From Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1] Mon Oct 27 14:58:23 1997
Newsgroups: alt.drugs.pot.cultivation
Subject: ScrOG vs SOG and other questions...
From: The Swamp Skeeter <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]>
Date: 27 Oct 1997 19:58:23 -0000
Message-ID: <19971027195823.1025.qmail@nym.alias.net>
Why use SOG over ScrOG or the other way around?
I know that ScrOG decreases the height needed
to grow, as well as the number of plants, but
is there any other difference between these
two techniques.
Also, I have seen statements made here that
have stated that CO2 enrichment won't help
some gardens because they do not have enough
light. I guess this means that the plants
aren't growing fast enough to create a
depletion of the CO2 in the closet/box/etc.
At what light level does CO2 enrichment
become beneficial to production?
These questions pertain to my soon to be grow
room. I have a box that measures 3'x3'x6' for
flowering and another area for clones/veg.
I have a 430W Sun-Agro for the flowering and a
70W Metal Halide for the clones/veg.
At almost 48w/sqr ft will CO2 enrichment help?
Also with this given space, which technique
will produce the most in the least amount
of time? I plan on using soil for the first
few harvests, because I feel more comfortable
with it as a medium. I know very little about
hydroponics, and would like to keep the first
attempts as simple as possible.
The final question is this. Without heating
the box, it will drop to about 60 degrees F
during the dark cycle. Is this bad for the
plants?
--
Swamp
From Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1] Tue Oct 28 00:14:13 1997
Newsgroups: alt.drugs.pot.cultivation
Subject: Re: ScrOG vs SOG and other questions...
From: pH <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]>
Date: 28 Oct 1997 05:14:13 -0000
References: <19971027195823.1025.qmail@nym.alias.net>
Message-ID: <19971028051413.7028.qmail@nym.alias.net>
On 27 Oct 1997 19:58:23 -0000, The Swamp Skeeter
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>Why use SOG over ScrOG or the other way around?
>I know that ScrOG decreases the height needed
>to grow, as well as the number of plants, but
>is there any other difference between these
>two techniques.
Both techniques are meant to create a canopy that takes full advantage of
its linear space, in essence both are attempts at maximizing yield from a
given space. When viewed from the side the ideal SOG or ScrOG canopy will
be filled from corner to corner with buds, all of which are the same
distance from the light, and none of which has any wasted space between
them. No top-of-canopy space goes to waste.
Differences other than those mentioned above.
-SOG-
Meant to produce super large colas. Since many plants spaced so closely
together each will shade adjacent plants and prevent branching, Flowering
growth is focused on the top of the mainstem so one large mainstem cola is
produced from each plant. With SOG you don't want branching.
Plant height is a concern with SOG since there is no ceiling on upward
growth, lights will need to be raised as plants grow. Plants should be of
the same variety or posses the same growth traits to maintain an even
canopy.
-ScrOG-
Meant to produce large colas from a single plant or very few plants. Since
buds are not all mainstem colas there may not be as many super large colas
as SOG but should produce the same (or better) yield, all things being
equal. With ScrOG you do want good branching.
Plant height is not a concern with ScrOG since the trellis is the ceiling
(10" above soil line). Instead of raising lights, plant shoots are trained
to grow horizontally under the trellis until buds start to fill and upward
growth stops. At which time the slow upward growing buds are allowed to
grow up through the trellis, from this point on minor light adjustments are
needed.
When I first tried SOG I was not successful, from being both inexperienced
and because of the uneven growth I got from using different varieties from
seed. One thing I did not like at all about SOG was the number of plants
needed. That wouldn't change no matter how successful I was with the
method. Since my attempt at SOG was with a drip system, I also didn't like
all the extra maintenance involved with emitters clogging for all those
pots, one plant is a hell of a lot easier to care for. If you water
manually.....:-(
Consider that, in the end, 25 SOG plants were replaced with ONE ScrOG
plant. The savings in time and space from not having to maintain 25 clones
and the "multiple" mothers needed to produce them far offsets the time
needed by ScrOG for training. Not to mention which bracket one falls into
when the subject of law and the number of plants comes up.
All in all, I'd take ScrOG over SOG anytime just on the maintenance
differences alone. If I HAD to have huuuge colas then SOG would be the
preference, but with no real difference in yield weight and potency I don't
feel a need to impress anyone when I can make life a whole lot easier for
myself.
