Aussie Growers Thread

Papasmurf99

Papasmurf99

Well-Known Member
ruby fruit said:
How much is to much for your outdoor using megacrop mate ....
I'm using 15 grams per 10 litres from the second feed they got yesterday ...they seem to be praying nicely today in the morning sun ....I am going to take it easy on the amount of feeds i give them as my soil has been prepped to give them all goodies they need.
Plus I'm laying down this mulch today...$25 a bale but Covers 4m2 easy
Plus releases as much goodness like a top dressing that you would if you ground up aged chook shit and used that as a halfway thru veg top dress....

View attachment 4242049 View attachment 4242051
Click to expand...
Looks like good gear man, no idea what I chucked in haha reckon was a bit much but just had a suss and I think it's just a bit dry, gave em a drink and they perked up. Real dark green tho lol should get some decent growth
 
OzCocoLoco

OzCocoLoco

Well-Known Member
Flower pots have had a checkered history in the minds of the gardener. Often taken for granted, seldom, if ever, has the fact of the pot itself been studied-until now. And yet the story of the flower pot is that of the development of horticulture. To grow an exotic like an orange tree in Britain, to sprout rare seeds and to root the stems of living plants to produce offspring identical to the parent, gardeners needed a way to control the tender new plant's immediate environment.


In the same way Linnaeus was organizing the plant kingdom to fit a scientific system, flower pot forms were designed to "work" for horticulturists with ever greater efficiency. Individualized terra cotta items such as seed pans, graduated pots and saucers, orchid pans, multi-perforated pots and forcing pots were utilized by horticulturalists to aid a plant's growth at each stage of development. Pots were specifically designed to fit the plant's root system: tall "long toms" were made for plants with long tap roots, while diminutive thimbles gave new seedlings their first individual homes.
 
OzCocoLoco

OzCocoLoco

Well-Known Member
Plastic containers have been the predominant container type in U.S. greenhouse and nursery production since the 1980s. Serving a variety of functions and found in a multitude of shapes, sizes, and colors, plastic containers are used for propagating, growing, transporting, and marketing ornamental crops (Evans and Hensley, 2004; Hall et al., 2010; Helgeson et al., 2009). This reliability and flexibility come at a relatively inexpensive price, which has helped establish the prominence of plastic containers in ornamental production. Unfortunately, this combination of characteristics also creates an overabundance of unreclaimed plastic waste each production cycle. Most plastics are derived from petroleum—a nonrenewable resource that, while still relatively inexpensive, is subject to price fluctuations (Knox and Chappell, 2011). Furthermore, given limited access to recycling centers, high collection and sanitation costs, and chemical contamination concerns, used plastic containers are primarily disposed of in landfills (Garthe and Kowal, 1993; Hall et al., 2010; Helgeson et al., 2009). Amidon Recycling (1994) estimated that the United States used 521 million pounds of plastic in agriculture in 1992. Of this, 66% was used in the nursery industry in the form of containers. The most recent estimate of plastic use for ornamental plant containers raises this to 1.66 billion pounds (Schrader, 2013).

Many consumers view the use of plastic products in ornamental plant production as an unsustainable practice (Behe et al., 2013). In market studies where various sustainable greenhouse plant attributes were tested, container type was consistently listed as having the greatest impact on consumer product perception (Yue et al., 2011). These findings, coupled with more general market studies on green consumer habits have motivated some growers to explore avenues for making their businesses more “green”—both in terms of environmental impact and public perception (Dennis et al., 2010; Hall et al., 2009). Green industry stakeholders (i.e., nursery, greenhouse, and landscape professionals) have identified the use of plantable or compostable biodegradable container alternatives as a marketable way to improve the sustainability of current production systems. This article provides an update on advancements in the development of alternative biocontainers in nursery and greenhouse production, with the hope of fostering future research and adoption by the green industry.
.
 
OzCocoLoco

OzCocoLoco

Well-Known Member
Types of alternative containers
Alternative containers were developed to replace traditional petroleum-based plastic containers in nursery and greenhouse production. Plastic-based containers consume landfill space and can remain in our environment indefinitely. Sustainable containers are designed to decompose rather than contribute to landfill waste. The ability to degrade when planted or composted is a major marketing focus that distinguishes biocontainers from their conventional plastic counterparts. As such, alternative containers are classified as plantable, compostable, or recycled plastic, based on their requirements for and ability to degrade at the end of their crop production life and parent materials
containers constructed from each.
 
