Jump to content

Marzcanna

Regular Member
  • Posts

    323
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Marzcanna last won the day on April 26

Marzcanna had the most liked content!

5 Followers

Grower Info

  • Current strains growing
    Blue Dream, Pure Power Plant, Durban Poison & Aurora
  • Preferred growing medium or system
    Coco
  • Preferred Nutrients
    Organics
  • Indoor or Outdoor
    Indoors and Outdoors

Recent Profile Visitors

286 profile views

Marzcanna's Achievements

Collaborator

Collaborator (7/14)

  • Conversation Starter Rare
  • Reacting Well Rare
  • Dedicated Rare
  • Very Popular Rare
  • First Post Rare

Recent Badges

519

Reputation

  1. Could we be seeing a calcium Def maybe?
  2. Honestly for many many years i always told everyone the real reason why cannabis was illegal was because if it had to be completely legal than tobacco sells would go down. Im always doing research on cannabis and today I came across a very interesting article title. It read: "The UK's largest tobacco firm says it sees cannabis as part of its future as it tries to move away from selling traditional cigarettes" WAIT WHAAAAT?! A tobacco company tryna move away from selling...well tobacco?? I wonder what the packaging would look like 🤔 The article further reads: British American Tobacco said it wanted to "accelerate" its transformation by reducing the health impact of its products. In March, BAT took a stake in Canadian medical cannabis maker Organigram. It also signed a deal to research a new range of adult cannabis products, initially focused on cannabidiol (CBD). "As we think about our portfolio for the future, certainly beyond nicotine products are interesting for us as another wave of future growth," BAT executive Kingsley Wheaton told Radio 4's Today Programme. Mr Wheaton, BAT's chief marketing officer, said it saw cannabis related products as part of its future growth. The firm is currently trialling a CBD vape product in Manchester. "I think [CBD vaping] is part of the future, but the present challenge is reduced harm in tobacco and nicotine alternatives, encouraging people to switch." "Marlboro maker could stop selling cigarettes in UK" Releasing its half year results to the end of June, the tobacco giant reported an 8.1% rise in revenues to £12.18bn. It said more than a third of its UK revenues now come from vaping brands such as Vuse, Velo and glo. The tobacco giant also saw its fastest gain in new customers, with users of non-combustible products - such as vapes - jumping 2.6 million to 16.1 million. 'The balance has decisively shifted' Big tobacco companies have tried to ride two horses in their communications to investors over the past decade. They have drawn attention to their efforts to get away from nasty cigarettes, while at the same time pointing to the big dividend payments the sales of those cigarettes support. That balance has now decisively shifted - in the companies' communications anyway - to the former. First Philip Morris International and now BAT have gone all out to stress their move into new types of less harmful products - vaping, heated rather than combusted tobacco, and, in BAT's case, cannabis. Progress is being made. BAT's results for the six months to the end of June show that sales of "new category" products grew by half to £942m. That is still a fraction of its total £12bn in revenue. Cigarette volumes - BAT sold 316 billion cigarettes in the six-month period - actually grew slightly thanks to a recovery in demand in emerging markets. Even though traditional tobacco remains by far its biggest business, the company says it is committed to change, pledging that "ESG (environmental, social and governance issues) is at the core of our strategy." It is hardly surprising that BAT wants to drape itself in the ESG flag. A recent piece of research by the accountancy firm PWC noted the rapid influx of shareholder money into ESG funds, ones that will only invest in companies with the right ethical credentials. It thinks that their combined value will be greater than all other types of funds within three years. BAT's share price has roughly halved in the past four years, from £55 to £27. The ability to tempt some of those ESG funds back into owning BAT shares might to do something to restore that flagging price. Tobacco sales recover Despite its commitment to healthier choices, BAT said sales of its cigarettes recovered in some developing nations following the end of coronavirus lockdowns when sales were banned in some countries. Sales of brands like Dunhill, Kent, Lucky Strike and Rothmans rose in the first half of the year in countries such as Brazil, Turkey and Pakistan. It said overall revenue from its combustibles division - cigarettes and heated tobacco products - fell 3% to £10.5bn. William Ryder, an equity analyst at Hargreaves Lansdown, said that there is still some way to go if the tobacco giant is to meet its target of £5bn in revenues from nicotine alternatives by 2025. "For now... BAT is still dependent on cigarettes... Traditional tobacco products still pay the dividend, and will do for some time," he said. REF: Article Source
