greasemonkeymann
Well-Known Member
well...
i'm a skeptic but I hope it works out for ya man
i'd have a gaggle of questions for the manufacturers of that...
Micro Herd Nerds
- Thread starter DANKSWAG
- Start date
-
- Tags
- microherd nerds
i'm a skeptic but I hope it works out for ya man
i'd have a gaggle of questions for the manufacturers of that...
backtracker
Well-Known Member
used for years it works great and the plants love it. skeptic is my middle name.
calliandra
Well-Known Member
Sheez guys you really can't be left alone for a few days can you LMAO
@NaturalFarmer to me it sounds like you're totally misunderstanding what Ingham is saying regarding nutrients in the soil.
You can read up on the principle when Teaming with Fungi comes out - based on a interview I heard, I believe Lowenfels will explain this, perhaps more clearly, with regard to phosphorus and mycorrhizae, in his new book.
Where do you think the minerals in your comfrey came from? I mean, like, originally?
And how did they get out of that hard block of molten lava into a furry plant?
Also, Ingham did not do all the studies her work is based upon - she is collecting the findings of many many soil scientists - studying, as they do, single aspects of the many the soil food web has to offer. So I don't understand how you come to a "crazy Ingham vs. the rest of the sane soil science world" scenario kind of positioning for her? Unless you're one of those chemically thinking people who will refuse to change if it kills the all of us? haha
@greasemonkeymann of COURSE there is return, there has to be, its part of the process. Ingham never said there will be no organic input.
In fact she questions what actually is a good percentile of humus and strongly questions the 5% still usually referred to in soil science as way too low.
Also, Ingham actually makes this "all nutes are in the soil" statement within regards to the addition of fertilizers.
And while @DANKSWAG you came flying in hoity toity super superior haha, but you do have a point in saying (or that is how I understood it) that while we are still adding this or that for some specific nutrient, we're still thinking chemically - of feeding the plant, and not of tending to the soil as we should be doing.
@NaturalFarmer to me it sounds like you're totally misunderstanding what Ingham is saying regarding nutrients in the soil.
You can read up on the principle when Teaming with Fungi comes out - based on a interview I heard, I believe Lowenfels will explain this, perhaps more clearly, with regard to phosphorus and mycorrhizae, in his new book.
Where do you think the minerals in your comfrey came from? I mean, like, originally?
And how did they get out of that hard block of molten lava into a furry plant?
Also, Ingham did not do all the studies her work is based upon - she is collecting the findings of many many soil scientists - studying, as they do, single aspects of the many the soil food web has to offer. So I don't understand how you come to a "crazy Ingham vs. the rest of the sane soil science world" scenario kind of positioning for her? Unless you're one of those chemically thinking people who will refuse to change if it kills the all of us? haha
@greasemonkeymann of COURSE there is return, there has to be, its part of the process. Ingham never said there will be no organic input.
In fact she questions what actually is a good percentile of humus and strongly questions the 5% still usually referred to in soil science as way too low.
Also, Ingham actually makes this "all nutes are in the soil" statement within regards to the addition of fertilizers.
And while @DANKSWAG you came flying in hoity toity super superior haha, but you do have a point in saying (or that is how I understood it) that while we are still adding this or that for some specific nutrient, we're still thinking chemically - of feeding the plant, and not of tending to the soil as we should be doing.
Last edited:
calliandra
Well-Known Member
hey Dank, where'd you get this one from?Here is a great soil food web diagram...
too bad they messed up the systematics... or are springtails not microarthropods? (sorry I'm tired and toolazy to google)
calliandra
Well-Known Member
welcome to the microscoping world - looks like youre is way better than mine!
Did you take a microscope course, or get Tim Wilson's CD for identifying your critters?
Because that big round, it's an air bubble
And the comma-like thing in it on the last pic: probably part of an insect body.Your first pic does have a very nice fungal strand though!
greasemonkeymann
Well-Known Member
oh no, I totally follow what you are saying, I was moreso kinda just patronizing the OP's over simplified question.Sheez guys you really can't be left alone for a few days can you LMAO
@NaturalFarmer to me it sounds like you're totally misunderstanding what Ingham is saying regarding nutrients in the soil.
You can read up on the principle when Teaming with Fungi comes out - based on a interview I heard, I believe Lowenfels will explain this, perhaps more clearly, with regard to phosphorus and mycorrhizae, in his new book.
Where do you think the minerals in your comfrey came from? I mean, like, originally?
And how did they get out of that hard block of molten lava into a furry plant?
