it ever gets that
far:-))
>...
>
>>
>>>
>>>I envision after Da Stretch having nothing but a bud head (maybe two) in
>each
>>>hole and only an inch or two above the screen at most. (Do you consider that
>>>the main goal?)
>>
>>If you mean when upward growth is down to, say, 1/4" per day.
>
>Ya.
>
>>At the first
>>sign of that moment is when I like to have the canopy as even a possible,
>it's
>>the last training session of the crop, last chance to get things in order.
>If
>>it's 1, 2, or 4 inches it doesn't really matter if you have the headroom, as
>>long as it is even and no buds are being smothered down at the screen while
>>others are 6 inches above the screen.
>
>Another problem from last time, yep.
>
>>Now, there's always going to be some
>>unevenness, some small buds will get smothered, but the major buds that are
>>developing should be on the same plane IMO.
>
>Ok, 'bout what I figured and so far, what I have.
>
>>I don't really concern myself with how many holes are filled. It's the
>general
>>fullness I look at, the holes kinda take care of themselves.
>>
>>>But achieving that with this "not very stretchy" variety is
>>>going to be difficult near as I can tell. Needing more HPS as opposed to MH
>is
>>>probably a given and I'm in the process of wiring up a couple more 150HPS's.
>>>
>>>My last grow had numerous shoots at the 6-8" height after the stretch
>stopped
>>
>>Then you had much stem above the screen before the upward growth stopped?
>
>Oh yeah. Not good.
I think variety can make that more or less to deal with. The SK#1 for
instance. Even though it's a 1-1.5" internodal plant, when a new node produces
its first set of leaves they can be pushed out a few inches on their stem, the
first internodal distance on the stem is always out of porportion to the rest.
During da stretch it can be even more (maybe 5 inches) if they happen to be
developing at that time. The stem growth is extremely fast up to that first
leafset, and it's sometimes
difficult to keep up with, especially at the end of da stretch.
>
>>Where some other buds, at the screen, got ripped off of light because your
>>light had to be up higher to make way for the useless stem. If there was
>more
>>shoot than bud near the bottom (just above the screen), then I would think
>>training for those shoots should have continued a little longer to the end of
>>the stretch.
>
>Yep, I did figure that out finally. About a month ago you reposted your
>trellis.zip file and that's the first time I've been able to get it. It
cleared
>up a few things, but that was after the last grow. That file and this have
>brought it all into better focus. I mostly needed to just confirm some things
>here and now that you have ...
>
>>
>>>and with these smaller HID's and a generally crowded canopy, only the very
>>tops
>>>were developing sufficient bud.
>>
>>The closer ALL bud heads are to the screen when the upward growth stops the
>>more likely it becomes that you'll have mostly just bud growing above the
>>screen, and practically no bare stem.
>>
>>That's kind of similar to the problem I had with fluoros and one variety I
>>grew. It was a late maturing variety (120 or 140 days I think), it grew
>tight
>>colas for a long long time. Even though they were close to the screen when
>the
>>upward growth stopped, some got to be over 11". The base of the bud was
>never
>>as good at the top half of the bud. If any were crimped over that would
>solve
>>the distance problem, but then one side of the bud on the bottom never
>>developed as well because the fluoros couldn't do any good on the shady side.
>>
>>Even though you have HIDs, the low wattage doesn't seem to give the intensity
>>at the distances you might need. A larger wattage would penetrate deeper.
>
>Yep it would, and based on the last grow, a good part of the problem because
of
>the finished height of the plants and not having them low enough to start with
>at the end of the stretch. Repositioning lights, more of them, better
>understanding of and attention to training should do the trick. I believe that
>if everything is as low as possible at the end of the stretch, then these
>lights will give enough penetration for the duration.
That's all ya can do, it's the optimum method no matter which lights are used.
The only difference is the slack the lumen gods cut you:-) IOW A higher
wattage bulb will give you a few more inches to play around with, if you
choose. A lower wattage bulb and you'll want to be as parallel as possible
when da stretch ends.
