Against BioBuckets

[Lucas]

DeltaNugz says:

FACT: These 'Beneficial' bacteria exist in any hydro system that will provide them with food (ammonia or nitrites), keep them constantly wet, and provide them with plenty of oxygen. Differences between these systems will affect the health of the bacteria colonies.

FACT: These 'Beneficial' Bacteria do affect the pH of a hydro system. Likewise they will affect the pH of an Aquarium.

FACT: 'Sewage' will quickly decompose to Ammonia, which is also a key ingredient of most hydroponic nutrients. Ammonia is also food for for the beneficial nitrifying bacteria. Therefore, the nitrifying cycle DOES apply in any hydro system with the proper environmental conditions and a healthy dose of hydroponic nutrients.

FACT: Bio Bucket systems do work as advertised. Many growers have used them with success and posted the results. High yields have been recorded with this system.

FACT: Bio Bucket systems do provide a constant pH. A properly-run bucket system will hold a pH of 6.0 without the need to adjust the pH levels of the nutes. In fact, one can add-back nutes with an initial ph of 5.2 to a Bio Bucket system and the reservoir's nutes will still stay steady at 6.0.

Again I will challenge anyone to build two Bio Bucket systems and to add a sterilization agent to one of the systems and see if the lack of beneficial bacteria in that system will affect the growth rates or health of the system in comparison to the system with a thriving colony of beneficial bacteria. Without such a test, there is no way to prove or disprove the benefits of nitrifying bacteria in a hydro system AFAIK. And so the quoted area of your post is duely noted as "continued speculation" and I await any pro or con evidence to be forthcoming...

to which Lucas says:

hello DeltaNugz

I agree to disagree

> 'Sewage' will quickly decompose to Ammonia, which is also a key ingredient of most hydroponic nutrients. Ammonia is also food for for the beneficial nitrifying bacteria. Therefore, the nitrifying cycle DOES apply in any hydro system with the proper environmental conditions and a healthy dose of hydroponic nutrients.

Ammonia is a minor component of GH nutes, only 6% of the Nitrogen comes from Ammonia.

since there are no fish in a hydro reservoir, the nitrogen cycle does not apply, as there is no ammonia being produced by the fish that are not present

a hydroponics reservoir is not at all operating under the same ammonia inputs as a fishtank

I agree completely that fish tanks need a healthy bacterial colony, to neutralize the ammonia produced by fish, but not a hydro res. Plants do not produce ammonia like fish do.

Lucas

[plantbuilder]

lol hiya lucas :)

[c-ray]

party's over... lucas is cleaning house :teeth:

[GrowGreen]

For the life of me I can not see the need to colonize bacteria in an Non Aquaponic environment.

My res and plant containers contain no beneficial bacteria....how do I know...cause I kill them off every chance I get. But yet I’m am able to maintain a range of pH that is acceptable (5.7-6.7) using only nutrients and fresh RO water. A stable pH of 6.0 is not optimum. Use the range to insure complete feeding.
Lets not confuse NH3 and NH4 they are different.. Also the cycle is Ammonia to Nitrite, Nitrite to Nitrate and it takes two different types of Bacteria to complete this process. If your only converting Ammonia to Nitrite you have problems. Your pH is stable at 6, because your bio field is eating up the elements that make your pH acidic..

Why fed a bio field something that your plants could use..

I would pat your waterfall effect on the back...instead of your bio field.

:peace:
GG

[hydrorascal]

to be perfectly blunt... there aint no shit in my res

[country boy]

GG has the nitrogen cycle, in a nut shell...

Haven't we all cured Tonga/Fugi live rock...? But I fail to see how it applies...

However, let's not forget the interaction of plant roots and certain bacteria/fungus that forming a 'web'....that allows benefits for both...

Seem to recall a thread with a 4x4x1 tub/tray that made rather well. the only regrets were too few plants.
'Bad' roots were taken care of with the addition of a pump, possibly a 'skittle'...

[Lucas]

> the pH eventually becomes locked at 6.0

eventually the low pH causing ammonia gets taken up by the plants, and if you keep your nutes within a range, your pH will stay within a range

I dont think the bacteria are responsible for your pH, its your TDS that impacts your pH

> I like not adjusting my pH ever.

me too

I think you and I agree on the benefits that surround plant health. when tds is well managed pH is stable.

I think we just disagree on what is causing the health

> On to the second positive aspect of benefical bacteria: Colonization of available surface area.

I think its oxygen that makes pythium not grow

you think its bacteria

bottom line, we agree oxygen is key to healthy roots

waterfalls are excellent oxygenators

maybe the benefis you see in biobuckets comes not from bacteria, but oxygen?