>
>Also, I have seen statements made here that
>have stated that CO2 enrichment won't help
>some gardens because they do not have enough
>light. I guess this means that the plants
>aren't growing fast enough to create a
>depletion of the CO2 in the closet/box/etc.
>At what light level does CO2 enrichment
>become beneficial to production?
>
>These questions pertain to my soon to be grow
>room. I have a box that measures 3'x3'x6' for
>flowering and another area for clones/veg.
>I have a 430W Sun-Agro for the flowering and a
>70W Metal Halide for the clones/veg.
>
>At almost 48w/sqr ft will CO2 enrichment help?
I have 40w/sq ft fluoros, used CO2, and found that it wasn't worth it.
>Also with this given space, which technique
>will produce the most in the least amount
>of time?
Variety and veg time will determine time as far as crop turnover cycles go.
A 3x3 space is 9sq ft.. With SOG figure 3 or 4 plants/sq ft, that's 27 to
36 plants that all have to be ready to flower at the same. Also consider
how many mothers you must have available to take 30 to 40 cuttings from
(includes 10% spares maybe more depending on your cloning skills).
WIth ScrOG, 1 mother and 1 cutting will do it:-) With 6ft of headroom
either method should work.
>I plan on using soil for the first
>few harvests, because I feel more comfortable
>with it as a medium. I know very little about
>hydroponics, and would like to keep the first
>attempts as simple as possible.
Whichever method you choose, size the pot to the plant size you expect.
>
>The final question is this. Without heating
>the box, it will drop to about 60 degrees F
>during the dark cycle. Is this bad for the
>plants?
I think 60 is OK for a dark cycle. You just have to watch the difference
between hottest and coldest. If temp drops too far too quickly
condensation can form and foster mold, this is not good especially for
flowering plants which are prone to bud rot.
pH
From Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1] Tue Oct 28 13:18:46 1997
Newsgroups: alt.drugs.pot.cultivation
Subject: Re: ScrOG vs SOG and other questions...
From: Kal Natrium <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]>
Date: 28 Oct 1997 18:18:46 -0000
References: <19971028051413.7028.qmail@nym.alias.net>
Message-ID: <19971028181846.25171.qmail@nym.alias.net>
pH wrote:
> All in all, I'd take ScrOG over SOG anytime just on the maintenance
> differences alone.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. For a small personal use garden, I think ScrOG is the method of choice. The first time I read the description of ScrOG, I knew my garden needed immediate modification to incorporate the ScrOG concepts.
ScrOG has been so efficient, and I still have not yet completely mastered it, that I am now considering shutting the garden down for awhile and cutting the flowering area in half (8 sq.ft. down to 4 sq.ft.) when I start it back up.
>If I HAD to have huuuge colas then SOG would be the preference, but with no >real difference in yield weight and potency I don't feel a need to impress >anyone when I can make life a whole lot easier for myself.
Granted, the EAPM's using ScrOG will not be as impressive as SOG. However, they can still be impressive in their own right, especially if you've got the ScrOG dialed in.
ScrOG does have a small learning curve associated with it in terms of timing the induction. pH has addressed this fine line between growth and overgrowth on numerous occasions. It's one of those "on the job training" kind of things, because every variety is a little different.
Kal _~
P.S. pH, did the light go on the instant you unrolled that piece of paper to calculate the area of the Tron?
From Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1] Tue Oct 28 18:03:43 1997
Newsgroups: alt.drugs.pot.cultivation
Subject: Re: ScrOG vs SOG and other questions...
From: pH <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]>
Date: 28 Oct 1997 23:03:43 -0000
References: <19971028051413.7028.qmail@nym.alias.net> <19971028181846.25171.qmail@nym.alias.net>
Message-ID: <19971028230343.15068.qmail@nym.alias.net>
On 28 Oct 1997 18:18:46 -0000, Kal Natrium
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>pH wrote:
>
>> All in all, I'd take ScrOG over SOG anytime just on the maintenance
>> differences alone.
>
>I've said it before and I'll say it again. For a small personal use
garden, I think ScrOG is the method of choice. The first time I read the
description of ScrOG, I knew my garden needed immediate modification to
incorporate the ScrOG concepts.