  3. OK I ll have to be honest, I'm not sure I'd completely change over to curing this way, the buds do look great but I think traditional drying/curing if done the right way still ticks most boxes for a perfect bud. I seem to enjoy some type of flavour, I hate hay tasting buds..and ive had buds that tasted like hay before due to a bad dry.. If growers don't have means to control their drying environment and they getting low RH and high Temps throughout their drying process, it's safe to say it's probly going to taste like hay. Right? The solution would than be to try the "frost-less" freezer method. But the price on one of those, might not even be worth not having spent the money on getting the right equipment to achieve the right drying environment.... However I do think there's potential in this type of curing..
  4. It's something I'm keen on finding out aswel. We ll give it anther 4 weeks and get back to it
  5. Here we have 2 power plant buds from the same pheno. Bud on the right was hang dried for 13 days at a constant 62 - 65% RH & 16 - 18c, followed by a 60%RH cure for 4 weeks Bud on the left was "Freezer - Cure" for 3 weeks in total, week 3 I pulled it out an hour each day. They were than cured in jars for anther week. So what I found was that bud on left seemed to keep its mass better than right bud (air dried). Left bud (freezer cure) also had a greener "fresher" look to it. It also a fruity "floral smell" Smoke wise both smoked great, however I will give the "freezer cure" the point as I found the smoke was a little smoother than the "traditional cured" Flavour, hands down..... "freezer cure" it literally tasted like it smelled. Fruity taste. Bud on the right also had a fruity taste but not as profound and didn't have the certain floral after taste like the "freezer cure" I've done this 3 times, 2/3 times I've had great results. I will definitely try this again, however what has worked for me might not work for the next person but you will not know unless you try it. I will point out once again that it's a MUST for this to work that you do it in a "Frost-less" freezer. Normal freezer will ruin the bud which was the case in my first try. I confirm that this has worked for me atleast 👍
  6. I'm sure this has been covered but I want to further emphasize this issue. There's a lot of misinformation surrounding our hobby and one of those is that mycorrhizae can't not live in a synthetic environment. But what is mycorrhizae actually? Well in simple terms the associations between roots and fungi are called mycorrhizae. These symbiotic arrangements have been found in about 90% of all land plants, and have been around for approximately 400 million years. Plant roots are hospitable sites for the fungi to anchor and produce their threads (hyphae). The roots provide essential nutrients for the growth of the fungi. In return, the large mass of fungal hyphae acts as a virtual root system for the plants, increasing the amount of water and nutrients that the plant may obtain from the surrounding soil. A plant that forms an association benefiting both the fungus and the plant is a "host." Large numbers of native desert plants are hosts to these fungi and would not survive without them. Two general terms are used to describe virtually all mycorrhizae: In ectomycorrhizae (external), the fungus produces a sheath around the root. This sheath then produces hyphae that grow into the root and out into the soil Endomycorrhizae (internal) do not produce a sheath; the hyphae grow within the cells and out into the soil. These are far more common than the ectomycorrhizae. But without going into much what mycorrhizae is and what it does (not the purpose of this thread) We want to know if mycorrhizae can Infact live within a synthetic environment. According to Robert Pavlis (gardener & scientist with 45 years of experience) most organic books or blogs will tell you that synthetic chemical fertilizers are killing the bacteria and fungi, the microbes, in soil. Dr. Ingham and her Soil Food Web preach this same message. Stop using fertilizers because they kill the bacteria and fungi. Some people claim that the ‘salts’ in fertilizer do the damage, but anyone making such a claim does not understand what happens to salts in soil Fertilizer provides nutrients like nitrate, ammonium, phosphate, calcium, potassium, sulfur etc. These are all nutrients that plants need to grow A lot of organic followers believe that the nutrients from organic sources are some how different from the ones provided by fertilizer. They are NOT! There is no lab in the world that can tell the difference between a nitrate molecule from manure and one from a bag of synthetic fertilizer. Plants can’t tell the difference either, because there is no difference. They don’t care where the nitrate came from. A lot of people doubt science and in some advanced areas of investigation science may not be 100% correct. This is not one of these situations. All chemists agree on the above fact and have done so for a long time. Organic material releases the nutrients slowly over many years. Synthetic chemicals release the nutrients as soon as the fertilizer dissolves in water. Is it possible that the quick release of nutrients