OzCocoLoco

OzCocoLoco

Well-Known Member
Plantable.
Plantable biocontainers can be planted directly into the soil. These containers are intended to withstand watering and handling during short-term production and shipping conditions. Once planted, the containers are intended to rapidly break down and allow plant roots to penetrate the pot and grow into the soil. The use of plantable containers eliminates container removal and disposal costs and can reduce the cleanup time required at installation. Plantable containers could eliminate root disruption and transplanting shock (Khan et al., 2000). To function as claimed, it is imperative that plantable containers do in fact break down quickly once installed to allow root establishment into surrounding soil (Evans and Hensley, 2004). The rate of container biodegradation in landscapes depends on many factors. The container material, available nitrogen, moisture, temperature, pH, microbes, and other soil factors can all impact degradation (unpublished data). In addition, regional differences may occur due to different soil types and climates.

Compostable.
Plants must be removed from compostable containers at installation and the containers are composted separately. These containers do not degrade quickly or completely in the landscape. Most bioplastics, as well as hard rice hull, peat, and thick-walled paper or wood fiber containers intended for longer term production fall into this category. Compostable materials can be further differentiated based on whether they require industrial composting facilities to break down completely. Industrially compostable containers may not break down in a typical backyard compost pile due to unsuitable temperature, moisture, pH, aeration, and microbial populations. ASTM D6400 is the main standard for certification of industrially compostable plastics in the United States (ASTM, 2004). According to this standard, bioplastics must be at least 60% degraded within 90 d at or above 140 °F to be considered compostable.

Recycled plastic.
These containers are produced from recycled plastic water and soft drink bottles. The used bottles are converted into a liquid and blended with biodegradable natural fibers, such as cotton, jute, vegetable fibers, or bamboo. When heat pressed, the mixture bonds to produce a fabric-like geotextile that is sewn into a container. These containers are not biodegradable or compostable but will slowly disintegrate to a point that leaves behind much less residue (much reduced carbon footprint) compared with plastic containers derived entirely from petrochemicals. An example of this type of product is the Root Pouch (Root Pouch, Hillsboro, OR).

Previous SectionNext Section
Materials used to produce alternative containers
Alternative containers can be made from a variety of natural materials. These containers are generally made from renewable materials that are often by-products of an industrial process. Their use in the manufacture of containers can significantly reduce landfill waste by using waste from another process.

Pressed fiber.
There are a wide variety of hot-pressed fiber containers available on the market. These are constructed from fibrous materials such as rice hulls (Oryza sativa), wheat (Triticum aestivum), paper, peat, wood pulp, spruce fibers (Picea sp.), coir fiber from coconut palm (Cocos nucifera), rice straw, bamboo (subfamily Bambusodeae), or composted cow manure. Fiber containers are semiporous and promote water and air exchange between the rooting substrate and surroundings. The containers may be biodegradable or compostable depending on the material and the manufacturing process. Some containers include a natural or synthetic binding material such as resins, glue, wax, latex, or cow manure. Other containers depend on the material itself to provide structural stability and extended life span for long-term use. Pressed fiber containers tend to have varying degrees of rigidity, material strength, and decay resistance depending on source material and processing. Unlike plastic, which provides relatively consistent performance in a mechanized production system, the resiliency of pressed fiber containers depends on the container (source material, material moisture content, binder, etc.). Production practices affect the environment to which the containers are subjected (irrigation, use of shade/supplemental lighting, ambient temperature, etc.). Plant rooting pattern, pot spacing, and production duration can also influence container performance and lifespan. Also, some types of fiber containers weigh significantly more than a thin-walled plastic container—especially when saturated with water, which impacts container movement during production as well as shipping costs.