>
>ScrOG has been so efficient, and I still have not yet completely mastered
it, that I am now considering shutting the garden down for awhile and
cutting the flowering area in half (8 sq.ft. down to 4 sq.ft.) when I start
it back up.
>
>>If I HAD to have huuuge colas then SOG would be the preference, but with
no >real difference in yield weight and potency I don't feel a need to
impress >anyone when I can make life a whole lot easier for myself.
>
>Granted, the EAPM's using ScrOG will not be as impressive as SOG. However,
they can still be impressive in their own right, especially if you've got
the ScrOG dialed in.
OK I'll bite, what is EAPM? Must mean cola:-) I'm happy with 6-8+ inchers
from my fluoros. It's amazing how many big ones you can get from one plant
when you give it even light.
Here's one for ya Kal. ScrOG could be likened to a light designed for a
conical shaped plant (like MJ). The light would be cone shaped too.
Remember Maxwell Smart and the Cone of Silence?? Well imagine a Cone of
Light that you could lower over your plant. The point being, lights will
be the same distance from every shoot. What's neat is that a growing plant
allows you to form it to fit whatever shape is most efficient for you:-)
>
>ScrOG does have a small learning curve associated with it in terms of
timing the induction. pH has addressed this fine line between growth and
overgrowth on numerous occasions. It's one of those "on the job training"
kind of things, because every variety is a little different.
Yes it does have a learning curve. I found it also has about one real
frustrating week of training, when the plants are into that single super
fast surge of outward growth just before it stops. I'm hoping a short
internode plant will make this less frustrating.
Best advice is to flower early, the canopy ( I guess I should be more
specific and say an 8sq ft canopy) fills appx 75-80% after going on 12
hours. It's not hard to put off flowering when you see only 20-25% of your
canopy space is filled. At least this is so with the variety I use now,
long internode, airy bud, heavy resin and yield. It's the best I've gotten
over time from stash seeds. Soon some Skunk#1 will be put to the test, I
so damn curious to see how it will react to a ScrOG environment. I've
gotten 3 feet+ of shoot growth after going 12/12 from my present variety,
so I'm used to that timing. Anybody got a take on Skunk#1 shoot growth
with a trellis after going 12/12??? I't the only unanswered question I'd
like to know before having to take a wild guess at using one or two plants.
Anybody?
>
>Kal _~
>
>P.S. pH, did the light go on the instant you unrolled that piece of paper
to calculate the area of the Tron?
Yep:-) hehehe It's just like skinning the sucker. The animal looks quite
different when flattened out:-))
pH
From Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1] Wed Oct 29 12:56:39 1997
Newsgroups: alt.drugs.pot.cultivation
Subject: Re: ScrOG vs SOG and other questions...
From: Kal Natrium <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]>
Date: 29 Oct 1997 17:56:39 -0000
References: <19971028230343.15068.qmail@nym.alias.net>
Message-ID: <19971029175639.8955.qmail@nym.alias.net>
pH wrote:
> OK I'll bite, what is EAPM? Must mean cola...[snip]
It was intentional that I left out what that meant so you would ask. Yes,
it does kind of mean cola. But I wish, and when you find out what EAPM is,
I think you'll wish you hadn't said bite. EAPM is an acronym [there's that
nym thing again] for Equus Asinus Penis Maximus (just a long, scientific,
technical sounding name for Donkey Dick). If you did mean bite, that's
your own business and I won't be upset if you don't share the particulars.
It could have also been PEAM (Penis Equus Asinus Maximus) or MEAP, which
maybe have nicer rings to them because they sound more like words.
Perhaps people could vote for their favorite. It's a piece of data that
could maybe be added to the YOR (that would be up to OKL, I guess, right
pH?). The EAPM or PEAM or MEAP is a measurement of the big cola. It is
the measurement of the cured, manicured bud in terms of the length of the
bud from tip to tail (in) and the circumference around the fattest part of
the bud. Sounds almost like we're talking about a snowboard (tip to tail,
fattest part of the board...)
Hey...NPK
Did you ever get that Fat Bob?
>The light would be cone shaped too. Remember Maxwell Smart and the Cone
>of >Silence??
Ahh, the Cone of Silence [are we dating ourselves here?]. Hopefully your
Cone of Light would work better than the Cone of Silence.
