16000+ watts medigrow: og kush+ 13 x 1kw hps + 3 x t5 badboys + grotek = *HAPPY JOY*

[hellraizer30]

I thought it was original to!! why would you attach a ganster term to it?

 

[fumble]

you foxy genius you! those treats look so yummy!

well, 1lb butter = 2 & 1/3 cups(ish). there are 7 x 1/3cups in 2 & 1/3 cups, therefore, 454g /7 = 65g (ish. it's actually 64.85), therefore 1/3 cup (83 mls -ish) = 65g

if you apply your ratio @ 210 g shake (yeah yeah i rounded up the one point) / 908 g butter = 0.23g worth of shake / 1g butter......

so, in a recipe calling for 2/3 cup butter (65 x 2 = 130g) that yields 24 portions, you take your 130 g (x 0.23 = 29.9g worth of shake), divide by 24, which is 1.25g worth of shake per serving.

stoner second-guessing in 3, 2, 1......

O...M...G!!! My head is swimming with all those numbers. I think maybe I shall just label as mild, medium, or strong. hehehe Thank you for your kitty cal-cu-la-tions.

 

[mugan]

you foxy genius you! those treats look so yummy!

well, 1lb butter = 2 & 1/3 cups(ish). there are 7 x 1/3cups in 2 & 1/3 cups, therefore, 454g /7 = 65g (ish. it's actually 64.85), therefore 1/3 cup (83 mls -ish) = 65g

if you apply your ratio @ 210 g shake (yeah yeah i rounded up the one point) / 908 g butter = 0.23g worth of shake / 1g butter......

so, in a recipe calling for 2/3 cup butter (65 x 2 = 130g) that yields 24 portions, you take your 130 g (x 0.23 = 29.9g worth of shake), divide by 24, which is 1.25g worth of shake per serving.

stoner second-guessing in 3, 2, 1......

quantum cutlery . .. my head hurts.
in this sentence

well, 1lb butter = 2 & 1/3 cups(ish). there are 7 x 1/3cups in 2 & 1/3 cups, therefore, 454g /7 = 65g (ish. it's actually 64.85), therefore 1/3 cup (83 mls -ish) = 65g

what do you mean by

there are 7 x 1/3cups in 2 & 1/3 cups

 

[mellokitty]

anybody know how to type in fractions?

uhhhh.... 1/3 cup x 3 = 3/3 cup = 1 cup, right? so 2 cups = 6/3 cups; 2 & 1/3 cup i= 7/3 cups or 7 x 1/3 cups.




.........am i making any sense? i'm kushbrained right now.

 

[mellokitty]

let's see if i can simplify this a bit while i wait for an upload....

[amount of shake(g)] / [amount of butter(g)] =

[amount of butter in recipe(g)] x , divide by [number of portions] = dosage in grams.

i guess there's a lot less math involved if you measure out the volume amount called for in the recipe and just weigh that.

 

[mellokitty]

 

[mellokitty]

why can't i take pictures like this of my tops?????? *whine*

 

[mellokitty]

.... we flush.

we don't use any sort of flushing solution; really nothing more than tapering down our ppms and finishing off with 7 to 10 days of water.

 

[mugan]

i think i kinda get it, do you have the macro button on your cam ?

 

[hellraizer30]

I flush too wouldnt stop either no matter what im told it does make a difference

 

[mugan]

<< to lazy to flush besides am organic

 

[arsenal69]

just got back from my two weeks of fun sun and hot springs....
was keeping up with your thread on the phone... that trip to the bitter cold north sounds really nice... death valley was 60 and sunny and the hotspring was 106 and amazing after the 30 miles of offroading to get there... was happy for my liftkit...
just noticed this was a reply to thread not a PM ohhhh well StONEr...

a living wall at the belaggio in vegas...

gathering kelp for compost....

hot springing it

kale FOREST!!!

killa kali cush

wow that looks nice there

 

[arsenal69]

https://www.rollitup.org/general-marijuana-growing/472289-new-grow-xmas-bud-29.html#post6672004

just put some new pic up m8

 

[mellokitty]

i think i kinda get it, do you have the macro button on your cam ?

i do, but i don't really know how to use it except "wait for the little tulip to come up on the screen and then wait 30 seconds" .....
the only non-macro shot up there is the one of the whole plant.
every time i take pics in there i end up with a bunch of blurry bud shots where the focus is not at the top of the bud like i want it, but on the 3rd leaf down or something like that.....

 

[fumble]

Bow chicka bow bow...now that is some sexy bud porn miss kitty.

 

[in the woods]

I'd suggest dividing that room into at least 2 rooms, if not 4. you have all the equipment. get some cycles going and have weed every 3-6 weeks. Your wasting a huge amount of space man. Nice room though.

