10 - Agrobar 720s over 6 - 4x8.5 ft rolling benches. F & D FTW

[Crooked8]

Even if UV had an effect on cannabinoids , you cant do it at scale so that pointless. .

And btw the range of UV (led uv) he's using is not UV. It's blue. I think its 395nm something like that.

Theres a reason for his result, as you increase yield , cannabinoids density reduce. They call it yield dillution.

If you do the opposite , as you decrease yield, cannabinoids density increase.

Blue promote plant quality not yield.

So his sample tested maybe higher in cannabinoids per grams but his light fixture reduce the total yield output so you end up with less cannabinoids output.

Let me put this more clear; if you have 2 light of 100w and you tweak the blue on one fixture , it will affect yield right, because as you increase blue you are forced to reduce red or green, which are both more beneficial for yield than blue, you gain nothing, you sacrifice one thing for another.

It depends on your goals and if its cost-productive to do it.

Theres better ways to play with quality without reducing yield and using UV...

It's easier to sell a product that the customer think is the best rather than sell him what is really the best.Thats how the market works....

and thats why you see those new fixture with IR and UV coming out.. It's a marketing strategy to trap the old and new fish. Because yea.. theres plenty money to make for them with the industry expansion and new player coming in.They promote their thing with social media trying to convince you it's an evolution but theres nothing there.

But the reality is.... there a high demand for effiency led and no demand for UV/IR led. So what they do ? they mix some shitty leds with good leds and they produce more fixture at the same price$. otherwise, there would be shortage or the price would keep rising.As the market expand, the led industry has to find solution to feed them.

look at the fact: the best light fixture has the highest effiency and they dont use UV or IR at all @3.15umol/w

Im still stoked with the agrobars. They have more blue to them than some leds like boulderlamp which was way too much red imo. So far weve had the best yield and terps from these fixtures. I was never sold on UV and its why i dont have any. But i do think we need to consider that some differences must be possible in drug type cannabis vs hemp/cbd. Im gonna figure this out, it just takes time. I like knowing whats in the tissue, good or bad. Only way to make the most of this lab I built.

 

[Dr.Dutch]

Do you have any scientific evidence that "drug-type" cannabis has different nutrient requirements? Chemically, this cannot be explained at all. I can imagine a difference between fiber hemp and resin-rich hemp, but if you look at the synthesis more closely, it probably makes no difference to the plant whether it ends up building a THC or a CBD molecule.

(From GPT, if this is wrong, please correct me)

### Biosynthesis of THC and CBD

1. **Common Precursor**:
Both THC and CBD are synthesized from the same precursor molecule: cannabigerolic acid (CBGA). The formation of CBGA is a crucial step that occurs through the combination of geranyl pyrophosphate (GPP) and olivetolic acid (OA).

2. **Enzymes**:
The conversion of CBGA into THC or CBD is carried out by different enzymes:
- **THC Synthase** (THCA Synthase) converts CBGA into tetrahydrocannabinolic acid (THCA), which then decarboxylates to become THC.
- **CBD Synthase** (CBDA Synthase) converts CBGA into cannabidiolic acid (CBDA), which decarboxylates to become CBD.

### Genetic Differences

Cannabis can be classified into three chemotypic categories, differing in their enzymatic activities and consequently in the relative amounts of THC and CBD they produce:

1. **Type 1 (THC-dominant)**: These plants primarily produce THC. They have high THC synthase activity and little to no CBD synthase activity.

2. **Type 2 (Balanced)**: These plants have mixed enzyme activities and produce both THC and CBD in similar amounts.

3. **Type 3 (CBD-dominant)**: These plants primarily produce CBD. They have high CBD synthase activity and little to no THC synthase activity.

On another note: As long as we don't know the values of your fertilizer, we are all just guessing (including you). Even daily leaf analyses won’t help if you don’t have those values for your fertilizer.

@weedemart IR should, as far as I know, be beneficial: it has very good penetration like green light and should help with the plant's shade detection. However, those few 385nm UV-LEDs are really just decorative on the LEDs.
Do you have a link to the 3.15 mol fixture? I was looking at the DimLux, but they only reach about 3

 

[Crooked8]

Do you have any scientific evidence that "drug-type" cannabis has different nutrient requirements? Chemically, this cannot be explained at all. I can imagine a difference between fiber hemp and resin-rich hemp, but if you look at the synthesis more closely, it probably makes no difference to the plant whether it ends up building a THC or a CBD molecule.