>Anybody got a take on Skunk#1 shoot growth with a trellis after going
>12/12???
I can't help you there, as I am still mad at myself for not getting any
Skunk#1 when I ordered seeds. I have NL x TW, NL X Skunk X Jack Herrer,
Chitral, and Shiva but no just plain Skunk. I have only grown the first
variety so far. I just can't justify ordering more seeds when I haven't
grown all the ones I have now. Some day, though, Skunk#1 will be ordered
and grown. So please keep the posts coming as you acquire Skunk#1 data.
I am especially interested in the bud rot susceptability of this variety.
Is it really problematic with this variety or is it something that is
easily avoided like with other varieties.
Skunk#1, the standard by which all others are judged....sigh!
Kal _~
P.S. Sorry if this sounded a little like some porno post. But come to
think of it, for the members of adpc, this kind of is our form of porno.
What's usually the centerfold for High Times? It's usually a nice, big,
fat, juicy, furry(crystally) cola.
Are you just glad to see me or is that a MEAP in your pocket?
From Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1] Wed Oct 29 18:48:54 1997
Newsgroups: alt.drugs.pot.cultivation
Subject: Re: ScrOG vs SOG and other questions...
From: pH <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]>
Date: 29 Oct 1997 23:48:54 -0000
References: <19971029175639.8955.qmail@nym.alias.net>
Message-ID: <19971029234854.10672.qmail@nym.alias.net>
Kal Natrium wrote:
>
>pH wrote:
>
>> OK I'll bite, what is EAPM? Must mean cola...[snip]
>
>It was intentional that I left out what that meant so you would ask. Yes,
>it does kind of mean cola. But I wish, and when you find out what EAPM is,
>I think you'll wish you hadn't said bite. EAPM is an acronym [there's that
>nym thing again] for Equus Asinus Penis Maximus (just a long, scientific,
>technical sounding name for Donkey Dick). If you did mean bite, that's
>your own business and I won't be upset if you don't share the
>particulars.
>It could have also been PEAM (Penis Equus Asinus Maximus) or MEAP, which
>maybe have nicer rings to them because they sound more like words.
>
>Perhaps people could vote for their favorite. It's a piece of data that
>could maybe be added to the YOR (that would be up to OKL, I guess, right
>pH?). The EAPM or PEAM or MEAP is a measurement of the big cola. It is
>the measurement of the cured, manicured bud in terms of the length of the
>bud from tip to tail (in) and the circumference around the fattest part of
>the bud. Sounds almost like we're talking about a snowboard (tip to
>tail, fattest part of the board...)
Donkey Dick-O-Rama, hmmm.... has a nice ring to it, OKL might like it:-)
Seriously, it's not a bad idea. Much is covered in the YOR except a
descriptive snapshot, if you will, of what the best of the yield looks
like. Length, girth, weight could be the beginning of a simple one digit
rating for best of the crop.
>
>Hey...NPK
>
>Did you ever get that Fat Bob?
>
>>The light would be cone shaped too. Remember Maxwell Smart and the Cone
>>of >Silence??
>
>Ahh, the Cone of Silence [are we dating ourselves here?].
I'm afraid so.
>Hopefully your Cone of Light would work better than the Cone of Silence.
That Cone of Silence has evolved into the Cone of Anonymity, what goes
around comes around.
>
>>Anybody got a take on Skunk#1 shoot growth with a trellis after going
>>12/12???
>
>I can't help you there, as I am still mad at myself for not getting any
>Skunk#1 when I ordered seeds. I have NL x TW, NL X Skunk X Jack Herrer,
>Chitral, and Shiva but no just plain Skunk. I have only grown the first
>variety so far. I just can't justify ordering more seeds when I haven't
>grown all the ones I have now. Some day, though, Skunk#1 will be ordered
>and grown. So please keep the posts coming as you acquire Skunk#1 data.
When something worthy pops up I will post. Perhaps you could find someone
to trade some seeds with.
>I am especially interested in the bud rot susceptability of this variety.
>Is it really problematic with this variety or is it something that is
>easily avoided like with other varieties.
Don't know yet. I would suspect super dense buds with a tendency to trap
lots of moisture would be at the heart of the problem. I feel confident
the rot can be avoided with a strong air current from the ol' oscilating
fan.
