Light-Proofing Buckets

[AbominableDro-Man]

So I find myself at a point where I think light-proofing a couple of buckets pre-grow could be a good idea, I'd rather light proof them and KNOW they wont leak, than assume that because the buckets are a certain color they wont.

 

So far, I've noticed suggestions for things from duct-tape, to putting polyfilm around the buckets, to even reading about a person who sprayed their buckets down (outside only) with a driveway sealant of some variety. 

 

In regards to the ideas for Black paint/spray-paint, I find myself wondering if the paint would be affected by the constant heat of the light in the tent.

 

Any suggestions on this folks?

 

And no, it wouldn't be easier for me to just take the buckets back and get black ones lol

 

I'm using 8gal square buckets by the way.

[zaphod]

I use 5 gallon white buckets for DWC tomatoes and peppers outdoors.  I put black 7 gallon grow bags inside.

[trichcycler]

making sure they are food safe may be more important than lightproof. I've seen hundreds of successful hempy bucket grows, and none were lightproofed in any way.

Your plant will quickly shade the buckets using that system. Salts will build up quicker than algae, changing the solution weekly. Unless you put your lights on the floor, I think you'll be fine with no mods.

[AbominableDro-Man]

That's the problem Grass, the food grade buckets are white. That's why I'm checking out light-proofing though lol

 

I'll be running a little bit of h2o2 with the rdwc so I'm not AS concerned with there being algae growth or anything, I just want to make darn double sure that I can avoid any root rot or other problems by fixing it now 

[beourbud]

I like the white buckets,  They root up as nice as red, blue.or black even.

 

Makes even less difference with dirt.

[AbominableDro-Man]

I like the white buckets,  They root up as nice as red, blue.or black even.

 

Makes even less difference with dirt.

Look, when I'm asking for information on how you grow Bud, I'll post it in the soil section. In the meantime, I'd like to continue conversing with people who have some constructive things to actually say about hydroponic growing. Hyro. Growing. Hydro. Not dirt.

 

That's sort of why I posted a question about light-proofing the buckets for Hydro, IN the hydro forum. Do you see where I'm going with this? Don't need a constant "my dirt boner works better!" claim every which way I try to turn for assistance in my chosen medium.

Edited April 2, 2014 by AbominableDro-Man

[Highlander]

That's the problem Grass, the food grade buckets are white. That's why I'm checking out light-proofing though lol

 

I'll be running a little bit of h2o2 with the rdwc so I'm not AS concerned with there being algae growth or anything, I just want to make darn double sure that I can avoid any root rot or other problems by fixing it now 

 

I have had better luck battling root rot using h2o2 only when I have an actual problem.  H2O2 will sterilize everything.   Once everything is sterile, it is hard to keep it that way, and very easy for bad bacteria to invade and take over.  Things seem to run much smoother and steadier using an enzyme instead. 

[AbominableDro-Man]

I have had better luck battling root rot using h2o2 only when I have an actual problem.  H2O2 will sterilize everything.   Once everything is sterile, it is hard to keep it that way, and very easy for bad bacteria to invade and take over.  Things seem to run much smoother and steadier using an enzyme instead. 

Really? I guess it's been a little difficult to decide what to go with at some of those points, when I was in the actual store of choice the guy suggested the H2o2 over Hygrozyme. Something about how RDWC systems like undercurrent and things like sensizym etc not getting along for some reason. I can't be absolutely sure on that though to be honest, that's why I figured I'd check the folks on the board to see if any of you have had experience with this particular situation. (in regards to light-proofing to prevent the bad sort of wiggly-tibbles)

Edited April 2, 2014 by AbominableDro-Man

[trichcycler]

to avoid the enzyme woes you could alternatively use a product like SM90. That kept my res tidy.For thought, the tops of my res containers were open to the air, uncovered. Light naturally entered them occasionally. no issues came of it. I changed each one weekly, hardly scrubbed, only once a year. until I tried bottled organics in my tidy flood and drain trays. yuck, messier than soil even. scrubbed weekly then

[Highlander]