>
>>> So I've told myself to pay more attention
>>>during the training phase to ensure that as much as possible is only 2"
>above
>>>at the end of the stretch ensuring that the most bud sites and very little
>>else
>>>are available to the light. I think I've got the right idea (do you?) but I
>>>think it's going to be pretty crowded non the less.
>>
>>I think you have the right idea. It might get crowded too, but you can
>adjust
>>for that next crop:-)
>
>Yes sir, I think so too. Thanks for the assist. By enlarge, I'm pleased with
>what I have going now. And with a few more training details now worked out, I
>should be able to settle in and wait for the fat lady. :-)
May she be plump and loud:-)
pH
>
>hOOter
>
>>
>>pH
>>
>>>
>>>A note on the strain: I got a clone from a friend last spring and put it
>>>outside for the summer. He swears up and down (on several occasions) that it
>>is
>>>Blueberry (seeds ordered from Jocks apparently) BUT, in the fall after
>>>harvesting there was absolutely NO smell, very little if anything in the way
>>of
>>>taste (certainly not _fruity_), but a super buzz. A few comments in this
>>>newsgroup regarding Blueberry would lead me to think that what I have is NOT
>>>it, but my buddy is very insistent! It's a branchier strain than the one I
>>used
>>>for my last ScrOG grow and the lack of smell is a bonus actually but, I'm
>>>wondering if anyone has any thoughts on that as well.
>>>
>>>hOOter
From nobody@lo14.wroc.pl Fri Nov 13 16:35:01 1998
Subject: Re: Scrog ideas (ph) ** Few vs Many plants:legal issues & maintenence. Faux ScrOG **
From: Anonymous lo14 <nobody@lo14.wroc.pl>
Date: 13 Nov 1998 21:35:01 -0000
Message-ID: <b2d78caef4d41d7ccc7e72dc6f0b9b85@anonymous>
Newsgroups: alt.drugs.pot.cultivation
Hey PH, thanks for going over the scrog thing (again).
I have dloaded the scrog-o-rama and am reviewing. But a new question comes to
mind.
In the space I am thinking of (5x3 1/2) I will be able to *barely* reach
accross to the other side, but getting under the net will not be possible. In
your posts on training, I see much mention of going under the net to do your
thing. Will it be possible to achieve good results by working only from above?
Or is there some component of training that requires going in from below (hey,
that kinda sounds dirty!)
Or would I be better off using more plants with netting to hold/seperate colas
(remember, I am going to use a 1000w stationary light) and not bother training,
just prune judisciously to make nice bushes?
Thanks
From Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1] Fri Nov 13 23:52:48 1998
Subject: Re: Scrog ideas (ph) ** Few vs Many plants:legal issues & maintenence. Faux ScrOG **
From: pH <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]>
Date: 14 Nov 1998 04:52:48 -0000
Message-ID: <19981114045248.26097.qmail@anon.efga.org>
References: <b2d78caef4d41d7ccc7e72dc6f0b9b85@anonymous>
Newsgroups: alt.drugs.pot.cultivation
On 13 Nov 1998 21:35:01 -0000 Anonymous lo14 <nobody@lo14.wroc.pl> wrote:
> Hey PH, thanks for going over the scrog thing (again).
>
>I have dloaded the scrog-o-rama and am reviewing. But a new question comes to
>mind.
>
>In the space I am thinking of (5x3 1/2) I will be able to *barely* reach
>accross to the other side, but getting under the net will not be possible. In
>your posts on training, I see much mention of going under the net to do your
>thing. Will it be possible to achieve good results by working only from
>above?
Only if the space you're working in is near you IMO. A reach is a reach, the
longer you'll be reaching, the more of a pain it will be. I tend to think
you'll be spending more time than if the underscreen was available to you.
> Or is there some component of training that requires going in from below
>(hey,
>that kinda sounds dirty!)
Heh heh "Required" is a tough good choice of words, it sure would make it
easier though. Actually I find access to both sides to be the best. Some
shoots are easier to train from the top, some from the bottom. It all depends
on what you have to do with it to put it where you want it. I've trained
shoots just from the top and just from the bottom, but each one will tell you
which way is easier.
