The Real Truth about Rootbound and Transplanting

shnkrmn

Well-Known Member
Yes and wild corn is quite unpalatable, the wild apples on my tree will not provide a pleasant eating experience out of hand. Wild grapes are small, thick-skinned bitterish fruits. Wild pigs, while tasty, do not lend themselves to large-scale production the way a human-bred variety of hog will. The reason humans cultivate species is to improve their qualities, their yield, their flavor, their pharmacological potency and make them more suitable to our uses which are not necessarily congruent with their evolved place in nature. So again, I ask, why do you think we would set about breeding weakness into plants if they already had characteristics we considered ideal?
 

mxyz250newb

New Member
I could tell you many reasons why wild pigs are better, I've worked in a butchershop and pig belly slicing plant for a few years a while back. The pigs brought to slaughter are big, and SICK... you wouldnt believe the cancerous tumors... never seen one the same in my neighbors wild boars (not so wild I guess now, they are in a pen).

Also i'm not sure if it was originally indigenous to the area or not, but I've had wild corn while in Cambodia (went on a weeklong dirtbike adventure, if you follow the river line you will find all sorts of things growing naturally...) My guide was a good cook we had river crabs as well.

I'm sure theres some well bred strains of MJ out there, but there parents had to be KICKASS right? I still don't think you follow me where I'm going with this...

What I tried to say was, taking away from the original genetics (even when substituting kickass other genetics while crossing) still leaves you without the original kickass strain you HAD (if you never preserved it). Now your crossed plant might be pretty good or even great, but the genetics of the parents are lost... I guess if people only bred similar strains from the areas they naturally occured, this might be a non-issue but as you and I know that isn't always the case...

Yes there are some great breeders out there... but in my humble opinion we would be better off having a selection of original strains that we could then do with what we pleased...
 

Brick Top

New Member
I would observe however, that a wild, uncultivated cannabis plant growing in its natural habitat with approaching optimal rain, sun, etc. would probably not yield much of anything we usually desire in marijuana; big fat stinky buds that stone the bejesus out of you; that is what is bred into the plant. By humans.
I would have to agree that based on what a fair percentage of people have grown to feel is of utmost importance in a strain might not be found in cannabis strains that are growing wild. But with that you have to factor in that many strains, most in fact, are bred so they can be grown indoors so certain limiting factors had to be taken into consideration during breeding and alterations made for indoor growing alone, but that not in every case could it be proven that there was not some loss as a result of such alterations.

An example of cannabis growing wild, as in not cultivated by anyone, not someone's 'pot farm,' would be stories my brother in law has told me about cannabis that he would run across now and then while serving his two tours of duty in Vietnam. He said now and then while on patrol they would spot cannabis growing wild and the plants would be 20 feet tall and taller with stalks/stems that took a number of good hard whacks with a machete to fell them and they would have colas as large around or larger than his calf. Plants of that size with colas that large had to be fairly heavy producers.

Now you might wish to claim that the origin of the plants were likely the result of some bird, some animal that picked up seeds from a location where someone was growing a strain that had been bred by man and deposited in some very remote jungle location and while growing wild were still not true 'wild' strains and if you asked him he would say they were pure wild strain, and the question of if they were or were not wild/natural strains or not could be argued until the cows come home and there never be a resolution to it that could be proven to be correct. Regardless of the true origin the herb was extremely potent, what he calls more than psychedelic.

Just for the sake of the discussion let's for the moment say the strain was totally wild, that man had never had any influence on it. A strain like that would provide a type of high that few people today have ever been lucky enough to experience and would obviously produce like mad, but in it's natural form it would be totally impractical to most growers today. Only those within the right range of latitude and who could safely grow outside would be able to grow it.

Another, whose true origin could be argued to be totally natural or the result of breeding, is what eventually became known as Romulan. It began as a tall lanky long flowering strain that was brought back to Canada, and possibly other areas but I do not know for sure, by Canadian soldiers who returned from the Korean War.

Over the years they acclimatized it to the regions they lived in and they would pick the shorter bushier faster flowering phenotypes to breed to each other and over time turned it into a short wide leafed faster flowering strain that later made it's way in a female clone only form to professional breeders who then made crosses and further made it more manageable and more in line with what growers were looking for, for indoor growing. But there is no way anyone could ever prove that man had any influence on the strain as it was originally found in Korea. It could at most be speculated.