>
>Skunk#1, the standard by which all others are judged....sigh!
Makes my mouth water. Columbian Gold and Acapulco Gold, ahhhhh.
>
>Kal _~
>
>P.S. Sorry if this sounded a little like some porno post. But come to
>think of it, for the members of adpc, this kind of is our form of porno.
>What's usually the centerfold for High Times? It's usually a nice, big,
>fat, juicy, furry(crystally) xxxx.
DONKEY DICK
pH
>
>Are you just glad to see me or is that a MEAP in your pocket?
From nobody@REPLAY.COM Tue Oct 28 19:05:56 1997
Newsgroups: alt.drugs.pot.cultivation
Subject: Re: ScrOG vs SOG and other questions...
From: nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous)
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 01:05:56 +0100 (MET)
Message-ID: <199710290005.BAA02090@basement.replay.com>
>On 28 Oct 1997 18:18:46 -0000, Kal Natrium
><Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>
>>pH wrote:
>>
>>> All in all, I'd take ScrOG over SOG anytime just on the maintenance
>>> differences alone.
>>
>>I've said it before and I'll say it again. For a small personal use
>garden, I think ScrOG is the method of choice. The first time I read the
>description of ScrOG, I knew my garden needed immediate modification to
>incorporate the ScrOG concepts.
I've been watching this discussion with interest for a while. I'd have to agree, ScrOG is the better system for the hobbyist. But in large gardens, 100 sq ft and up, I only see it as an advantage if there is a height limitation. You gotta love getting armloads of 18" long buds as big around as your arm!
Moving the lights up and down isn't much of a problem. Neither is uneven height, to a degree. Large HIDs penetrate quite far down into the garden. Even a 1' difference in height isn't a big deal. The shorter plant will still get plenty of light. Plus, if you use a light mover, you can keep your lights closer to the tops.
I've seen people here say they don't get good bottom buds with floros. Gotta tell ya, I've seen lovely, crystal covered nuggets come off the very bottom of plants under HIDs. I haven't noticed much of a difference in potency or taste, either. 'Course those monster colas are mighty pretty!
The right system for you is going to be different than the right system for anyone else, at least a little. If you're thinking about growing, check out the Newbie Resources pH posts here from time to time and go buy a good book. My favorite is the Marijuana Grower's Insider's Guide by Mel Frank. I'm sure others have other suggestions.
Do a bunch of reading and a bunch of thinking before you start. Poor preparation is the downfall of many a would be grower. Realistically analyze your growing space and design a system that is right for the space. Start with good quality seeds. Pay careful attention, but don't kill your babies with kindness. Don't tell anyone, ever! And most of all, have fun.
Bud
From Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1] Wed Oct 29 18:49:28 1997
Newsgroups: alt.drugs.pot.cultivation
Subject: Re: ScrOG vs SOG and other questions...
From: pH <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]>
Date: 29 Oct 1997 23:49:28 -0000
References: <199710290005.BAA02090@basement.replay.com>
Message-ID: <19971029234928.10393.qmail@nym.alias.net>
On Wed, 29 Oct 1997 01:05:56 +0100 (MET), nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous)
wrote:
>
>>On 28 Oct 1997 18:18:46 -0000, Kal Natrium
>><Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>>
>>>pH wrote:
>>>
>>>> All in all, I'd take ScrOG over SOG anytime just on the maintenance
>>>> differences alone.
>>>
>>>I've said it before and I'll say it again. For a small personal use
>>garden, I think ScrOG is the method of choice. The first time I read the
>>description of ScrOG, I knew my garden needed immediate modification to
>>incorporate the ScrOG concepts.
>
>I've been watching this discussion with interest for a while. I'd have to
agree, ScrOG is the better system for the hobbyist. But in large gardens,
100 sq ft and up, I only see it as an advantage if there is a height
limitation. You gotta love getting armloads of 18" long buds as big around
as your arm!
Bucket fulls of 8 inchers aint bad either:-) I gotta admit I don't know
what kind of buds ScrOG would produce if it was used with the same light
and plant that was used to produce the 18" buds. All my personal
experience thus far is with only fluoros at 40w/sq ft, hardly something
worthy of 18" buds. With ScrOG I have gotten secondary shoots (not primary
shoots) with colas bigger than mainstem top colas from fluoro crops without
a trellis.