>
>Or would I be better off using more plants with netting to hold/seperate colas
>(remember, I am going to use a 1000w stationary light) and not bother
>training,
>just prune judisciously to make nice bushes?
>
>Thanks
Hmmmm.... When you say "holding colas" it reminds me of Laughing Moon's setup,
that wasn't ScrOG ya know. It was just support for buds that would bend over
from their own weight.
Pruning will sure make them bushy, but the simple act of pruning means your
removing inches of outward growth that you would usually want to fill the
screen. IMO you're asking for severe overgrowth around the mainstem area. IOW
Pruning generally makes a given sized plant fuller, but won't allow it to take
up much more space than it already does. In effect it's a way to limit size
while promoting bushiness. ScrOG doesn't want to limit size or bushiness.
I suggest you read some of the ScrOG-o-rama to get more of an idea how much
improved the branching is when all the shoots are at the same distance from the
light. It's dramatic, don't underestimate it. You might be barking up the
wrong tree with ScrOG. If all you really want is support for heavy buds, see
Laughing Moons web site, they just place nylon netting with 4" openings over
their crop when the buds start to get thick, then let the buds grow through and
lean on the netting if they get top heavy. Metal poultry netting with 2"
spaces is the usual size for ScrOG because of the length the shoots have to get
before they can be trained. The longer they get, the stiffer and thicker they
become, as might be the case with 4" netting. I wish I could tell you what
ScrOG would be like with a 1000 watter, but I just don't have that experience.
pH
From nobody@lo14.wroc.pl Sat Nov 14 03:25:01 1998
Subject: Re: Scrog ideas (ph) ** Few vs Many plants:legal issues & maintenence. Faux ScrOG **
From: Anonymous lo14 <nobody@lo14.wroc.pl>
Date: 14 Nov 1998 08:25:01 -0000
Message-ID: <f108a2d48bb3d9f3ee5a871c6159fe5f@anonymous>
Newsgroups: alt.drugs.pot.cultivation
pH<USE-AUTHOR-ADDRESS-HEADER@[127.1] wrote in message
<19981114045248.26097.qmail@anon.efga.org>...>On 13 Nov 1998 21:35:01 -0000
Anonymous lo14 <nobody@lo14.wroc.pl> wrote:
>> Hey PH, thanks for going over the scrog thing (again).
>>
>>I have dloaded the scrog-o-rama and am reviewing. But a new question comes to
>>mind.
>>
>>In the space I am thinking of (5x3 1/2) I will be able to *barely* reach
>>accross to the other side, but getting under the net will not be possible. In
>>your posts on training, I see much mention of going under the net to do your
>>thing. Will it be possible to achieve good results by working only from
>>above?
>
>Only if the space you're working in is near you IMO. A reach is a reach, the
>longer you'll be reaching, the more of a pain it will be. I tend to think
>you'll be spending more time than if the underscreen was available to you.
>
>> Or is there some component of training that requires going in from below
>>(hey,
>>that kinda sounds dirty!)
>
>Heh heh "Required" is a tough good choice of words, it sure would make it
>easier though. Actually I find access to both sides to be the best. Some
>shoots are easier to train from the top, some from the bottom. It all depends
>on what you have to do with it to put it where you want it. I've trained
>shoots just from the top and just from the bottom, but each one will tell you
>which way is easier.
>
>>
>>Or would I be better off using more plants with netting to hold/seperate
colas
>>(remember, I am going to use a 1000w stationary light) and not bother
>>training,
>>just prune judisciously to make nice bushes?
>>
>>Thanks
>
>Hmmmm.... When you say "holding colas" it reminds me of Laughing Moon's setup,
>that wasn't ScrOG ya know. It was just support for buds that would bend over
>from their own weight.
Right, i understand that. What I am asking, is: Does ScroG produce a higher
yield in a given space (such as mine) than I would get with say 12 or 15 medium
sized bushy girls with netting to keep the colas upright and off of each other?
Obviously in this situation there is alot of lower growth shaded out.