I respect you for engaging in this dialogue

And I respect that it is true that people get healthy plants with biobuckets, and healthy yields. the yields though, are not That good, similar in fact to other folks who get 1.4 pounds per 1k, once you account for 5 weeks of vegging plants into a system that is not moveable, forcing vegging to occur in the bloom area.

I think its misleading to think the yields from biobuckets are comparable to folks who get 2 lbs a cycle from an ebb flow table with SOG plants numbers, say 30 per 1k. btw, federal mandatory minimums are triggered at 99 plants, so it is possible to SOG your medicine without going federal.

plant limits definitely exist, and a biobucket system with 10 plants per 1k is over the cali state individual limits, just as much as a 30 plant per 1k sog..

now to drive home the point on yield, lets assume the 2.5 pound per 1k BioBucket yield with 5 weeks veg is compared to a 2 pound per 1k sog yield, with no veg time.. assume both bloom cycles take 8 weeks.

so, the biosystem theoretically gets 52/13=4 crops per year, at 2.5 pounds per crop it totals 10 theoretical pounds
the sog system gets 52/8=6.5 crops per year at 2 pounds, for a total of 13

sog beats biobucket, because of plant numbers eliminating veg time

another way to look at it is, for every year you spend growing in biobuckets, you could take 2 months and go on vacation and get a pound more yield still than a biosystem, if you sog

both systems produced more medicine than the federal govt allocates to the cannabis few, so these figures are just for illustration purposes.

a patient really only needs a 400w system if they grow full time, but a 1k system will allow them to grow for shorter portions of the year, and take the rest of the time off

time off from growing, is a benefit of SOG that Reduces risk of legal encounters..

what do you all think of that line of reasoning?:-)

Lucas

[GrowGreen]

DN

I’ve found the easiest way to control pH using RO water and pretty much any nutrient brand.
Raise the RO pH up one point using potassium bicarbonate (I use the brand Natural Up) Then add your GH or PBP etc.. Calmag will do the same thing, but your bounce back time (pH recovery) takes longer.

I only know RO water...with tap or well your on your own.

The key is to raise your starting water up where you want. I like my new res to start at 6.5 pH. So I set it prior to Nutrients @ 7.3-7.5 pH. When I add my Nutrients it will drop to 4.9-5.2 only for an hour or so. Then it settles at 6.5ph or close to it.
What I do from there is a different thread..

I kill my bacteria good / bad with florashield. It's a hydro store priced version of hydrogen peroxide. I have used a uv setup before with similar results.

I don’t recall the details...but I do remember that fish waste or some additive must be added to the water or in your case, the res. Pretty sure that plants (land based, not marine..etc) do not contain these strain of bacteria naturally.

>>“”There is an excess amount of N in Lucas Formula anyway. What's the big deal if a few bacteria are eating some of the available N? It's not like your plants are going to go hungry...”“

This is where I disagree with many cannabis growers. None of the nutrient brands I’ve every tested contained more N than the plants needed. (Hydro Store Brands) People see problem with too much N when they have other underlying problems. Lack of light is probably the biggest.. Most growers treat the symptoms instead of the cause.

The Bio Field will consume a great deal of your available N. Especially when your trying to build such a field. Fish don’t like N...Plants require it. Too medicated currently to quote any plant physiology text, but N is needed for Mass.

:peace:
GG

[Bogey]

I can only say that i have seen and studied Hurtbacks and Big tokes Bio-Buckets and was truly amazed at the yield and ease of maintaining proper PH...and i do remember that giant white root ball......To quote an old friend.....Its all about the results....

[GrowGreen]

http://www.bioconlabs.com/nitribactfacts.html


My favorite part is the pH section..

NH3 rocks..

:peace:
GG

[Lucas]

> Then explain how my Bio Bucket will remain at 6.0 at 500 PPM and at 1000PPM?

I do not believe that is possible. If you double the nutes concentration the pH will be lower than at half strength

you must be leaving out some other factors

otherwise it sounds like magic.. maybe it is, I just dont think so


> Explain how when I add nutes at a pH of 4.9 the reservoir still ends up at 6.0?

well, here is one possibility
imagine a system with 50 gallons of nutes. then imagine the nutes addback at 4.9pH is just 5 gallons worth... can you see how only 1/10th of the res is being modified?

In that scenario, 9/10ths of the volume of the res is at pH 6, and 1/10th of the volume of the res is at pH 4.9... if you add those numbers together, their average pH comes out as (45*6)=270 + (5*4.9)=24.5 /50= 5.89 average pH

I suppose your meter reads 5.89 as 6.0

> Pythium is an anerobic bacteria, which means it thrives in the absence of oxygen

total agreement, which is why I emphasize the point that Oxygen, not bacteria, are primarily responsible for insuring Pythium will find a hostile environment, and fail to develop.