Bioplastics.
Bioplastics are similar to traditional plastics and are created from either biopolymers (nonpetroleum based) or a blend of biopolymers and petrochemical-based polymers. Biopolymer-based plastics are produced using renewable raw materials. Starch or cellulose is obtained from organic feed stocks [i.e., beet (Beta vulgaris), corn (Zea mays), potato (Solanum tuberosum), cassava (Manihot esculenta), sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum), palm fiber, or wheat]. Protein is acquired from soybeans (Glycine max) or keratin from waste poultry feathers. Lipids are derived from plant oils and animal fats. These raw materials are usually blended with fossil fuel-based polymers derived from petrochemical refining to reduce cost, enhance performance, or both (Riggi et al., 2011). There are two main types of bioplastics currently used in the manufacture of nursery containers: 1) starch-based plastics and 2) poly lactic acid (PLA). Starch-based plastics are water soluble, so starch blends are produced by linking 20% to 80% of starch with either bio-based or fossil fuel-based polymers to improve their physical and chemical characteristics. Poly lactic acid is produced by anaerobic fermentation of feedstock and is mainly used with starch blends due to their slow biodegradability in soil. Bioplastics can be processed on equipment designed for petrochemical plastics, eliminating the need to develop new industrial machinery (Koeser et al., 2013a). The advantages of bioplastics are their physical properties including light weight, structural stability, rigidity, resistance to decay, and being the most similar to traditional plastics, which allows them to be easily integrated into a wide variety of production systems involving both short-term and long-term crops. Most bioplastic containers are intended to be removed and either composted or anaerobically digested at the end of plant production. The slow degradability inherent to bioplastics would affect root establishment if the container was not removed before transplanting. Some containers such as the SoilWrap (Ball Horticultural Co., West Chicago, IL), a bioplastic-based sleeve design (see below), will degrade in the soil and are considered plantable pots.

Sleeves.
There are several types of containers available in small sizes that are simply growing substrate wrapped in a paper, fiber, or bioplastic sleeve. These are not true containers, as they must be kept in a tray until the plant’s roots hold the substrate together. These are often paper containers, which are plantable and fully degrade in a single season in the central and southern United States. Further north, they may persist for over 1 year. An example of commercially available sleeve is Ellepot (Blackmore Co., Belleville, MI) made from paper.

Previous SectionNext Section
 
OzCocoLoco

OzCocoLoco

Well-Known Member
Effect of alternative containers on plant production
While biocontainers can reduce waste going into the landfill, that is only one of many environmental and economic aspects that may change as a grower transitions from conventional plastic pots to alternative containers. Past and ongoing research has documented differences and similarities regarding plant growth, plant quality, water requirements, mechanized production success, transplant shock, and a variety of container-related physical attributes. This section summarizes the current knowledge and potential issues associated with production and postproduction biocontainer use.

Plant growth and quality.
Positive and negative impacts of using biocontainers compared with plastic containers have been reported on plant growth and development during production or establishment into the landscape. At the Center for Applied Horticulture Research (CAHR, Vista, CA), tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) plants grown in plastic containers had greater shoot dry weight than plants grown in wood fiber (Fertil Pot/DOT Pot; Fertil International, Boulogne-Billancourt, France), decomposed cow manure (CowPot; East Canaan, CT), and coconut coir pots but not different from plants grown in recycled paper (Western Pulp; Corvallis, OR) containers (CAHR, 2009). Root dry weight was greater for plants in plastic containers compared with all other container types. When planted in the field, recycled paper and coir containers degraded more slowly than Fertil Pot/DOTPot and CowPot. ‘Midnight’ (Dreams) petunia (Petunia ×hybrida) grown in bioplastic (SoilWrap) and slotted rice hull (NetPot; Summit Plastic Co., Akron, OH) containers had a larger growth index compared with plants grown in plastic pots; whereas, plants grown in bioplastic (Terra Shell/OP47, Summit Plastic Co.), coir, and plastic pots were not different (CAHR, 2010). Petunia flower number was not different during production or postproduction for plants grown in bioplastic (SoilWrap), rice hull (NetPots), and coir containers compared with plants in plastic control containers (CAHR, 2010). Similarly, recycled paper, peat (Jiffy-Pot; Jiffy International, Kristiansand, Norway), bioplastic (Terra Shell/OP47), rice straw, cow manure, coconut coir, and rice hull container types produced marketable transplants [‘Score Red’ geranium (Pelargonium ×hortorum), ‘Dazzler Lilac Splash’ impatiens (Impatiens wallerana), and ‘Grape Cooler’ vinca (Catharanthus roseus)] within the same time frame (Kuehny et al., 2011). Kuehny et al. (2011) also investigated shoot dry weight of ‘Dazzler Lilac Splash’ impatiens produced in 4- and 5-inch biocontainers at three sites. For the 5-inch size containers, there was no difference in shoot dry weight at any location. For the 4-inch size, no container type was superior for all measurements (root and shoot dry weight and root:shoot ratio) at all three locations. Following greenhouse production, plants in plantable containers were installed in the Longwood Gardens (Kennett Square, PA) landscape and generally performed no differently than plants produced in plastic containers (Kuehny et al., 2011).

