1 TEST PARAMETERS AND GOAL A side by side comparison of the growth of three cannabis plants was carried out to determine efficacy of three soil bearing plant containers. The plant containers used in this comparison include: one 7 gallon plastic nursery pot, one 7 gallon fabric pot and one 6 gallon Octopot Grow System. The goal of this observation was to determine effectiveness of three soil containers commonly used to grow both Medical and Legal Recreational Cannabis. Inputs such as specialized training of plants, optimum nutrient formulations, CO2 addition and optimum temperature and humidity were not introduced. This was a beginners level grow simulation. The test plants were cultivated in two stages until harvest; vegetative and flowering. The comparison is an observation test with only one plant per group. Further studies with adequate numbers and advanced growing methods may be carried out for more complete data. Cuttings were taken from one Cannabis hybrid: New York Atomic, a cross of Chernobyl and New York City Diesel. The cuttings were rooted in 14 ounce plastic cups for approximately 3 weeks in Black and Gold soil mix by Sungro before they were transplanted into one fabric pot, one plastic pot, and one Octopot Grow System. No evidence of transplant shock was observed in any of the plants used for this observation test.
2 NUTRIENTS AND FERTILZERS General parameters were used instead of optimum nutrient formulations to achieve the beginner level grow simulation. Various fertilizers were used throughout, including General Hydroponics, Advanced Nutrients and basic water soluble fertilizers available at home improvement stores. During the vegetative stage, nutrient levels were maintained in the 600-700 parts per million (ppm) range. During the flower stage, nutrient levels were maintained in the 700-800 ppm range. The nutrient solution ph range was maintained at approximately 6.5 6.7 throughout all stages of growth. WATER Well water with a starting ppm range around 100 was used. Water was stored in a 55 gallon external tank. Nutrients were added to the water and a recirculating pump ran on a timer 15 minutes every 2 hours to keep the water nutrient solution well mixed inside the tank. The recirculating pump was not run constantly in order to avoid ph swings. All plants were watered from the same water tank. During the vegetative stage, the plastic pot and the fabric pot were watered every 7-10 days. Water was added to the plastic pot and the fabric pot by hand over the top of the soil until it began to drain out the bottom of the pot. They were watered in fairly equal amounts at the same time until the 4 th to 5 th week of flowering. At that time, the plant in the plastic pot showed stress from overwatering. From that point on, the plastic pot was watered less than the fabric pot. Plastic Pot Octopot Grow System Fabric Pot
3 WATER CONTINUED During the vegetative stage the Octopot Grow System s 3 gallon Hydro Reservoir was used for watering and feeding. Only one over the top watering was given to the plant in the Octopot at the time of transplanting the cutting as per the instructions. During the flowering stage the Octopot Gro Sleeve with plant and soil was moved into Octopot s 6 Gallon Hydro Reservoir following the directions from the website. Plants in both the fabric pot and the plastic pot required watering every 4 to 6 days during early and late phase flowering. During peak growth water was applied to the plastic pot and the fabric pot every 3-4 days. Water and nutrients were delivered to the Octopot via its Auto Fill System. (SEE BELOW) Octopot s Gro Sleeve holds 6 gallons of growing media similar to the plastic pot and fabric pot. Throughout all stages of growth the Octopot Grow System was watered from a control reservoir which supplies the Octopot s Hydro Reservoir with the water/nutrient solution from the same external water tank used for watering and feeding the other two plants. Basins were used to catch water for the fabric and plastic pots. Octopot s 3 Gallon Hydro Reservoir was connected to the external reservoir containing the water/nutrient solution via a small control reservoir.
4 WATER CONTINUED The fabric and plastic pots were placed in basins to capture excess water and nutrients from wash out. Over the top watering was done to allow a minimum amount of run off. Excess water was absorbed or evaporated generally within 24 hours. There is no run off or washout in the Octopot Grow System because it is a closed system. All plants were watered with nutrient free water during the last 10 days of flowering. LIGHT All three plants shared one 4 x 4 x 7 grow tent during the vegetative phase. A single 1000 watt MH bulb in an enclosed and vented hood lit the three plants. The light cycle for the vegetative stage was set to 16 hours on and 8 hours off. The vegetative stage for all three plants lasted 24 days. During the flowering stage the three plants were grown in a small portion of a larger room. All three plants were under two 1000 watt HPS bulbs in enclosed and vented hoods about 7 off the floor. The plants were grown with an alternative lighting schedule of 6 hours light and 18 hours dark. Although this was not a light study, it was noted that the yields of each plant were at least 50% less than plants grown in using same methods with standard 12-12 flowering production.