kills microbes? Keep in mind that the soil under your fingernail after a day in the garden contains millions if not billions of bacteria. Is it reasonable to think that fertilizer would kill all of them? I don’t think so. Even if the fertilizer killed 99% there would still be billions and billions in every shovel full of soil. And bacteria grow very quickly – as fast as doubling in number every 20 minutes (at least in a lab). There have been many studies looking at the number of bacteria in soil after applying fertilizer One such study done by "impact of organic" looked at both bacteria and fungi populations, and compared untreated soil to (a) soil treated with organic material (manure, rock phosphate, neem cake) and (b) soil treated with synthetic fertilizer. Measurements were done at two different depths. Adding synthetic fertilizer resulted in no change in the number of bacteria and an increase in the number of fungi. Organic treatment increased both fungi and bacteria slightly. Synthetic fertilizer did not kill bacteria in soil and it increased the number of fungi. Agriculture Canada looked at the effect of ammonia and urea on the microbes in soil over a 10 year study, and concluded that “nitrogen applied according to soil test recommendations had minimal long-term detrimental consequences for soil microbes, soil biochemical properties, or soil structure.” The science is quite clear. Fertilizer, when used properly, does not kill microbes. BUT why do fertilizers not kill bacteria? The simple fact is that the nutrients in fertilizer, especially the nitrate, is a nutrient required by bacteria. They eat it! They actually absorb it since they have no mouth, but you get the idea. They also eat the other nutrients; phosphate, potassium, sulfate etc. Bacteria and fungi need these nutrients as much as plants do. Once you understand this, it becomes fairly obvious that adding these nutrients to soil will not kill the microbes, unless they are added in very large amounts that prove toxic. Think of composting. If you add too many browns the composting process goes slowly because there is not enough nitrogen available for the bacteria to eat. Since the bacteria are starving for nitrogen they don’t multiply and composting is slow. Add some nitrogen, either as a fertilizer, or as ‘greens’ which contain higher levels of nitrogen, and the compost pile suddenly heats up. The bacteria now have enough nitrogen to eat, they are active, and they multiply. All of this activity heats up the compost pile. BUT!!! It is true that fertilizers are salts. This is not sodium chloride or table salt. The term ‘salt’ has a different meaning for a chemist. To them, a salt is a compound made up of two or more ions. Table salt is made up of sodium ions and chlorine ions. Ammonium nitrate fertilizer is made up of ammonium ions and nitrate ions, so it is also called a salt. In dry form the ions come together to form salts. When the salts dissolve in water, the molecules break apart and form ions. When fertilizer salts are spread on the ground the white and gray balls are salt. When it rains, the water dissolves the salt into ions and washes them into the soil. Once they are in the soil they are no longer salts. Salt will harm bacteria and plant roots if there is direct contact. Due to the large number of microbes in soil, and the small surface area of the fertilizer crystals, this has no significant effect on the microbe populations in soil. Once the salt is dissolved, the ions quickly become diluted as the water moves through the soil layer. Diluted ions in water do not harm microbes or plant roots. In fact both of their lives depend on the ions being in the water. It is the ions that they absorb – not the salts. What happens with organic fertilizers like compost and manure? They contain large molecules like protein and carbohydrates. As these are decomposed, they are converted into ions. These ions are the exact same ions that fertilizer produces. Once commercial fertilizer dissolves in water it is no different than organic fertilizer. Fertilizer does not kill bacteria or fungi
  7. Only issue I have with clones from other sources rather than my own garden is that I'm not sure of the pheno I'm receiving. The other concern for me is pests, one in particular spider mites as they are difficult to spot in small numbers but anyone who's had to battle with them knows just a few gone unnoticed is a ticking time bomb
  8. Do you mean organic liquid nutes such as biobizz? GHE is synthetic nutes which most synthetic are salt based. There is also a big range of semi-organic nutes overseas, the only one I know of in SA is the umya range.
  9. Aaah OK. Nice, wasn't aware of it , Than I'm all for droping the video upload feature.
  10. How about an embedded video feature? I would think it will have less stress on server since it's using code to pull the video from anther platform such as YouTube and playing it through
  11. Welcome man, Im sure you find alot of good info and people willing to share their experiences and advise here
  12. It's a matter of time more and more countries jump on. Everyone seems to follow everything America does anyway
×
×
  • Create New...