filthyknees said:

No that's BS.

All I ever use in a monotub is 4qts of spawn to a standard bucket tek recipe.

Erase the idea of it needing to be exact in terms of height, think ratio (roughly is okay).

Bucket tek comes out to be about 8-10qts substrate. 4 quarts of spawn, call it a 1:2 ratio - more than enough.

Some people use 5 or 6qts of spawn, I use 4 cause it's enough. Would rather make another tub up with the extra (more spread risk).

---

footpath said:

As I understand, the possible downside to a 1:1 ratio is the lack of proper maintenance of field capacity. It's often considered a waste in terms of nutrient : water (grain spawn : substrate) because you have all this potential in your nutrients but not the right conditions to utilize it.
Just like the brainy pothead - It's plenty effective, just doesn't reach it's full potential.

---

footpath said:

For the sake of practical measures, please elaborate as to how my use of the term 'maintenance of field capacity' is impractical and how dndrnd is right in saying that 'field capacity is how hydrated your bulk sub is before mixing'.
That statement is not only impractical, it is wrong. What do you think misting is? Just adding water? Or is it a way to once again achieve field capacity? And what maintains field capacity? Your misting? And how do things grow well? By replacing lost water, no matter how excessive?

---

footpath said:

Field capacity - Content of water, on a mass or volume basis, remaining in a soil after being saturated with water and after free drainage is negligible.

Field capacity doesn't just stop when you add spawn.

---

NightPuma1 said:

Do you have a problem with throwing in more spawn? I.E. something closer to a 1:1 ratio?

---

DnDRnD said:

Field capacity is the moisture content we hydrate our bulk sub to. - yes, and the water content of the substrate thereafter.

Misting is to replace SURFACE MOISTURE to increase evaporation off the substrate to help induce pinning - fair enough, but because the surface is part of the substrate, its moisture is an aspect of its field capacity.

We dunk our substrate to rehydrate it but you dont measure it out to field capacity again - just because you can't measure it doesn't mean that's not what you're trying to achieve.

"No matter how excessive?" What does that mean? There is obviously a possibility to over hydrate your substrate - if you read the sentence in the way sentences are supposed to be read, you would understand that it refers to the replacement thereof, meaning it is excessively drying and subsequently being rehydrated

---

footpath said:

Field capacity is a measurement. It doesn't change from study to study, even if you can't accurately measure it. For instance,  how do you measure it in this study? Squeezing? That seems just as accurate as visual appearance, duration of submergence, or squeezes of x water bottle.

No matter how excessive the rate of loss and replenishment of water. It was meant to say that you'll have a healthier, more efficient culture if you have a more adequate ratio of substrate because you're better maintaining, not adjusting to, proper conditions. If you're watering often, your conditions are poor, and, likely, so too will be your return.

---

footpath said:

Oh cool. So what psi should I squeeze? 42.2 sound about right? Is it different for coir vs coir/verm?

And I thought we were talking field capacity, not atmospheric conditions?

Anyway. Best for me to tip my hat before the Johnnie black hijacks this thread way worse than this bickering did.

---

It's not thread jacking if your correcting wrong information and then trying to explain why its wrong when being questioned

footpath said:

All you're doing is relentlessly defending the misuse of a term. You don't correct anything, you just take bits of information that you don't understand and scrutinize them. And when those bits of information are drawn out for you, you either divert to an irrelevant comparison or reiterate your same misunderstanding.

There's a trail of hijacked threads where you stride. I don't think it's intentional and I don't think you're all wrong, but I think you feel a little too safe in the drove and it inflames your confidence.
I mean no malice, but I do mean to represent truth and understanding. If someone, you included, can better convince me of my error, I'll happily own it. So far, the most pertinent rebuttal I've gotten was just, 'that's not how we do.' And that was just in relation to colloquial terminology.
Sorry, but nothing you've said is at all convincing of how my statement of methodology was incorrect.

...Johnnie got me.

---

In mycology we only measure field capacity before adding spawn like bod said, your term of maintaining field capacity by misting and such was wrong because we dont mist to maintain field capacity, thats what dunking is for. Misting is for surface moisture

And as for me thread jacking, ive only jacked 1 thread, mabye 2 if you count this one but that depends how you look at it. So in all my time of being shroomery member that only adds up to 3 potential cases of thread jacking so how is that leaving a trail of hijacked threads?