Also, Ingham did not do all the studies her work is based upon - she is collecting the findings of many many soil scientists - studying, as they do, single aspects of the many the soil food web has to offer. So I don't understand how you come to a "crazy Ingham vs. the rest of the sane soil science world" scenario kind of positioning for her? Unless you're one of those chemically thinking people who will refuse to change if it kills the all of us? haha
@greasemonkeymann of COURSE there is return, there has to be, its part of the process. Ingham never said there will be no organic input.
In fact she questions what actually is a good percentile of humus and strongly questions the 5% still usually referred to in soil science as way too low.
Also, Ingham actually makes this "all nutes are in the soil" statement within regards to the addition of fertilizers.
And while @DANKSWAG you came flying in hoity toity super superior haha, but you do have a point in saying (or that is how I understood it) that while we are still adding this or that for some specific nutrient, we're still thinking chemically - of feeding the plant, and not of tending to the soil as we should be doing.
mostly out of boredom really
calliandra
Well-Known Member
Yes it was oversimplified, and actually the essential part was left out.
To set that straight:
Any entry-level soil science textbook will provide tables of the mineral content of soils worldwide.
And the vast majority of our bedrock contains all the minerals plants could ever need. HOWEVER! They are not in plant - available form.
So for the past few decades we've been adding these nutrients in available forms directly = chemical approach to agriculture.
All Ingham says is that we should just focus instead on creating the conditions for microorganisms and plants to do their cooperative nutrient harvesting thing, as they have been doing for ages. If we have a fully functional soil food web in place, the plant will get all it could need in exactly the amounts it needs without us pouring anything extra on.
It's pretty basic actually, nothing iconoclastic about it at all
So much so, that I feel I need to add some of my own thoughts haha
Namely on this fully functional soil food web.
Out in nature, it all happens of itself, the plant lives, it loses leaves, practically self-mulches and maybe feeds a few more while it's at it, lala everyone is happy.
The saprophytic (=rock-eating) microherd breaks those non-plant-available minerals down into forms that can be used by the rest of the microherd, through which they cycle until they reach the plant in a form it can use. Iterate a few cycles of life and death, and organic matter will additionally return those nutrients, that originally came from the bedrock, now in a more readily available form, to the soil.
So a fully functional microherd also includes that part of the microherd that specializes on organic matter.
And that is why our pot soils deplete over time if we just cook up a nice soil and let them grow in there, adding in nothing - from a microbiological perspective.
There may still be saprophytes in there, who have enough mineral matter to chew through for another few aeons, but other parts of the soil food web dwindle as their foodstock is used up and not replenished. We still know so little about the interactions and interdependencies of soil organisms! But I imagine that it does take the whole ecosystem for it to work effectively.
Cheers!
greasemonkeymann
Well-Known Member
absolutely, but it's important to remember that the plant is designed to need and use all of it's detritus as it's nutrients, so inevitably when we smoke the flowers, that is a X-amount of needed nutrients that the plant will never get back, so in containers, even if we gave all the leaves back to them i'd speculate they'd need more, what comes out, must go back inOut in nature, it all happens of itself, the plant lives, it loses leaves, practically self-mulches and maybe feeds a few more while it's at it, lala everyone is happy.
The saprophytic (=rock-eating) microherd breaks those non-plant-available minerals down into forms that can be used by the rest of the microherd, through which they cycle until they reach the plant in a form it can use. Iterate a few cycles of life and death, and organic matter will additionally return those nutrients, that originally came from the bedrock, now in a more readily available form, to the soil.
So a fully functional microherd also includes that part of the microherd that specializes on organic matter.
And that is why our pot soils deplete over time if we just cook up a nice soil and let them grow in there, adding in nothing - from a microbiological perspective.
There may still be saprophytes in there, who have enough mineral matter to chew through for another few aeons, but other parts of the soil food web dwindle as their foodstock is used up and not replenished. We still know so little about the interactions and interdependencies of soil organisms! But I imagine that it does take the whole ecosystem for it to work effectively.
Cheers!
life, feeds on life, feeds on life, feeds on life
this is necessary.
(get the reference?)
so in order for the organic matter to actually be able to sustain the plant, all of it must be allowed to degrade back into it.
which is where us compost-monkeys get involved, people happily throw away their leaves and grass clippings, and it just so happens that the cannabis plant isn't too picky on where that new fresh nutrient-loaded humus comes from.
meangreengrowinmachine
Well-Known Member
Well arent the flowers technically to produce seeds and procreate more so then to re feed the plant itself? I have often thought that must be why the plant produces so much resin to make the bud act like a a burr and snag on passing animals and then move the seed along to other areas, as opposed to other fruits such as apples where the idea is to have the fruit ingested. Fun stuff! lol
greasemonkeymann
Well-Known Member
well yes and no, to be honest nobody knows exactly why the plant creates cannabinoids, nobody know why humans have cannabinoid receptors (now THATS the fascinating shit)
but there are lots of theories on why the plant creates the actual trichomes and such
Some say it's to protect the plant from temps (think mini-heat-sinks), excess water transpiration
the most common theory is to protect it from harmful UV rays
Furthermore some even say it's to keep animals from ingesting the seeds, after all, if you give fresh trichome-covered buds to anything and they'll be sorry..