I realize that in some parts of the world very many years ago there was bound to be some intentional and also unintentional breeding of various cannabis strains. But then there were some that due to being geographically isolated there was nothing else for them to be bred with other than themselves and I have to believe that in such areas, for as long as the strains existed, evolution had on it's own advanced them from being asexual reproducing plants well before man had any influence on them at all.
 

shnkrmn

Well-Known Member
Fascinating post. I'm going to remain skeptical about the possibility of 'landrace' strains completely uncultivated by humans. Seeds and pollen can travel quite amazingly. Escaped strains reintroduced to the wild, of course, resume an evolutionary course responsive to their natural environment, but they still contain (for a time) the traits that were bred in to them 'in captivity'. As you say we could argue til the cows come home about it. Korea has a long pharmacological relationship with cannabis as well, so I'm not sure about the Romulan either. But I'm just a lowly indica grower and will submissively show you my belly. :D

Re your last para: sex in cannabis. Were the sexes separated by human cultivation or nature? I ask because cannabis has a hermaphroditic tendency and so I wonder is primordial cannabis bisexual?
 

wookieslinger

Active Member
We recreate a enviroment for growing, last time I checked there is no bottom in the earth..

Damn fdd, that's sick, how many times did/do you have to water that bitch a day?
 

Brick Top

New Member
only those with true skills can pull off shit like that. everyone else needs BIGGER pots. ;)

The part about this that you have never yet gotten is that had you used a proper sized pot your results would have been much more impressive and you would not have risked the problems that go with root-bound plants.
 

Brick Top

New Member
We recreate a enviroment for growing, last time I checked there is no bottom in the earth..

And we have yet to see cannabis plants evolve to grow uber-tangled very tightly wound tiny root-balls rather than spreading out wide and digging deap ... and if uber-tangled very tightly wound tiny root-balls made cannabis plants grow better, evolution would have already figured it out thousands of years ago and we'd see it occurring naturally, even when grown in the ground where root space could be almost unlimited.
 

fdd2blk

Well-Known Member
The part about this that you have never yet gotten is that had you used a proper sized pot your results would have been much more impressive and you would not have risked the problems that go with root-bound plants.

i think it was a complete success. a pound and a half is nothing to regret. you are the one who can't accept that.

you do realize i put plants in the ground as well? i'm well aware of what happens with ample root space. i have tried and PROVEN my methods.

i'm putting you on my ignore list. you are too closed minded for me to deal with anymore. and i dread another one of your "pm's". it hasn't been fun, and it hasn't been nice. good-bye. :cool:
 

Brick Top

New Member
Originally Posted by Brick Top
And we have yet to see cannabis plants evolve to grow uber-tangled very tightly wound tiny root-balls rather than spreading out wide and digging deap ... and if uber-tangled very tightly wound tiny root-balls made cannabis plants grow better, evolution would have already figured it out thousands of years ago and we'd see it occurring naturally, even when grown in the ground where root space could be almost unlimited.

well that explains "topping". :roll:
Does it really? Would you be so kind as to explain how it explains it and also how the two things go hand in hand?
 

Brick Top

New Member
Originally Posted by Brick Top
The part about this that you have never yet gotten is that had you used a proper sized pot your results would have been much more impressive and you would not have risked the problems that go with root-bound plants.

i think it was a complete success. a pound and a half is nothing to regret. you are the one who can't accept that.
A pound and a half is impressive ... but my point remains that if you did not grow in pots that were to small that could have been two pounds or two and a half pound or maybe more.

I just do not understand the being willing to settle for less mentality when all it would take is a larger pot to have a good bit more. Is it just so you can say you got a pound and a half from from extremely root-bound plant grown in a pot that was way to small? I mean, is it your version of a party cup grow or a shot glass grow or something?

you do realize i put plants in the ground as well? i'm well aware of what happens with ample root space.
Well at least you know that ample space equates to higher yields. Like the plant below, found on another site. Grown in the ground, ample root space .... after harvest it had a dry weight of 9.9 pounds. The one and a half pounds is good, but why not go for the additional 8+ pounds if you can, or at least 3 or 4 more pounds, or maybe more, if in a pot that would be large enough for the plant?

That's what I don't understand.



 

Uncle Ben

Well-Known Member
A pound and a half is impressive ... but my point remains that if you did not grow in pots that were to small that could have been two pounds or two and a half pound or maybe more.
Absolutely. All things equal, the more the root mass and healthy foliage, the more the yield. Proven! ;)

I just do not understand the being willing to settle for less mentality when all it would take is a larger pot to have a good bit more.
Yep, less maintenance too. Remember the turbo posting fella at PG who posted hundreds of pix of the same plants, all in very small pots, and then he and his friends thought it was so cool? Guy promoted the Chunk stuff, forgot the name now. Another case of the blind following the blind.

The smallest size for indoor growing in soil I'd accept is 3 gallon. Knowing when and how to upcan is what's important. Even in a 3 gallon pot I would have to apply at least 1 liter of water TWICE a day per plant just to take care of the plant's incredible transpiration rate.

Tio
 

shnkrmn

Well-Known Member
so you guys don't agree with what I do at all? zero-veg sog? many small plants? My pots contain about a quart of volume, but I can grow 15 in the space of one tree and repeat ad nauseam every 8 weeks. I judge what I do by annual yield, not per plant. Curious about your views.
 