Does the "flattening" of the plant (even though there are less, produce a
higher yield per given space (all other variables being equal)? Kind of a
compromise between Sea of Green and Screen of Green? Or do all 3 methods have
the same yield potential if done correctly? To be honest, it would be way
easier to do things like laughing moon's way. But I would go through the Scrog
hassle if it were worth it.
Where I live, having 2 plants or 15 isn't any different in the eyes of the
local law (either way would be a wrist slap) and making the extra plants is no
biggie either.
Thanks
From Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1] Sat Nov 14 15:33:03 1998
Subject: Re: Scrog ideas (ph) ** Few vs Many plants:legal issues & maintenence. Faux ScrOG **
From: pH <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]>
Date: 14 Nov 1998 20:33:03 -0000
Message-ID: <19981114203303.9981.qmail@anon.efga.org>
References: <f108a2d48bb3d9f3ee5a871c6159fe5f@anonymous>
Newsgroups: alt.drugs.pot.cultivation
On 14 Nov 1998 08:25:01 -0000 Anonymous lo14 <nobody@lo14.wroc.pl> wrote:
>pH<USE-AUTHOR-ADDRESS-HEADER@[127.1] wrote in message
><19981114045248.26097.qmail@anon.efga.org>...>On 13 Nov 1998 21:35:01 -0000
>Anonymous lo14 <nobody@lo14.wroc.pl> wrote:
>>> Hey PH, thanks for going over the scrog thing (again).
>>>
>>>I have dloaded the scrog-o-rama and am reviewing. But a new question comes
>to
>>>mind.
>>>
>>>In the space I am thinking of (5x3 1/2) I will be able to *barely* reach
>>>accross to the other side, but getting under the net will not be possible.
>In
>>>your posts on training, I see much mention of going under the net to do your
>>>thing. Will it be possible to achieve good results by working only from
>>>above?
>>
>>Only if the space you're working in is near you IMO. A reach is a reach, the
>>longer you'll be reaching, the more of a pain it will be. I tend to think
>>you'll be spending more time than if the underscreen was available to you.
>>
>>> Or is there some component of training that requires going in from below
>>>(hey,
>>>that kinda sounds dirty!)
>>
>>Heh heh "Required" is a tough good choice of words, it sure would make it
>>easier though. Actually I find access to both sides to be the best. Some
>>shoots are easier to train from the top, some from the bottom. It all depends
>>on what you have to do with it to put it where you want it. I've trained
>>shoots just from the top and just from the bottom, but each one will tell you
>>which way is easier.
>>
>>>
>>>Or would I be better off using more plants with netting to hold/seperate
>colas
>>>(remember, I am going to use a 1000w stationary light) and not bother
>>>training,
>>>just prune judisciously to make nice bushes?
>>>
>>>Thanks
>>
>>Hmmmm.... When you say "holding colas" it reminds me of Laughing Moon's
>setup,
>>that wasn't ScrOG ya know. It was just support for buds that would bend over
>>from their own weight.
>
>Right, i understand that. What I am asking, is: Does ScroG produce a higher
>yield in a given space (such as mine) than I would get with say 12 or 15
>medium
>sized bushy girls with netting to keep the colas upright and off of each
>other?
> Obviously in this situation there is alot of lower growth shaded out.
It's going to be shaded out with ScrOG too. The emphasis is put on the top
growth space.
>
> Does the "flattening" of the plant (even though there are less, produce a
>higher yield per given space (all other variables being equal)? Kind of a
>compromise between Sea of Green and Screen of Green? Or do all 3 methods have
>the same yield potential if done correctly?
Let me put it this way. I think you're training bushy plants now If I recall
correctly, at least in one form or another. You're doing this to spread out
the growth so that some of the longest shoots won't force you to keep lights up
so high that the rest of the plant will receive less light than it "could".
When you look at your canopy's top at harvest time (the horizontal plane where
the best buds are) odds are good there are gaps between the longest and best
buds. Although light will enter those gaps and produce buds down further on
the plant, the reduced lumens will not produce buds like there are at the top,
closer to the light. IOW One would like to pull up those lower buds so they're
next to the best ones and as close as possible to the light, in essence filling
those upper canopy gaps with the lower shoots.