But to answer your question, no I absolutely am 100% certain the plant is supposed to use the degrading flowers to act as a fresh humus supply of macronutrients to the seeds for the following spring
just think about it, it's the same concept as most fruiting things, apples, avocados, etc, all the "fruit" that we all love and enjoy is in fact food for the seed, rather than for humans.
Nature is a smart mofo, it's had millions of years to figure it out, and as humans we understand so little of it
I mean go look up what "humus" is
and that definition leaves a whooooole lot to be interpreted, humans don't understand a lot of stuff, and yet in some facets we are WAY beyond where we should be...
DonBrennon
Well-Known Member
This is what it's all about, proper discussion about what's going on it the soil.Yes it was oversimplified, and actually the essential part was left out.
To set that straight:
Any entry-level soil science textbook will provide tables of the mineral content of soils worldwide.
And the vast majority of our bedrock contains all the minerals plants could ever need. HOWEVER! They are not in plant - available form.
So for the past few decades we've been adding these nutrients in available forms directly = chemical approach to agriculture.
All Ingham says is that we should just focus instead on creating the conditions for microorganisms and plants to do their cooperative nutrient harvesting thing, as they have been doing for ages. If we have a fully functional soil food web in place, the plant will get all it could need in exactly the amounts it needs without us pouring anything extra on.
It's pretty basic actually, nothing iconoclastic about it at all
So much so, that I feel I need to add some of my own thoughts haha
Namely on this fully functional soil food web.
Out in nature, it all happens of itself, the plant lives, it loses leaves, practically self-mulches and maybe feeds a few more while it's at it, lala everyone is happy.
The saprophytic (=rock-eating) microherd breaks those non-plant-available minerals down into forms that can be used by the rest of the microherd, through which they cycle until they reach the plant in a form it can use. Iterate a few cycles of life and death, and organic matter will additionally return those nutrients, that originally came from the bedrock, now in a more readily available form, to the soil.
So a fully functional microherd also includes that part of the microherd that specializes on organic matter.
And that is why our pot soils deplete over time if we just cook up a nice soil and let them grow in there, adding in nothing - from a microbiological perspective.
There may still be saprophytes in there, who have enough mineral matter to chew through for another few aeons, but other parts of the soil food web dwindle as their foodstock is used up and not replenished. We still know so little about the interactions and interdependencies of soil organisms! But I imagine that it does take the whole ecosystem for it to work effectively.
Cheers!
@calliandra , shit, I've been hiding it so long, I'd better 'come out', I think I love you, LMFAO..............that post is beautiful.
I'm on neither side of the argument, just here to learn. I think the first thing to do is to differentiate between 'soil' and 'growing media in a container'!!!!!!!!, totally different things which are generally thought of and discussed as the same thing and Elaine Ingham is usually talking about real soil and farmland, not growing in pots
@greasemonkeymann, do you not think @meangreengrowinmachine might be on to something with the removal of seed? All in all, I do agree with the 'Law of return', but, as MGGM said, the main purpose of the flower is to produce seed(the most nutritional part of the plant), to be dispersed in places so it germinates somewhere away from the parent plant.
Also, can't remember the exact details at the mo' obviously, but isn't this how permaculture work? Re-cycle everything you can, but the main inputs, ie. Carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen and oxygen, come free and this is how 'produce' or 'output' is sustainable?
greasemonkeymann
Well-Known Member
oh sure, I wasn't advocating getting the plant to produce seed and then compost those back in, it was more of a discussion on how the plants biology is designed, I mean everything that dies off it, is used to feed the next yrs plant
flowers and all
and I'm not even saying that we should sacrifice some of our flowers for the sake of composting, it was more of an example as to why we need to keep "feeding" it compost.
Heh, and yeaa
Calliandra is a cutie
Jaybodankly
Well-Known Member
Ok, who is going to compost an elbow of mighty fine?
Fastslappy
Well-Known Member
me it had brot , but then with brot it's not might fine
anymore lolthe worms love it too !