> Bubblers are also excellent oxygenators. Why does the pH not lock at 6.0 with bubblers? Why do Bubbles have more issues with heat?

excellent question, I have wondered about that myself

the biggest difference I see is that it depends on a relationship between oxygenation watts, and how high a temperature the plants will tolerate

for example, I have found that a bubbler will be under aereated if it uses a single GH four outlet airpump, which runs at 8 watts, if there is more than 8 gallons of water, and the nutes go above 72F

iow, an 8 watt airpump is too small for a 50 gallon res, however, increase the airpump to a 45 watt unit, and those 50 gallons will work fine at 74F nute temp.. see, the higher the temp, the closer the watts per oxygenation equals 1 watt per gallon

now you mentioned using about 2000 gph of water pumping, per 1k, and per 50 gallons. Well, a 2000 gph pump uses about 200 watts, so it should, by my math be able to oxygenate 200 gallons to resist 74F. if a biosystem uses only 50 gallons per 1k of light, it is using 4 watts of airpump (water movement in this case), per gallon of water..

the original bubbler bucket by highgrade used a 2.5 watt airpump for 5 gallons of water, which is only half a watt of oxygenation per gallon, hence the problem with temps in a bubbler is typical to the level of oxygenation power

> I would have hit the 3+ lbs mark a while ago

this yield is discounted by veg time, as mentioned above, it comes out to less than 1.5 pounds per 1k. Big Toke DID get 3 pounds, but lost half a pound to mold. That could be cured by better humidity removal.

> As far as your reasoning about Bio Buckets vs SOG, I think you are comparing apples and oranges. Bio Buckets are a hydroponic system. SOG is a growing/pruning technique. I could build a Bio system that was SOG. I could also build an Ebb & Flow that has 10 plants per light.

you misunderstand
ebb flow table loaded with 30 plants per 1k, vs biobucket system loaded with 10 plants per 1k
the point is the 30 plants are moveable, and need no veg time, and the ebb flow table is simpler to build than the biobucket system. The ebb flow table also runs silently, a waterfall does not.

> I will change the constant from # of lights to number of plants.
> 18 1000 watt lights
> 3 1000 watt lights

that is not real world. 18000 watts shoule yield 6 times more than 3000 watts

> -> 52/8=6.5 harvests per year x 6 lbs= 39 lbs per year

6 times 39lbs is 234 pounds

> -> 52/11=4.7 harvests per year X 36 lbs= 169 lbs per year

234 pounds is almost 40% more yield. In other words, using your figures, and bringing back in the same total 18000 watts example for both systems, you find the sog produces 40% more than the 10 plant bio

it is absolutely incorrect to try to compare an 18000 watt garden to a 3000 watt garden, that is not apples to apples

> Lucas formula has far more N than Mel Frank calls for

hardly. Mell calls for 100-200ppm of N. Lucas formula contains 132ppm of N

> The ammonia in the system is converted to nitrites, and the nitrites are converted to nitrates. The nitrates are still plant food and are there to be eaten.

I agree the 8ppm of nitrite gets added to the 125ppm of nitrate, but maintain that there is only 6% of the total N in GH is as nitrite.. 6% is a very small amount.

from GG's link:
"Nitrosomonas growth is inhibited at a pH of 6.5. All nitrification is inhibited if the pH drops to 6.0 or less"

this would indicate that in fact you are not growing nitrifying bacteria at all in a hydro system below 6.0

also from GG's link:
"fish are poisoned by high levels of ammonia (NH3) that is produced by the bacterial mineralization of fish wastes, excess food, and the decomposition of animal and plant tissues. Additional ammonia is excreted directly into the water by the fish themselves. "

notice that the entire source of ammonia, (which is converted to nitrite, before being converted to nitrate), is fish waste, excess fish food (high in protein=high in nitrogen), decomposing plants and animals, and direct ammonia exhalation from the fish gills.

now, a hydro system has none of these inputs, no fish poop, no fish food, no decomposing plants and animals (except for roots that rot if the DO level gets too low, but that would be a problem, not a desireable feature), and no fish gills exuding ammonia.

all this to say, aquarium nitrogen cycles have absolutely nothing to do with what is happening in a hydroponic reservoir. There is no ammonia source in a hydro reservoir, and the pH is too low for nitrifying bacteria to survive, and the bacteria have no ongoing source of ammonia.

back to my basic point, a biobucket system works if you meet the same parameters as a bubbler or an ebb flow table, which is to provide sufficient oxygen to the roots. biobuckets accomplish this with huge water movement rates, and a waterfall. bubblers accomplish this with airstones, and ebb flow accomplishes oxygenation by bringing atmospheric oxygen in contact with the humidity in the pores of the medium between irrigations.

its all about oxygen, and not at all about bacteria, but regardless of our belief as to why a system is working, there is no denying when it works, even if we cant explain it.