SOG is meant to produce a canopy like that but using many "plants" to fill the
gaps. IOW a calm flat sea, not a wavy choppy one with some parts higher than
others.
ScrOG is simply a way to get that flat sea without using a lot of plants. It's
also much easier to do with ScrOG than it is with conventional training because
you're forcing all the shoots to grow at the same plane initially. Most
conventionally trained gardens fall short of eliminating the gaps.
You can tell I'm hesitant to say for sure you'd see better yields simply
because I've never worked with a 1000 watter, and the light penetration could
manifest itself in ways I couldn't anticipate without having that experience.
I also haven't used the same growing methods as you. So I don't want to steer
you wrong over something I simply can't predict.
Have you searched through the YOR for entries with the SOG (S) and ScroG (T)
growth control cyphers so you can compare those that closely match your system?
Perhaps others who have grown with both SOG and ScrOG may care to comment on
their findings.
>To be honest, it would be way
>easier to do things like laughing moon's way. But I would go through the
>Scrog
>hassle if it were worth it.
All I can say is look at your existing canopy, or visualize your planned canopy
with whatever method, and decide if you could benefit from filling in gaps at
the top of the canopy. FWIW Laughing Moon produced very well for the light
they used, and in fact produced more than ScrOG when you look at the YOR
entries. However, they had a very unique grow IMHO.
Like anything, it's the tradeoffs you have to decide on to find the real worth.
ScrOG isn't without it's time commitments or hassles. IMO it's about equal
with conventional training but with much better results. Where SOG is
concerned you might not spend as much time at the canopy training but will
spend more time and hassle in dealing with the greater numbers of plants (legal
issues aside).
>
>Where I live, having 2 plants or 15 isn't any different in the eyes of the
>local law (either way would be a wrist slap) and making the extra plants is no
>biggie either.
Well, that's up to you. Personally, where I could get the same production I'd
opt for fewer plants just because of the extra work, space, materials, and
maintenence needed for many plants.
pH
>
>Thanks
From Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1] Wed Nov 18 16:42:32 1998
Subject: Re: Scrog ideas (ph) ** Few vs Many plants:legal issues & maintenence. Faux ScrOG **
From: pH <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]>
Date: 18 Nov 1998 21:42:32 -0000
Message-ID: <19981118214232.27273.qmail@anon.efga.org>
References: <f108a2d48bb3d9f3ee5a871c6159fe5f@anonymous> <19981114203303.9981.qmail@anon.efga.org> <3652DEB9.2DAF@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: alt.drugs.pot.cultivation
On Wed, 18 Nov 1998 08:50:33 -0600 Legal Beagle <liltara66@hotmail.com> wrote:
Howdy LB,
Fewer plants carry many benefits, legal matters and maintenence being tops on
the list. I just happened to look in the ol' inventory of things no longer in
use:-)) You know that pile of stuff we accumulate over the years from doing
experiments and phasing in new better improved methods to make way for the old.
I saw 25 pots gathering dust. So I daydreamed a while thinking of what it was
like filling each with medium, making the transplants, and hooking up 25 drip
emitters and lines. Then I thought of the after-harvest cleanup. I got so
wrapped up in it all that I almost forgot about the multiple mothers I needed
to keep on hand in order to produce the 25 cuttings, and of course nursing the
25 rooting clones. At the busiest time there would be more than 50 plants in
the growroom, including mothers, flowering plants and the clones that would
eventually replace them.
Needless to say there's an immense time savings, not to mention the hassle and
space factor, in knocking plant numbers down from 50+ to just the 8 plants I
use now to produce the same yield. If I'm able to reduce the three plants of
the variety I now use to fill the ScrOG, to just one plant like my old variety,
then at the busiest time I'd only be possesing 4 plants max (1 flowering, 1
mother, and 1 rooting clone and its backup).