DonBrennon
Well-Known Member
What's peep's thoughts on composting iso washed bud? or adding it to the worm bin? It's been sat airing for 2 weeks since the wash
Jaybodankly
Well-Known Member
It is fine wormfood. If you are concerned about the alcohol. Add some water and bring it to a boil. Alcohol boils off easily at 100 degrees.
greasemonkeymann
Well-Known Member
not sure, I do know there aare lots of microbes that ingest and compost petroleum products, so I imagine a hydrocarbon wouldn't be much different
try it and see, i'd be shocked if it wasn't composted in no time at all
calliandra
Well-Known Member
Haha cut it out guys you're getting me all blushy
Yeah DonBrennon, I was just thinking about pots being different today when I re-/uppotted my chilis & basil today. To my surprise, I had a whole gaggle of real earthworms, the deep digging garden kind, chilling out at pot bottom (and a few getting ready to lay eggs too), but dam was the soil compacted down there and was even going anaerobic - and it was really really fine, just like you always point out happens over time, Grease.
So I thought, aeration is key.
Mixed it up to about 50%, partially organic (grain hulls), and different mineral ones, from quartz sand to some crushed broken pottery. Plus a small handful of worm compost from my new batch (yay!) - and it all looks sooo much better now -the soil fluffy and airy, and the plants were visibly going "ahh".
Where,dear, have you ever seen an absolute in nature?
I'm quite with you as to the general cycle and intention, but on your 100% I must disagree
Out there, in those freely growing spaces we refer to as "nature", plants do not grow in isolation.
So right next to your untouched landrace cannabis plant, you have a whole bunch of cohabitants, maybe same species, maybe others.... So what you're saying is that they sit there all day sorting through the composting stuff and handing each other their respective "personal property"?! haha
I love the image though, thanks!
calliandra
Well-Known Member
nope, I couldn't, it's Tool lol
a pretty dark corner of it too, though strangely beautiful I found it scary actually, wouldn't go there again without someone to hold my hand through it!
Oh! so it was you who brought that word to the surface of my mind! I was wondering where it came from all of a sudden haha
Thanks, it's a fun one!
Last edited:
DANKSWAG
Well-Known Member
Sheez guys you really can't be left alone for a few days can you LMAO
@NaturalFarmer to me it sounds like you're totally misunderstanding what Ingham is saying regarding nutrients in the soil.
You can read up on the principle when Teaming with Fungi comes out - based on a interview I heard, I believe Lowenfels will explain this, perhaps more clearly, with regard to phosphorus and mycorrhizae, in his new book.
Where do you think the minerals in your comfrey came from? I mean, like, originally?
And how did they get out of that hard block of molten lava into a furry plant?
Also, Ingham did not do all the studies her work is based upon - she is collecting the findings of many many soil scientists - studying, as they do, single aspects of the many the soil food web has to offer. So I don't understand how you come to a "crazy Ingham vs. the rest of the sane soil science world" scenario kind of positioning for her? Unless you're one of those chemically thinking people who will refuse to change if it kills the all of us? haha
@greasemonkeymann of COURSE there is return, there has to be, its part of the process. Ingham never said there will be no organic input.
In fact she questions what actually is a good percentile of humus and strongly questions the 5% still usually referred to in soil science as way too low.
Also, Ingham actually makes this "all nutes are in the soil" statement within regards to the addition of fertilizers.
And while @DANKSWAG you came flying in hoity toity super superior haha, but you do have a point in saying (or that is how I understood it) that while we are still adding this or that for some specific nutrient, we're still thinking chemically - of feeding the plant, and not of tending to the soil as we should be doing.
Hi Calliandra,
welcome to the microscoping world - looks like youre is way better than mine!
Did you take a microscope course, or get Tim Wilson's CD for identifying your critters?
Because that big round, it's an air bubble
Your first pic does have a very nice fungal strand though!
Thank you for replying to the naysayers.
I've been so busy lately I haven't had time to address the erroneous statements made.
I have seen the CD and via youtube seen the classes on collection dilution and identification of microorganisms in the soil.
I've been busy building a gravity fed sip which I will be able to utilize not only the 6.125 cubic feet oxygenated water reservoir but I will be able to build an uninterrupted soil food web in 12.25 feet of soil or 4 yards of great biology.
My SIP is a 3.5 x 3.5 wood box with a pond liner and corrugated perforated drain pipe allowing for 4 inch waterline which is maintained by an internal 1/2 float valve that I fashioned and fabricated into the reservoir.
I've place to layer of Coco coir over the top of the corrugated pipe as a wicking agent, then a 4x4 cloth container with a liner behind it on the sides into the Coco to protect the wooden frame box.
And of course premium soil made from compost produced by my worm castings with my mixture a peat moss, coco coir, volcanic pumice and hundreds of red wrigglers.
Ah Life's a Soil Food Web....
DankSwag