The primary trade-offs between SOG and ScrOG are the time and maintenance
involved with maybe 8 to10 times more plants and cuttings, and probably
multiple mothers versus the time involved in training shoots; and super
large colas versus just large colas. It's a subjective call where one has
to do both to appreciate what real benefits will appeal most to him.
I found that with using fewer plants, aside from dealing with high numbers
of clones and the mothers, it also meant fewer pots and much less medium to
de-root, sterilize, and handle between crops (if you have reusable medium).
One chore I sure was glad to lessen. With disposables like soil or
rockwool you still have to replace and handle it.
The main limiting factor regarding garden size with ScrOG is how far one
must reach across or under the trellis to train shoots. If the trellis is
so broad that any of its inner regions are more than an arms length away,
it then becomes impractical. I find two feet to be my limit. Training
would be too prohibitive if one had to be air lifted to the center of his
ScrOG, or had to crawl under the netting:-) As far as 100 sq ft goes,
it's up to ones imagination as to how the "arms length rule" could be
applied, circular, rectangle, or square shaped gardens, whatever.
When I first started my ScrOG I had the flat fluoros in mind. After two
crops I realized that if they could be replaced with HIDS on a linear mover
the existing buds could only be bigger. A linear light mover on a track
9-10 feet long could cover a 2x12 foot (24 sq ft) area and one side could
be against a wall. So a 12x8ft room could have 2 of them for 48 sq ft of
canopy, with a 4 foot wide 12 foot long workspace between them. With one
plant per 2x4 space, 6 plants could be used. Could probably get away with
fewer but I haven't really used more than 8 sq ft for one plant. Judging
from the way these things grow under a trellis fewer than 6 is not
unrealistic.
>
>Moving the lights up and down isn't much of a problem. Neither is uneven
height, to a degree. Large HIDs penetrate quite far down into the garden.
Even a 1' difference in height isn't a big deal. The shorter plant will
still get plenty of light. Plus, if you use a light mover, you can keep
your lights closer to the tops.
A main point is relative distance. Shorter plants in SOG may still get
"plenty" of light with HIDs, but they still wont get as much light. How
much? If you use a light mover and have the light one foot above the tops,
the plants that are one foot lower are getting 1/4 the light as the taller
ones. 75% is nothing to sneeze at, even half that is worth a look see. In
Jorge Cervantes "Indoor MJ Horticulture" there is an excellent light to
distance chart that kind of drives the point home with a graphic. With
fluoros I've learned not to take an inch for granted, after all an inch
could double the distance. When I eventually get HIDs I'll probably do the
same simply because I'd be better off. Geez, with HIDs I wouldn't have to
worry that my buds are getting too long:-))
One interesting thing about ScrOG is that before buds start forming heavily
all attention is focused to what's under the trellis for training. Once
buds start filling the attention shifts to just what's above the trellis.
At this point what's under the trellis is mostly unimportant as far as
light is concerned, it's mostly wood. Above the trellis there is a sea of
buds that's literally only an inch or two high. So the effective height
difference between any two buds in the canopy varies by no more than an
inch or two relative to the light. And each of the buds that are there
could be said to be spaced in square inches rather than square feet. At
this point, the entire canopy is not only closer to the light (+/- 2
inches), but colas are also spaced closer together.
>
>I've seen people here say they don't get good bottom buds with floros.
Gotta tell ya, I've seen lovely, crystal covered nuggets come off the very
bottom of plants under HIDs. I haven't noticed much of a difference in
potency or taste, either. 'Course those monster colas are mighty pretty!
You're making me jealous now Bud. True, fluoros just don't penetrate:-(
pH
>
>The right system for you is going to be different than the right system
for anyone else, at least a little. If you're thinking about growing, check
out the Newbie Resources pH posts here from time to time and go buy a good
book. My favorite is the Marijuana Grower's Insider's Guide by Mel Frank.
I'm sure others have other suggestions.
>
>Do a bunch of reading and a bunch of thinking before you start. Poor
preparation is the downfall of many a would be grower. Realistically
analyze your growing space and design a system that is right for the space.
Start with good quality seeds. Pay careful attention, but don't kill your
babies with kindness. Don't tell anyone, ever! And most of all, have fun.
>
>Bud
No comments:
Post a Comment