I have to admit that while my original intent was to save myself time and
trouble without sacrificing yield, the state laws were rolling around in my
head all during that time too. Heh heh Don't know how it would be handled in a
court, but it's nice knowing that regardless of the yield produced I can always
sceam out the fact that there were only 4 plants, and NONE were taller than 10
inches:-) Heh heh It seems they love to play that big number game, so why not
play the game. Me thinks they'd have a hard time making a mountain out of that
molehill:-))
pH
>Hi Ph,
>
> I always like to remind people that the Scrog method may also be better
>from a legal standpoint. Though laws differ from state to state, if you
>are busted growing, they usually charge you based on the number of
>plants. In some states three plants is less serious than 10+ plants.
>So if you use scrog, you can get away with fewer plants but a full
>canopy.
>
>tara
>Disclaimer:
>Nothing written here should be taken as constituting legal advice.
>Simply a personal opinion.
>
>
>pH wrote:
>>
>> On 14 Nov 1998 08:25:01 -0000 Anonymous lo14 <nobody@lo14.wroc.pl> wrote:
>> >pH<USE-AUTHOR-ADDRESS-HEADER@[127.1] wrote in message
>> ><19981114045248.26097.qmail@anon.efga.org>...>On 13 Nov 1998 21:35:01 -0000
>> >Anonymous lo14 <nobody@lo14.wroc.pl> wrote:
>> >>> Hey PH, thanks for going over the scrog thing (again).
>> >>>
>> >>>I have dloaded the scrog-o-rama and am reviewing. But a new question
>comes
>> >to
>> >>>mind.
>> >>>
>> >>>In the space I am thinking of (5x3 1/2) I will be able to *barely* reach
>> >>>accross to the other side, but getting under the net will not be
>possible.
>> >In
>> >>>your posts on training, I see much mention of going under the net to do
>your
>> >>>thing. Will it be possible to achieve good results by working only from
>> >>>above?
>> >>
>> >>Only if the space you're working in is near you IMO. A reach is a reach,
>the
>> >>longer you'll be reaching, the more of a pain it will be. I tend to think
>> >>you'll be spending more time than if the underscreen was available to you.
>> >>
>> >>> Or is there some component of training that requires going in from below
>> >>>(hey,
>> >>>that kinda sounds dirty!)
>> >>
>> >>Heh heh "Required" is a tough good choice of words, it sure would make it
>> >>easier though. Actually I find access to both sides to be the best. Some
>> >>shoots are easier to train from the top, some from the bottom. It all
>depends
>> >>on what you have to do with it to put it where you want it. I've trained
>> >>shoots just from the top and just from the bottom, but each one will tell
>you
>> >>which way is easier.
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>>Or would I be better off using more plants with netting to hold/seperate
>> >colas
>> >>>(remember, I am going to use a 1000w stationary light) and not bother
>> >>>training,
>> >>>just prune judisciously to make nice bushes?
>> >>>
>> >>>Thanks
>> >>
>> >>Hmmmm.... When you say "holding colas" it reminds me of Laughing Moon's
>> >setup,
>> >>that wasn't ScrOG ya know. It was just support for buds that would bend
>over
>> >>from their own weight.
>> >
>> >Right, i understand that. What I am asking, is: Does ScroG produce a
>higher
>> >yield in a given space (such as mine) than I would get with say 12 or 15
>> >medium
>> >sized bushy girls with netting to keep the colas upright and off of each
>> >other?
>> > Obviously in this situation there is alot of lower growth shaded out.
>>
>> It's going to be shaded out with ScrOG too. The emphasis is put on the top
>> growth space.
>>
>> >
>> > Does the "flattening" of the plant (even though there are less, produce
>a
>> >higher yield per given space (all other variables being equal)? Kind of a
>> >compromise between Sea of Green and Screen of Green? Or do all 3 methods
>have
>> >the same yield potential if done correctly?
>>
>> Let me put it this way. I think you're training bushy plants now If I
>recall
>> correctly, at least in one form or another. You're doing this to spread out
>> the growth so that some of the longest shoots won't force you to keep lights
>up
>> so high that the rest of the plant will receive less light than it "could".