Really? I guess it's been a little difficult to decide what to go with at some of those points, when I was in the actual store of choice the guy suggested the H2o2 over Hygrozyme. Something about how RDWC systems like undercurrent and things like sensizym etc not getting along for some reason. I can't be absolutely sure on that though to be honest, that's why I figured I'd check the folks on the board to see if any of you have had experience with this particular situation. (in regards to light-proofing to prevent the bad sort of wiggly-tibbles)

 

H2O2 will kill living things.  In RDWC you'll probably find that you will continually have loose bits of root matter, etc. swirling about in your buckets.  Bad bacteria feed on this stuff and overrun the good bacteria.  You can kill the bad bacteria with H2O2 but you still have this decaying organic matter hanging around, which is a disaster waiting to happen if your system becomes unsterile.  You want to have constant action going to clean out your reservoir/buckets of this material.  H2O2 will be effective for about five days.  So after that, you're either running in the danger zone, or you're adding more H2O2.  With enzymes, you only need to add more when you change out your nute solution.  I am speaking only from my own experience. 

 

The enzymes are designed to break down the organic matter into sugars, etc. that your plants can actually use.  So the enzyme

[AbominableDro-Man]

H2O2 will kill living things.  In RDWC you'll probably find that you will continually have loose bits of root matter, etc. swirling about in your buckets.  Bad bacteria feed on this stuff and overrun the good bacteria.  You can kill the bad bacteria with H2O2 but you still have this decaying organic matter hanging around, which is a disaster waiting to happen if your system becomes unsterile.  You want to have constant action going to clean out your reservoir/buckets of this material.  H2O2 will be effective for about five days.  So after that, you're either running in the danger zone, or you're adding more H2O2.  With enzymes, you only need to add more when you change out your nute solution.  I am speaking only from my own experience. 

 

The enzymes are designed to break down the organic matter into sugars, etc. that your plants can actually use.  So the enzyme

Awesome, so maybe I should consider picking up the enzyme and only using the h202 if there's actually a problem that needs to be dealt with in regards to bad bacteria. 

I'd be alright adding more H2o2 to the system every 5 days though, the tent itself is also in a clean room, but how will that affect the plants I wonder?

Edited April 2, 2014 by AbominableDro-Man

[Highlander]

Awesome, so maybe I should consider picking up the enzyme and only using the h202 if there's actually a problem that needs to be dealt with in regards to bad bacteria. 

I'd be alright adding more H2o2 to the system every 5 days though, the tent itself is also in a clean room, but how will that affect the plants I wonder?

 

Enzymes also help break down synthetic nutrients to a form more readily usable by the plants.

[AbominableDro-Man]

Enzymes also help break down synthetic nutrients to a form more readily usable by the plants.

Noted. Would you suggest Hygrozyme then or something else? 

Edited April 2, 2014 by AbominableDro-Man

[MrShpongle]

You could always use chlorine instead of H202 to keep things sterile.  A few drops of regular (non-scented) bleach in the rez each week will keep the pathogens in check.  Alternatively, you could use a longer lasting product like Pythoff.  It's more expensive, since household bleach is almost free, but it lasts longer in the rez.

 

30% H2O2 defintely works, but it breaks down quickly and ain't very cost effective.

[beourbud]

Look, when I'm asking for information on how you grow Bud, I'll post it in the soil section. In the meantime, I'd like to continue conversing with people who have some constructive things to actually say about hydroponic growing. Hyro. Growing. Hydro. Not dirt.

 

That's sort of why I posted a question about light-proofing the buckets for Hydro, IN the hydro forum. Do you see where I'm going with this? Don't need a constant "my dirt boner works better!" claim every which way I try to turn for assistance in my chosen medium.

 lol

 

unless your bucket is clear there will be no measurable difference in root growth. none

 

goes for hydro and dirt

[trichcycler]

synthetic nutrients have not been invented yet, just sayin'. basal salts are already pure to the salt.

Enzymes also help break down synthetic nutrients to a form more readily usable by the plants.

[Highlander]

synthetic nutrients have not been invented yet, just sayin'. basal salts are already pure to the salt.

Hmmm. If you google "synthetic hydroponic nutrients" you'll find that many people and nutrient producers discuss "synthetic nutrients."

 

Something that is synthetic is produced artificially. In this case, nutrients are not produced by biological processes. They are artificially synthesized from rocks, etc. just sayin.