 

[troutie]

cameras tend to like something dark to lock onto ... the tops of mine are quite light so it chooses to focus on the bud shade leaves, that looses me most of my bud detail in the Boken (background blur) ..... i'm getting me one of these before harvest

i can focus mine manually to get a better shot, but i'm a little lazy.... but your pictures are really nice, i wouldn't be unhappy with them .... or the subject matter

 

[mellokitty]

I flush too wouldnt stop either no matter what im told it does make a difference

<< to lazy to flush besides am organic

thank you both, i'm rather gunshy on the flush/not flush debate. it might just be my own experience, but i find the not-flush side is very quick to denigrate, dismiss, and condescend. (apologies to all the respectful non-flushers, y'all are *superstars*.)

i'm glad you brought up the organics thing too, muggie. according to one of my horticulturalist friends: (my bold)

"When it comes to flushing....you are starving the plant. That's the point. You are turning a fat man into a triathelte. We over fertilize and the plant will store unconverted nutrients in salt form the same way we store energy in fat or squirrels put away nuts for the winter! The unconverted salts will leave a bitter taste in ANY fruit. honestly I can even tell when someone has used diammonium phosphate rather than monopotassium phosphate both of which are totally over supplied. Most commercial growers keep feed levels consistent with growth. As hobby growers we focus on "juicing" the plant hence the build up. Interesting enough why does it not impact organics which can't really be flushed out of medium? This is due to the decomposition process rather than the immediate water soluble nature of chemicals. Chemical are similar to fast food. They will pack on pounds but its not an entirely natural process. I am getting away from the point. Flushing in its most pure form is to force the plant to metabolize and nutrients that have built up in tissue unconverted(example N in non amino form) by first stripping available nutrients away from the medium/root zone. Which in turn causes the plant to convert its reserves and build up essential oil, amino acids, brix content etc. There is no question if you flush for 14 days you will lose quantity but there is also little doubt it improves quality."

he used to work for Big Ag and has some insight into that field too, so i brought up the question of why there are so few peer-reviewed agricultural studies about overfertilising and was met with something between a snort and a guffaw - "kitty, we as cannabis farmers are a special demographic - most of us can afford to "juice" our crops, whereas buddy with the 100 acres of blueberries over there is probably more worried about fertilising enough. agricultural studies about overferting are uncommon because it's not a common enough problem among farmers for somebody to throw a bunch of money at it to study it."

fair do's.

further, i have yet another friend who just started her horticulture degree (gawd, i'm soooo jellllyyyy of all my hort students) and while helping her study cell components for basic botany, i found this little tidbit in her textbook: ("botany for gardeners", 3rd edition, brian capon, timber press) (again, my bold)
"A vacuole occupies a large part of the volume of most plant cells. Although the word 'vacuole' means 'empty space,' it is a membrane-bound inner sac containing much of a cell's stored water and serves as a repository of excess mineral nutrients as well as toxic waste products from the cell's metabolism."

....... which, to me, supports rather than undermines the whole "stripping of available rhizosphere nutrients to force the plant to metabolize stored ones" theory.

 

[mellokitty]

I'd suggest dividing that room into at least 2 rooms, if not 4. you have all the equipment. get some cycles going and have weed every 3-6 weeks. Your wasting a huge amount of space man. Nice room though.

thanks for the suggestion.
sorry, but i beg to differ on the "waste of space" thing. keeping in mind that we're maxed out at 35 plants. the way we do it, we get a full harvest every 3 months. with a perpetual, even if we harvested every 3 weeks, we'd be harvesting 1/4 of the amount of product, in 1/4 of the amount of time.

so we're looking at 3 months = 35 plants = 100%

OR

3 weeks = 25%, x 4 = 100% = 12 weeks or 3 months-ish, even less if you consider that 1 of those 4 would have to be a veg room.

there's really no difference except that neither mr kitty nor i are huge fans of perpetual harvest style, and, this way makes it WAY easier to keep track of, since we both also have job-jobs.

 

[mellokitty]

cameras tend to like something dark to lock onto ... the tops of mine are quite light so it chooses to focus on the bud shade leaves, that looses me most of my bud detail in the Boken (background blur) ..... i'm getting me one of these before harvest

i can focus mine manually to get a better shot, but i'm a little lazy.... but your pictures are really nice, i wouldn't be unhappy with them .... or the subject matter

thanks troutie, good to know about the light/dark thing!! (makes total sense why it focuses on the leaves now.) i've been playing with the manual focus too (finally figured out what the MF button is! ) but.... *ehem*

i also have this funny thing happen where the thumbnails i think look best blow up to be the blurriest of the bunch..... *sigh*
for my next budporn purchase i'm torn between a macro lens and digi-scope right now...... options options.