On another note: As long as we don't know the values of your fertilizer, we are all just guessing (including you). Even daily leaf analyses won’t help if you don’t have those values for your fertilizer.

View attachment 19018189

@weedemart IR should, as far as I know, be beneficial: it has very good penetration like green light and should help with the plant's shade detection. However, those few 385nm UV-LEDs are really just decorative on the LEDs.
Do you have a link to the 3.15 mol fixture? I was looking at the DimLux, but they only reach about 3

I have absolutely no evidence of this. Im merely saying its possible, i dont know for sure and thats why ill adhere to a middle ground on the charts since they seem all over the place when it comes to recommended ranges.

The lab does offer solution testing. Its like 200$, maybe that outta be next.

 

[Dr.Dutch]

Alright. I will continue to assume that Cannabis Sativa L. requires the same nutrients regardless of type. But of course, one can never rule out the possibility of being wrong. A study could come out tomorrow showing us something different


I've also incorporated the typical values from your lab into the sheet, which interested me. The conversion can be easily taken from the table here; multiply the values on the top by 30 and the bottom by 0.003 to get the values in ppm for the nutrient solution.

The NPK and Ca values measured here are extremely high in some cases. Whether this means many of their customers are over-fertilizing is hard to say. One might also suspect from the values that many growers are using too much CalMag and PK booster..

Of particular interest to you: The micronutrient values are the same for all samples, so you might want to consider why Mn and B are so elevated.
What am I talking here? Maximal Mn and Bo are significantly higher in the NCSU study.
B 2,66x higher, Mn 2,8.
But for you, B is about 4 times too high and Mn 5 times. So no matter which values you take, your plants are well above any maximum limit^^

Isn't the content listed on your fertilizer? For me, this would already be a reason to consider switching manufacturers. Any decent manufacturer should provide this information at least on the bottle. With GH for example, you can find this directly on their website (although you have to be cautious with the term "guaranteed analysis"). This note, for example, is not found with Haifa.

 

[Crooked8]

Alright. I will continue to assume that Cannabis Sativa L. requires the same nutrients regardless of type. But of course, one can never rule out the possibility of being wrong. A study could come out tomorrow showing us something different


I've also incorporated the typical values from your lab into the sheet, which interested me. The conversion can be easily taken from the table here; multiply the values on the top by 30 and the bottom by 0.003 to get the values in ppm for the nutrient solution.
View attachment 19018228
The NPK and Ca values measured here are extremely high in some cases. Whether this means many of their customers are over-fertilizing is hard to say. One might also suspect from the values that many growers are using too much CalMag and PK booster..

View attachment 19018229

Of particular interest to you: The micronutrient values are the same for all samples, so you might want to consider why Mn and B are so elevated.
What am I talking here? Maximal Mn and Bo are significantly higher in the NCSU study.
B 2,66x higher, Mn 2,8.
But for you, B is about 4 times too high and Mn 5 times. So no matter which values you take, your plants are well above any maximum limit^^

View attachment 19018230

Isn't the content listed on your fertilizer? For me, this would already be a reason to consider switching manufacturers. Any decent manufacturer should provide this information at least on the bottle. With GH for example, you can find this directly on their website (although you have to be cautious with the term "guaranteed analysis"). This note, for example, is not found with Haifa.

View attachment 19018231

The npk values are listed, but they arent accurate and H&G is notorious for this. However, ive mentioned this before, ive been growing for 23 years, ive tried so so many nutrient lines at least 15+ in my life. Never has anything come close to the products overall quality, morphology or flavor as with H&G with our setup. Ive deviated many times only to be bummed. Im trying out front row next run, well see how that goes but im already very skeptical because of every past trial. You can understand why someone saying “just make your own nutrients” is daunting. Where would i make it? Where would i source everything i need? Wouldnt it certainly involve trial and error? All of those questions have answers that likely are costly and possibly disastrous for someone who already doesnt have enough time to sleep in a day. I realize you dont like hydro store nutrients but, plenty of people are using them successfully including bugbee, many colleagues and myself. Reducing my base feed a touch, also reducing ca/mag and allowing more of a dryback early on could solve all of the issues youve mentioned. Which ultimately sounds much simpler than anything else. Also, this run, with these values, is currently doing quite well. Most plants are perky, a great color and showing no necrotic or chlorotic anything. I appreciate what you are saying but im not forgetting the lab managers assessment. He said these results were solid and he does these all day for actual large commercial growers. My cousin has a legal setup in maine, his numbers were off the charts compared to this and he has one of the most popular products on the market. They run extremely high EC and ive told them i think its absurd. I personally never exceed an ec in my feed above 2.2-2.4. As I said, I think ill get the solution test next run and go from there. For now im going to strive for that middle ground safe zone between all these damn charts and see how we do. I really think in weeks 1-3 i need to dry back harder which should alleviate the micros buildup in theory.