5 VEGATATIVE STAGE The general growth rate of the three plants remained equal for the first 2-3 weeks of the vegetative stage. At the end of the 24 day vegetative stage, it was observed that the Octopot plant was slightly larger than the plant in the plastic pot. The plant in the plastic pot was slightly larger than the plant in the fabric pot. It was noted that all three plants were healthy, disease free and pest free during all stages of growth. Keeping in mind the slight variations, all three plants were nearly 30 tall when moved into the flowering mode. A longer veg time would most likely have resulted in a larger difference in the plants sizes. This is due to the fact that the strongest root growth occurs in the Octopot Grow System after the roots enter the reservoir, a couple weeks after planting. FLOWERING STAGE 1 After being in flowering for about a week the plant in the Octopot Grow System began to grow markedly faster than the other two. The fiber pot lagged behind in growth compared to the plastic pot for the first half of flowering approximately the 4-5 week range. Left: Octopot Grow System Center: Fabric Pot Right: Plastic Pot
6 EARLY STAGE FLOWERING The cannabis plant in the Octopot Grow System showed the fasted rate of growth of all three containers tested. The cannabis plant in the plastic pot showed the second fastest growth rate during the beginning stage of flowering. The cannabis plant in the fiber pot showed the slowest rate of growth compared to the plants in the Octopot Grow System and the plastic pot during the beginning stages of flowering.
7 FLOWERING STAGE 2 During the second half of the flowering stage, it was observed that the plant in the fiber pot outperformed the plant in the plastic pot. The plant in the plastic pot developed curled and yellow leaves between weeks 4 and 5. It was determined that the plant stress was caused in part by over watering. The container under the plastic pot was removed during this time to improve air movement. The growth of the plant in the plastic pot slowed considerably and never caught up with the other two plants. Over watering was an Octopot Grow System, Fiber Pot, Plastic Pot issue that the plant in the plastic pot never recovered from completely. Failing to take into account the physical composition of each pot led to an unfavorable outcome for the plant in the plastic pot. The hard sided plastic pot restricts air from entering the soil or growing media. This unequal exchange of water and air contributed to the overwatering of the plant in the plastic pot. Although the plants in the plastic pot and the fiber pot received the same amounts of water the plastic pot held the water longer and suffocated the plant roots. During the vegetative stage, when water availability is crucial, the plastic pot outperformed the fabric pot. During flowering, air seems more crucial to root health. This is when the fabric pot outperformed the plastic pot. The ability of the Octopot Grow System to provide a proper balance of air and water to the plant was most evident during flowering, with the largest gain in size at this time.
8 HARVEST Plastic Pot Fabric Pot Octopot Grow System All three plants were harvested at 9 weeks. All three plants were put into complete darkness for 36 hours then cut at ground level. A majority of the larger leaves were removed from each plant and they were weighed. The plastic pot plant had a fresh harvest weight of approximately 1 ¾ pounds. The fresh weight of the fabric pot plant was approximately 2 3/8 pounds. The fresh weight of the Octopot plant was approximately 3 pounds. After final harvest, flowers were graded and measured. Only the top grade flowers were included in this measurement. The plant in the Octopot Grow System produced 66% more yield than the fabric pot, and 127% more yield than the plastic pot.
9 FLOWERS AT HARVEST IN THE OCTOPOT GROW SYSTEM The plant in the Octopot Grow System yielded 26% more fresh weight than the plant in the fiber pot. It had the most medium size buds and largest yield of all three cannabis plants. FLOWERS AT HARVEST IN FABRIC POT The cannabis plant in the fabric pot grew larger than the plant in the plastic pot. It had more medium size buds and a higher percentage of usable plant material than the plastic pot. FLOWERS AT HARVEST IN THE PLASTIC POT The cannabis plant in the plastic pot was smallest and had a damaged top stem that had begun to dry out before harvest. Buds were small sized. There was a large proportion of unusable plant material. The plant in the Octopot Grow System yielded 71% more fresh weight than the plastic pot.
