Some good comments, Eric.
My comments, also copied from Slippertalk:
A general comment, using semi-hydroponics as an example: attributing failure to s/h is like striking out at baseball, then blaming the bat. That also holds true for lights, potting media, fertilizers, etc.
Conversely, attributing success to s/h all by itself also demonstrates some naivety, as you have apparently not recognized some shortcoming in your culture that it merely may have helped. Again that also holds true for lights, potting media, fertilizers, etc.
Something else to keep in mind: Very often, when someone makes a change in their culture and is successful, the tendency is to credit something specific in that change, rather than looking at the whole picture. Take MSU fertilizer - it's good, but it is just a fertilizer. The "amazing success" some folks have when they switched to it is not due so much to the fertilizer, but because they began feeding their plants in a controlled, regular manner. After a while, they go back to their old, sloppy, every-now-and-then regimen, and the "MSU doesn't work any more."
The same is true with anything - and again using s/h as the example - if the transplantation is well timed, the rest of the growing conditions are right, and all of the method's requirements are met, the likelihood of success with it (or any other method) is quite good. Once the novelty wears off, the level of care given begins to wane a bit, and it's blamed on semi-hydroponics.
Put simply: You've got to look at the whole picture!
|