Uncle Ben

Well-Known Member
so you guys don't agree with what I do at all? zero-veg sog? many small plants? My pots contain about a quart of volume, but I can grow 15 in the space of one tree and repeat ad nauseam every 8 weeks. I judge what I do by annual yield, not per plant. Curious about your views.
It's not wrong, just not for me. I do SOB with a few plants, that's just my style of growing indoors - fewer but larger plants, higher yields, less maintenance. If you must use smaller pots, then there are work arounds such as using root tip pruning painted pots: https://www.rollitup.org/general-marijuana-growing/9114-spin-out-chemical-root-pruning.html Also, the plants shown in that thread are crammed into a rather small space. They just may be occupying the same space as your smaller plants.

UB
 

Hubert

Well-Known Member
I just do not understand the being willing to settle for less mentality when all it would take is a larger pot to have a good bit more. Is it just so you can say you got a pound and a half from from extremely root-bound plant grown in a pot that was way to small? I mean, is it your version of a party cup grow or a shot glass grow or something?
I can only speak for myself, but like I said before it seems as simple as not everyone has room to keep all their plants in large containers. It's not a willingness to settle for less, it comes from necessity. If I had room of course I'd use bigger pots for bigger plants, but since I don't I need to use smaller pots...and yes I get smaller plants because of it. The only point I'm arguing at all is that plants are not inherently unhealthy because they stay in smaller containers, they get that way because people don't adjust their watering/feeding.
 

Brick Top

New Member
Originally Posted by Brick Top
I just do not understand the being willing to settle for less mentality when all it would take is a larger pot to have a good bit more. Is it just so you can say you got a pound and a half from from extremely root-bound plant grown in a pot that was way to small? I mean, is it your version of a party cup grow or a shot glass grow or something?


I can only speak for myself, but like I said before it seems as simple as not everyone has room to keep all their plants in large containers. It's not a willingness to settle for less, it comes from necessity. If I had room of course I'd use bigger pots for bigger plants, but since I don't I need to use smaller pots...and yes I get smaller plants because of it. The only point I'm arguing at all is that plants are not inherently unhealthy because they stay in smaller containers, they get that way because people don't adjust their watering/feeding.
The particular message of mine that you quoted was really in reference to a certain person and a certain picture and not really intended as a general comment, though admittedly with what all I have said on the subject I could see where it could easily be taken as being such.

I can fully understand why some people decide to us smaller pots and that some might need to use smaller pots. But the fact is that once roots begin to circle a pot the plant is under some degree of stress and the more circling there is and the more tangling and intertwining that occurs the more the level of stress will increase.

If someone is experienced in using undersized pots and is diligent with what they do there is no questioning that they can do rather well, but they will never do as well as if they used pots that were of proper size. That is my main point.

Second is experienced and diligent or not, growing in undersized pots always has some degree of risk to it. These are some of the risks.

The following symptoms may be observed if you allow your plants to become root-bound:

1. Stunted Growth.

2. Stretching.

3. Smaller and slower bud production.

4. Needs watering too often.

5. Easy to burn with low % nutrient solution mixtures.

6. Wilting.

No plant will do as well as it otherwise could when it's root-bound if you are using a plant with plenty of room for its roots as your standard of judgment. If plants did better growing under root-bound conditions, it would seem that Mother Nature would have arranged for in situ (where they naturally occur) plants to grow with their roots in tight little cones or cubes, yet we never see that occur. Never.

Growth is simply a measure of the increase in a plant's biomass, how much bigger it has become (the weight of the sum of it's parts), and is the actual measure of how well a plant is doing. Tight roots restrict growth, reduce the amount of extension, and reduce the potential for an increase in mass, so even if someone thinks their plants are doing well the truth is tight roots are stressful and plants would rather have plenty of room for their roots to grow so they could grow as mother nature intended.

Many people claim that large pots promote or increase the risk of root-rot, especially in seedlings and small plants. I always start out my seedlings in the size pot I will use for the entire life of the plants. I have used 4-gallon pots but almost never, but they will work indoors. I have used 5-gallon pots a fair number of times but I prefer to use 7-gallon pots. I have never had any problem with root-rot with seedlings or small plants. The key here, is the soil. If you choose a very porous soil that drains well and supports no (or very little) perched water (that water in the saturated layer of soil at the bottom of the pot), you can grow a very small plant in a very large pot and make the plant MUCH happier than if you were growing it in an undersized pot where it's roots will be highly restricted.

Again, I can see why some people use undersized pots. But even if their plants appear to be happy and healthy, they are not. They are stressed and it is impossible for them to do as well as they otherwise would do if grown in pots that were the proper size. If someone has to grow in undersized pots, then that is what they have to do and all they can do is hope for the best. But no one who has the option of using larger proper sized pots should ever grow in undersized pots. Regardless of how well they do there will still have been some loss, possibly a significant loss, because of the stressful conditions they forced their plants to grow in when they did not need to do so and could of instead did better to much, much better had they instead used larger proper sized pots.
 
Top