>>
>> When you look at your canopy's top at harvest time (the horizontal plane
>where
>> the best buds are) odds are good there are gaps between the longest and best
>> buds. Although light will enter those gaps and produce buds down further on
>> the plant, the reduced lumens will not produce buds like there are at the
>top,
>> closer to the light. IOW One would like to pull up those lower buds so
>they're
>> next to the best ones and as close as possible to the light, in essence
>filling
>> those upper canopy gaps with the lower shoots.
>>
>> SOG is meant to produce a canopy like that but using many "plants" to fill
>the
>> gaps. IOW a calm flat sea, not a wavy choppy one with some parts higher
>than
>> others.
>>
>> ScrOG is simply a way to get that flat sea without using a lot of plants.
>It's
>> also much easier to do with ScrOG than it is with conventional training
>because
>> you're forcing all the shoots to grow at the same plane initially. Most
>> conventionally trained gardens fall short of eliminating the gaps.
>>
>> You can tell I'm hesitant to say for sure you'd see better yields simply
>> because I've never worked with a 1000 watter, and the light penetration
>could
>> manifest itself in ways I couldn't anticipate without having that
>experience.
>> I also haven't used the same growing methods as you. So I don't want to
>steer
>> you wrong over something I simply can't predict.
>>
>> Have you searched through the YOR for entries with the SOG (S) and ScroG (T)
>> growth control cyphers so you can compare those that closely match your
>system?
>> Perhaps others who have grown with both SOG and ScrOG may care to comment
>on
>> their findings.
>>
>> >To be honest, it would be way
>> >easier to do things like laughing moon's way. But I would go through the
>> >Scrog
>> >hassle if it were worth it.
>>
>> All I can say is look at your existing canopy, or visualize your planned
>canopy
>> with whatever method, and decide if you could benefit from filling in gaps
>at
>> the top of the canopy. FWIW Laughing Moon produced very well for the light
>> they used, and in fact produced more than ScrOG when you look at the YOR
>> entries. However, they had a very unique grow IMHO.
>>
>> Like anything, it's the tradeoffs you have to decide on to find the real
>worth.
>> ScrOG isn't without it's time commitments or hassles. IMO it's about equal
>> with conventional training but with much better results. Where SOG is
>> concerned you might not spend as much time at the canopy training but will
>> spend more time and hassle in dealing with the greater numbers of plants
>(legal
>> issues aside).
>>
>> >
>> >Where I live, having 2 plants or 15 isn't any different in the eyes of the
>> >local law (either way would be a wrist slap) and making the extra plants is
>no
>> >biggie either.
>>
>> Well, that's up to you. Personally, where I could get the same production
>I'd
>> opt for fewer plants just because of the extra work, space, materials, and
>> maintenence needed for many plants.
>>
>> pH
>>
>> >
>> >Thanks
>>
From liltara66@hotmail.com Wed Nov 18 23:24:37 1998
Subject: Re: Scrog ideas (ph)
From: Legal Beagle <liltara66@hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 22:24:37 -0600
Message-ID: <36539D85.7FC2@hotmail.com>
References: <f108a2d48bb3d9f3ee5a871c6159fe5f@anonymous> <19981114203303.9981.qmail@anon.efga.org> <3652DEB9.2DAF@hotmail.com> <19981118214232.27273.qmail@anon.efga.org>
Newsgroups: alt.drugs.pot.cultivation
Hey pH,
I don't know what state you are from, but four plants sounds reasonable
for personal use. As you know, it's not just a question of what the
statutes say, it's a question of what a judge or jury would think when
presented with the evidence (assuming no plea agreement). Of course 1-4
plants sounds pretty reasonable to any non-fundamentalist type juror or
judge, especially the way you put it:
pH wrote:
> it's nice knowing that regardless of the yield produced I can always
> scream out the fact that there were only 4 plants, and NONE were taller than 10
> inches:-) Heh heh It seems they love to play that big number game, so why not
> play the game. Me thinks they'd have a hard time making a mountain out of that
> molehill:-))
Me thinks you are correct ;-)
tara
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)