10 ROOT HEALTH Root systems were observed after they dried out. The roots in the plastic pot had spread to the edge of the container and had begun to circle the pot. The root crown, the portion where roots emanated from the plant cutting, was solid but the smallest of the three. The roots in the fabric pot reached the edge of the container and branched at the tips. The root crown was larger than in the plastic pot. The roots in the Octopot were established in the fabric Gro Sleeve portion and had established a root system in the Hydro Reservoir as well. This dual root system consists of terrestrial roots in the Gro Sleeve and hydroponic roots in the Hydro Reservoir. The Octopot plant s root crown was the largest of the three.
11 RESULTS: Parameters All plants had the same nutrition, light, air and soil. The goal of this study was to see the difference the container makes. The conditions that these plants were grown in were not ideal. It was frequently too hot or too cool. Humidity was not controlled, CO2 was not used. Pruning was not done to remove small lower branches to eliminate the risk of that being a difference between plants final outcome. The light received was from brand new Hortilux MH and HPS 1000 w bulbs thus top quality. Note: As stated previously, the light schedule experiment most likely affected the final outcome of all three plants. The reduced light schedule caused a lower than expected yield from all three plants. However, measurements prove that in spite of the reduced light schedule, Octopot Grow Systems outperformed the other two containers in this trial. RESULTS: THE EFFECTS OF WATERING Several differences were observed but the most significant was the size and yield of the plant grown in the Octopot Grow System compared to the plants grown in the fabric and plastic containers. This may be attributed to the Octopot Grow System s self-watering feature because it allowed the plant to uptake water and nutrients on as needed. The decision to water the plant was made by the plant, not the grower. Taking out human error allowed the plant to feed on demand so it was never too wet or too dry, as happened to the plants in the plastic and fabric pots. As long as the Depth Gauge on the Octopot was in the proper range, the plant seemed to receive the optimum moisture level. With plastic and fiber pots it is very easy to overwater or underwater the plants. The biggest killer of container grown plants is improper watering. RESULTS: TIME MANAGEMENT It is important to mention the frequency and amount of time spent watering. The plants in the plastic and fabric pots were watered up to every three days. Each pot had to be hand filled which took a couple minutes each. The Octopot Grow System was connected to the control reservoir so the only time spent watering was when the main reservoir needed filling, and the single act of moving the 6 gallon Gro Sleeve with plant from the 3 Gallon Hydro Reservoir into the larger 6 Gallon Hydro Reservoir before flowering. Octopot s auto fill feature is a real time saver for growers with more than a few plants.
12 RESULTS: ROOT HEALTH A main difference between the containers was that the plant in the Octopot Grow System grew two distinct sets of roots, one in the soil and one growing in water inside the Hydro Reservoir. The ability for the plant in the Octopot Grow System to have two root systems gave the plant several advantages over the plants grown in the other two containers. One obvious advantage is that there were more plant roots in the Octopot Grow System than the other two containers. The second root system growing in Octopot s Hydro Reservoir allowed the automatic watering feature to run smoothly because there was an availability of air to the plant roots. A balance of air and water is necessary for root health and capillary action. The Octopot Grow System did not require aeration for the second root mass to grow in the water and no root rot or stagnant water was observed. In comparison, air movement inside the plastic container restricted root growth and contributed to poor plant health when the soil became saturated from over watering (human error). The fabric pot had more air movement than the plastic pot but ultimately its plant produced a smaller root system and a smaller plant compared to the Octopot Grow System. It is likely that the Octopot Grow System achieved a balance of water and air thus producing a larger plant with more yield than the other two. Another advantage is that plant loss can be reduced by using the Octopot Grow System instead of a plastic or fabric pot. If the roots in the Hydro Reservoir are damaged, the soil borne roots can keep the plant alive for an extended period in the Octopot Grow System. The plant then has a much better chance of recovery or survival. Plastic and fiber pots have one root zone and if it is damaged it can be extremely difficult for a plant to recover. CONCLUSION Soil growing is the most common form of cannabis cultivation. It is known as being the easiest way to grow a crop. It typically has the most flavorful harvest. However, it is not for the faint of heart or wallet. A substantial amount of effort, time and financial resources are required to be successful. Choosing the container for your roots is as important as choosing the light for your shoots. Going for the most inexpensive choice to begin may end up costing far more in the long run. Is the Octopot a good investment compared to a plain pot? The Octopot was easier to use because it was automatic and there was no guessing or stressing about how much water or air the plant getting. The Octopot out yielded the fabric and plastic pots and required much less time to maintain resulting in a significant return on investment which translates to more income for the grower.