Meni
Forumi
Nove poruke
Sve teme
Najnovije teme
Nove poruke
♫ Radio
Dnevnici
Dnevnici Vanjskog Uzgajanja
Dnevnici Unutrašnjeg Uzgajanja
Završeni Vanjski Dnevnici
Završeni Unutrašnji Dnevnici
Novo
Popularne teme
Nove poruke
Najnovije aktivnosti
Članovi
Trenutno prisutni
Forumi
Prijava
Registracija
Nove poruke
Sve teme
Najnovije teme
Nove poruke
Meni
Install the app
Install
Objavite odgovor
Forumi
Uzgajanje Marihuane
Uzgoj FAQ
Zalijevanje
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
Koristite zastareli pregledač. Možda neće pravilno prikazivati ove ili druge veb stranice.
Trebali biste nadograditi ili koristiti
alternativni pregledač
.
Poruka
<blockquote data-quote="Stipe" data-source="post: 584956" data-attributes="member: 38614"><p>Nope. Mislis da pro vrtlari vec nisu napravili brojna testiranja <img src="/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/smajli2.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":D" title="Kez :D" data-shortname=":D" /> </p><p>[SPOILER="Klor i Kloramin"]</p><p><strong>Results</strong></p><p></p><p>Soil bacteria numbers were counted using a plate count technique. After consulting with experts there is an expected error rate of + or – 300 on the results. So if the numbers are not more than 300 apart from each other they are considered to be duplicate results. All results are in Colony-forming Units Per Milliliter.</p><p></p><p><strong>Soil Results</strong></p><p></p><p>Did treating the garden soil with tap water kill beneficial bacteria?</p><p></p><p>The control had a result of 920 CFU/mL and the initial treatment had a result of 1000 CFU/mL.</p><p></p><p>This does not support our hypothesis as these results are nearly identical.</p><p></p><p>After 6 hours sample 4 also had an result of 1100 CFU/mL that would be considered identical to both the control and initial treatment.</p><p></p><p>Does the extreme situation of sample 3 where we took the same soil sample and placed it directly in fresh tap water show a decline? It had a result of 1200 CFU/mL so once again with in the error rate of being identical to the control.</p><p></p><p>So what does this all mean? Our results suggest that tap water at least consistently across Canada does not harm the bacteria in our garden soils.</p><p>Water Results</p><p></p><p>Although the chlorine does not hurt bacteria in soil what are the Chlorine levels that are hitting your soil and does leaving tap water out or using a sprayer help to reduce the concentrations of chlorine? Lets take a look at the results of the chlorine testes on the water samples. All results are in milligrams per liter.</p><p></p><p>Sample 5 was our fresh tap water and had an reading of 2.0 mg/L</p><p></p><p>In order to see if the results are statistically different we used a Real Percent Difference analysis.</p><p></p><p>Sample 6 that had been sitting out for 12 hours had a reading of 1.4 mg/L and does look lower than the fresh tap waters 2.0mg/L however it is considered statistically to be the same.</p><p></p><p>Sample 7 taken from the end of my fairly standard garden hose and had a reading of 1.3 and again was not statistically different from the fresh tap water. It would likely take a few days for the rest of the Chlorine to completely evaporate along with any remaining ammonia.</p><p>[/SPOILER]</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Stipe, post: 584956, member: 38614"] Nope. Mislis da pro vrtlari vec nisu napravili brojna testiranja :D [SPOILER="Klor i Kloramin"] [B]Results[/B] Soil bacteria numbers were counted using a plate count technique. After consulting with experts there is an expected error rate of + or – 300 on the results. So if the numbers are not more than 300 apart from each other they are considered to be duplicate results. All results are in Colony-forming Units Per Milliliter. [B]Soil Results[/B] Did treating the garden soil with tap water kill beneficial bacteria? The control had a result of 920 CFU/mL and the initial treatment had a result of 1000 CFU/mL. This does not support our hypothesis as these results are nearly identical. After 6 hours sample 4 also had an result of 1100 CFU/mL that would be considered identical to both the control and initial treatment. Does the extreme situation of sample 3 where we took the same soil sample and placed it directly in fresh tap water show a decline? It had a result of 1200 CFU/mL so once again with in the error rate of being identical to the control. So what does this all mean? Our results suggest that tap water at least consistently across Canada does not harm the bacteria in our garden soils. Water Results Although the chlorine does not hurt bacteria in soil what are the Chlorine levels that are hitting your soil and does leaving tap water out or using a sprayer help to reduce the concentrations of chlorine? Lets take a look at the results of the chlorine testes on the water samples. All results are in milligrams per liter. Sample 5 was our fresh tap water and had an reading of 2.0 mg/L In order to see if the results are statistically different we used a Real Percent Difference analysis. Sample 6 that had been sitting out for 12 hours had a reading of 1.4 mg/L and does look lower than the fresh tap waters 2.0mg/L however it is considered statistically to be the same. Sample 7 taken from the end of my fairly standard garden hose and had a reading of 1.3 and again was not statistically different from the fresh tap water. It would likely take a few days for the rest of the Chlorine to completely evaporate along with any remaining ammonia. [/SPOILER] [/QUOTE]
Verifikacija
Objavite odgovor
Forumi
Uzgajanje Marihuane
Uzgoj FAQ
Zalijevanje
Top
Bottom