‘Eckespoint Classic Red’ poinsettia (Euphorbia pulcherrima) plants grown for 12 to 16 weeks in recycled paper (Western Pulp) containers under greenhouse conditions were reported to have increased root and shoot dry weight, plant height, and bract area index compared with plants grown in straw (StrawPot; Ivy Acres, Baiting Hollow, NY), composted cow manure (CowPot), coconut coir, rice hull (NetPot), wheat starch-derived bioresin (Terra Shell/OP47), plastic, and sphagnum peatmoss and wood pulp (Jiffy-Pot) containers (Lopez and Camberato, 2011). In an experiment using ebb-and-flood irrigation, shoot dry weight of ‘Rainier Purple’ cyclamen (Cyclamen persicum) grown in bioplastic, solid rice hull, slotted rice hull, recycled paper, peat, cow manure, rice straw, and coconut coir containers for 15 weeks was greater than for plants grown in plastic containers (Beeks and Evans, 2013a). A 3-month study showed no negative impact of plantable containers [bioplastic (SoilWrap), paper (Ellepot) and slotted rice hull] on root and shoot development of two sedum species (Sedum hybridum ‘Immergrunchen’ and Sedum spuricum‘Red Carpet Stonecrop’) and ‘Big Blue’ liriope (Liriope muscari) during production in a quonset and in the landscape (Ingram and Nambuthiri, 2012).

Water use.
Evans and Hensley (2004) found that peat containers wicked water from the substrate causing ‘Janie Bright Yellow’ marigold (Tagetes patula), ‘Cooler Blush’ vinca, and ‘Orbit Cardinal’ geranium plants to wilt. Plants grown in peat (Jiffy-Pot) containers had the lowest shoot dry weight of all three container types, whereas plants had the greatest shoot dry weight when grown in plastic containers followed by plants grown in poultry feather containers. Tomato seedlings grown in corn/palm-derived biocontainers had reduced biomass compared with those in plastic containers (Sakurai et al., 2005a). Further, seedlings in biocontainers had slower initial establishment in the field compared with those grown in plastic containers (Sakurai et al., 2005b). The researchers attributed this to inadequate irrigation and temporary root restriction of plants grown in biocontainers (Sakurai et al., 2005a, 2005b). Plant biomass is sometimes greater when plants are produced in alternative containers, but in other research, plants produced in conventional plastic containers have greater growth. The inconsistency may be due to increased potential for water loss through biocontainer sidewalls and related factors, which are the subject of this section.
 
Venus55

Venus55

Well-Known Member
ruby fruit said:
I mentioned to venus before about car trailer nets or something she could drape them over the plants then clip them to the walls of the shed.
Seems like my opinion to her doesnt count for shit no more so it is what it is...we veg our indoor big here like she does but we use nets etc .....

o_OView attachment 4242058
Click to expand...
I would like to take your advice as it’s the same as hubbies only thing is it would make hand watering super fucken hard

Like how would I get my watering can in and under the branches?
 
reza92

reza92

Well-Known Member
klx said:
Yeah sure and if you got the cash why not. I still prefer COBs to mid power diodes, even though everyone seems to be heading that way. Bigger margins I expect.
Click to expand...
More that manufactures are leaning away from larger cob diodes in favour for the smaller microprinted diodes commonly placed on pcb panels and strips
 
Mofo83

Mofo83

Well-Known Member
reza92 said:
Cree are also the most knocked off
Click to expand...
This is from a reputable hydro shop who have been around in for ages ..so for my level of skill and knowledge I'm fucking stoked with what I've read about these and I'm not in a position to deal with the hps , so I'll keep ya all posted on how things go..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top