[trichcycler]

basal salts are most definitely not artificially synthesized. There are two kinds of formulations for hydroponic nutrients –  refined mineral, or salt-based, and organic based. A mineral or salt based nutrient is in the form of soluble salts. Similar to the way table salt (NaCl) disassociates in water to form Na+ (cation) and Cl- (anion), the pre-formulated fertilizer salts disassociate into the correct spectrum concentrations of necessary ion components needed for plant growth.

 

100% Organic fertilizer components are dependent upon organisms in the soil to convert the "organic" materials into an inorganic useable form for plants. Because of the non-soluble of many natural sources of nutrition, organic based hydroponic nutrients have 20-30% fertilizer salts with the rest being soluble “organic” components, such as guanos, plant extracts, worm castings, potash, kelps, etc.

 

There is absolutely no difference in the final ion product with respect to synthetic nutrients and organic based nutrients. An ion is an ion. It is simply a different way of delivering the food to the plant.  plants “eat” ions in an inorganic form in the end anyway. In other words, plants do not eat guano ions, or kelp ions; they eat the inorganic constituents of these materials after they have been broken down or dissolved in water, extracting the ionic salts for uptake by the plant. Whether added as salts or organics, neither is a synthetic nutrient source. The day humans and plants can survive on synthetic nutrients will be a huge affair.

 

I know the word synthetic is used incorrectly in our industry, for the folks that have branded it that way. Our food crops have been grown in most commercial farm field with these same basal salt mixtures. the nutrient bottles on he shelf are most often a 200% dilute(or similar) of the farmers bottled nurients available at the grain elevator. The confusion comes when synthetic chelators are added to speed uptake. chelators cannot be uptaken by plants.

 

I always know what growers are talking about, and really "just sayin". is all. thos basal salts in the bottled nutrients are not synthetic or man made, they are real and exist in nature, and in the sources where they are mined, urea, potash, bone meal, etc.

 

 

1.

 

(of a substance) made by chemical synthesis, esp. to imitate a natural product.

[AbominableDro-Man]

Saved that entire post Grass. Now I can always say "My nutrients aren't synthetic, they're just mineral based."

[Highlander]

I didn't say that basal salts are synthetic. I'm talking about hydroponic nutrients sold commercially. Basal salts are not a hydroponic nutrient line. They are just a component of a more complex man-made mixture. Bottled nutrients made from non-biological sources are synthetic. You can't just dig salts out of the earth and dissolve them in water and grow plants. You also need nitrogen, trace metals, etc. When you use those mined salts and metals and nitrogen derived from ammonia, etc. and combine them in certain proportions you have made a synthetic product - one not made by biological processes.

 

This is a lot like saying that carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen are not synthetic, therefore, nylon, which is made of these three elements is also not synthetic. Nylon is made from naturally-occurring elements but not through a biological process. That is why it is a synthetic fiber. The General Hydroponics 3-part series is made up of elements and compounds that are naturally-occurring. But biological processes don't create GH nutes. The nutes are created by an industrial process. Therefore they are synthetic.

 

I understand that you believe that this industry misuses the term, synthetic. What is your definition of "synthetic?"

Edited April 3, 2014 by Highlander

[pergamum362]

Forget about painting them. Waste of time. No duct tape either. There probably fine the way they are but a bag if anything to make you feel better.

[trichcycler]

I can agree to disagree, with respect .

 

Crushing a rock, boiling it in acid, and extracting the mineral salts may be a "synthesized" process(and that's a stretch for me), however the resultant mineral salts are not chemicals, not man made, do occur naturally -everytime a fungus breaks down the rock, and are simply salts.

 

table salt = synthetic salt? its not mined, or naturally occurring, without a man made chemical process

melatonin= synthetic chemical? it has to be processed from the pineal glands of animals, with man made machines processes, yet, a synthesized version is available, to avoid the viral concerns.

 

I first saw the term "synthetic fertilizers" in the 70's, describing the mining and refining of natural occurring minerals for the use in agriculture, as opposed to chicken crap, before its boiled, fermented, and broken down to salts. I know that the term was applied to the fertilizers after growth hormones, chelators, synthetic encapsulation, slow release/sulphur coated bits, etc.