I agree biobuckets work, but they are more complex, and yield less than ebb flow. Mainly because biobuckets use 10 plants or less per 1k, and ebb flow uses 30 plants per 1k. The difference in yield between the two systems is entirely based on plant numbers. I agree you could build a biobucket system to hold 30 plants per 1k, but it would be more complex than an ebb flow table in terms of construction.

thanks for the detailed discussion
Lucas

[country boy]

Lots of confusion here: bubblers can be 5-gallon buckets or 100-gallon tubs...to anything in between, whether connected or solo ( remember sub(or maybe higrade) bitching about how much a plant would 'drink'?)

but we aren't really concerned about nitrobacteria colonization rates are we?
Ammonia to nitrite to nitrate is the sequence, with nitrate being the most easily used by PLANTS and less toxic to fish...anybody raising koi out there?
i thought this was a differnt kind of board...

FYI-in case anybody cares: heat and big pumps go hand in hand, whether air or water.
there's a motor involed that heats the H2O or at least an airpump that is usually pushing hotter air into the res than it's ambient temp.

i must reiterate the relationship between veg time and plant #'s....6 of 1, half dozen of the other....

[Lucas]

> Well this is the case with a Bio Bucket system. Once cycled the pH will stay at 6.0 no matter if the PPM is 500 or 1000 or 1500.

how is that possible DeltaNugz, it defies my capacity to grasp the concept, help me out

> > I suppose your meter reads 5.89 as 6.0

> I'm sure it does.

good! then you grasp my point!

> But what happens when I do another addback? And another and another and another? Eventually the pH should start to drop.

no because you dont add more nutes until the EC drops. iow, you dont add more nutes unless they have been used up.. as seen by a drop in EC..

> Your garden will send you to the pen for a mandatory 5 years.

puleeze! its not my gardening style to use 18,000 watts! this is purely theoretical. All I need as a med user is a single 1k. and if I use it over a 30 plant sog, I will get 2 pounds in 8 weeks. then I can shut down for the rest of the year..

but really, its not about the law, its about comparing yield per watt.

> You use a constant in your formula of watts. Why? Are you limited on watts? I don't give a damn about watts.

if you want to compare yields based on plant numbers, suit yourself, but that is not the way yield is usually analyzed.

if you want to analyze yield based on square feet per plant, you can do that too, but its also not the way yield is usually measured

measuring yield in grams per watt is a standard way of comparing garden productivity.. if you dont want to agree to that standard of comparison, then we have no basis for discussion

> Mel Frank's Insider's Guide states that 40-100 PPM of N is needed for plants in the Bloom phase in strong light.

yes, but he also recommends 250-350ppm for veg, and there are many veg formulas with over 200ppm of N, linked here.. https://www.cannabis-world.org/cw/showthread.php?t=359

the Lucas Formula is a compromise one size fits all sort of deal, lower in N than most veg formulas, but functional from start to finish of a crop cycle, biased to be low on N at harvest.. and biased to be low in ammonia, to keep the pH from going too low..

my point is 132 ppm is not THAT much N more than 100, and certainly 8ppm of ammonia is a very tiny number, and a 10% efficiency of conversion is a very tiny number

I dont see how you find such tiny nubers significant to justify your opinion that a hydro res has significant ammonia inputs, or significant bacterial colonies.. if you want to believe its the bacteria, its your call

thanks for trying to convince me, I just dont get it yet..

> You refuse to accept my personal experiences with the buckets. You refuse to accept the testimonies of any of the other users. You continue to claim that the key acpects of the Bio Buckets are impossible.

I do not refuse to accept your personal experience, what I dont understand is your INTERPRETATION of WHY the system works.. I also accept the testimony of others, and have studied their results and implementation, and from that reading, I deduce that oxygenation is the primary variable involved with plant health, not the nitrogen cycle that occurs in aquaria..

you quote this form an aquarium source:
> I had always assumed that aquarium plants were assimilating nitrate, as I "knew" garden plants do. But no. It seems that when both ammonium and nitrate are available, tests show that aquatic plants don't take up appreciable quantities of nitrate until the ammonium is gone.

it very clearly says that non aquatic plants prefer nitrate.. it does say that aquatic plants prefer nitrite, cool!, but again, we dont grow aquatic plants, nor fish..

thanks
Lucas