 

peace

 

While the term "natural" has not been defined by FDA and FTC, USDA's Draft Guidance explicitly details processes that create non-synthetic or natural substances. Agricultural materials that are chemically changed due to allowed agricultural processing methods (e.g., cooking, baking, etc.) do not result in classification of the processed agricultural product as synthetic, nor do products of naturally occurring biological processes, such as fermentation and composting. Moreover, heating or burning of biological matter (e.g., plant or animal material) is also a natural process that does not result in classification of ash as synthetic. On the other hand, heating or burning of non-biological matter (e.g., minerals) to cause a chemical reaction triggers the synthetic substance definition.

 

When we mine limestone, rock phosphate, sodium nitrate, although not from biological origins, the mineral extracted may even be extracted using man made synthesized chemicals, yet, the resultant minerals ARE NOT considered synthetic, but synthetically extracted. All commercial Potash comes from marine deposits mostly buried in the earth. When we burn the material to extract the mineral, it remains a real naturally occurring mineral, not synthetic.

 

Other coated products use thermoplastics (and sometimes ethylene-vinyl acetate and surfactants, etc.) to produce diffusion-controlled release of urea or soluble inorganic fertilizers. "Reactive Layer Coating" can produce thinner, hence cheaper, membrane coatings by applying reactive monomers simultaneously to the soluble particles. "Multicote" is a process applying layers of low-cost fatty acid salts with a paraffin topcoat. =synthetically  enhanced inorganic fertilizers-chelators, etc-yes, they are synthetic.

more example of synthetic foods;

 

Proteinaceous artificial caviar is made from the high-quality milk protein casein. An aqueous solution of casein is mixed, together with a texturizer such as gelatin, into chilled vegetable oil, resulting in the formation of particles resembling fish eggs. The particles are removed from the oil, washed, coated with tea extract to impart an elastic membrane, dyed, and treated with solutions of acid polysaccharides to form a second membrane. Salt and flavoring and aromatizing substances are added, resulting in a proteinaceous delicacy virtually indistinguishable from natural caviar.

Artificial meat suitable for any manner of culinary preparation is produced by the extrusion (forcing through a die) and wet spinning of protein to convert it into fibers. The fibers are then formed into a ropelike tow, washed, impregnated with a protein binder, pressed, and fabricated into pieces. Artificial fried potatoes, vermicelli, rice, whole buckwheat, and other nonmeat products are obtained by combining protein with natural food materials and such gelling agents as alginates, pectins, and starch. Equal in their organoleptic properties to the corresponding natural products, these artificial food products are five to ten times richer in protein and possess superior technological properties.

 

on a side not, I wonder if adding all kinds of food stuffs to a meatloaf will then render this meatloaf  a synthetically manufactured loaf meat product? Dissolving table salt(sodium) into liquids and solid foods becomes a chemical reaction facilitated by the addition of the chemical sodium, resulting in a synthesized good tasting food?

 

so many things to consider. so little time. I use and enjoy medical cannabis to relieve the symptoms of my existence.

 

peace

 

I didn't say that basal salts are synthetic. I'm talking about hydroponic nutrients sold commercially. Basal salts are not a hydroponic nutrient line. They are just a component of a more complex man-made mixture. Bottled nutrients made from non-biological sources are synthetic. You can't just dig salts out of the earth and dissolve them in water and grow plants. You also need nitrogen, trace metals, etc. When you use those mined salts and metals and nitrogen derived from ammonia, etc. and combine them in certain proportions you have made a synthetic product - one not made by biological processes.

This is a lot like saying that carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen are not synthetic, therefore, nylon, which is made of these three elements is also not synthetic. Nylon is made from naturally-occurring elements but not through a biological process. That is why it is a synthetic fiber. The General Hydroponics 3-part series is made up of elements and compounds that are naturally-occurring. But biological processes don't create GH nutes. The nutes are created by an industrial process. Therefore they are synthetic.

I understand that you believe that this industry misuses the term, synthetic. What is your definition of "synthetic?"

[I wood]

Bla bla bla.

[Restorium2]

[trichcycler]

http://www.ecogrow.com/ offers a pure basal salt hydroponic nutrient, maybe one of the first/oldest in existence. They add no synthetic chelators, hormones, ph adjusters, etc. Requires handling safety measures to avoid the exposure of pure elements/metals. A fine system in my opinion, but not very convenient to use in the grow room.