 

[JKD]

For the plants that you feel are reacting negatively to light intensity, is it practical to group those together (maybe next run) and dim the Agrobars that are directly over them by some %? Possibly allowing you also to increase intensity or supplement over another section/strain(s) where they may be more able to utilise it.

 

[Prawn Connery]

Well the other reason i believe it to be light is because of the striping. Where there is a constant shadow up top, the stem is green. Like a green stripe within a reddish stem. Its also only some strains showing this and they are the ones that turn purple. But again, tests tell us more than our assumptions for sure.

Bingo. Anthocyanin light stress.

The selective striping is the give-away: where fan leaves shade the stems, they are green; where they are not, they're red. I notice there appears to be a bit of defol towards the top of the plants, which will be the main contributor to light stress. One of the functions of anthocyanin is to reflect red and blue light where they are excessive. You see red stems on a liot of overly defoliated plants.

Not saying yours are "overly defoliated" but it is common to see red stems on a lot of (if not most) grows where mass defoliation is used. Fan leaves absorb light – once removed, that light still has to go somewhere.

 

[Prawn Connery]

Even if UV had an effect on cannabinoids , you cant do it at scale so that pointless. .

You have no idea. Seriously.

If the sun can do UV "at scale", so can any indoor horticultural facility.

And btw the range of UV (led uv) he's using is not UV. It's blue. I think its 395nm something like that.

Changing the definition of "UV" now are we?

Perhaps it is time you looked up what ultra violet light is. And violet light, for that matter. (Hint: you won't find it in 450nm blue pump phosphor LEDs).

If you don't know what the definition of UV is – and especially if you have no idea how the UVR8 pathway absorbs it – then just say so.

Theres a reason for his result, as you increase yield , cannabinoids density reduce. They call it yield dillution.

If you do the opposite , as you decrease yield, cannabinoids density increase.

Blue promote plant quality not yield.

Not necessarily.

So his sample tested maybe higher in cannabinoids per grams but his light fixture reduce the total yield output so you end up with less cannabinoids output.

Wrong. In side-by-side tests with HLG panels with high red and low blue, our lights beat them for both dry yield (by virtue of finishing flowering seven days earlier in a nominal 77-day strain) and cannabinoids.

You know nothing about our samples because you weren't around when they were published 4-5 years ago. We've since done side-by-sides against other white/red LED fixtures and beaten those, too.

Let me put this more clear; if you have 2 light of 100w and you tweak the blue on one fixture , it will affect yield right, because as you increase blue you are forced to reduce red or green, which are both more beneficial for yield than blue, you gain nothing, you sacrifice one thing for another.

It depends on your goals and if its cost-productive to do it.

Theres better ways to play with quality without reducing yield and using UV...

Tell that to the sun. Sunlight has 25-30% blue light. It also has 5% UV and 25% Far Red.

If you want to define "quality", let's compare sun-grown to indoors.

It's easier to sell a product that the customer think is the best rather than sell him what is really the best.Thats how the market works....

and thats why you see those new fixture with IR and UV coming out.. It's a marketing strategy to trap the old and new fish. Because yea.. theres plenty money to make for them with the industry expansion and new player coming in.They promote their thing with social media trying to convince you it's an evolution but theres nothing there.

But the reality is.... there a high demand for effiency led and no demand for UV/IR led. So what they do ? they mix some shitty leds with good leds and they produce more fixture at the same price$. otherwise, there would be shortage or the price would keep rising.As the market expand, the led industry has to find solution to feed them.

look at the fact: the best light fixture has the highest effiency and they dont use UV or IR at all @3.15umol/w

Again, you have no idea. Those Nichia UV diodes are not only expensive, they are over 70% efficient.

We've also tested 3.19 umol/j – even higher than your "3.15 umol/w" (and it is JOULE, not watt) so "efficiency" and "true full spectrum" are not mutually exclusive.

Keep speculating. Or better still, why don't you show us some plants you've grown? We still haven't seen anything from you, have we? Your little tub grow failed and yet you still troll these boards pretending to be some master grower who couldn't even manage to keep a couple of DWC plants alive in his cupboard.

The "best" fixture is the one that grows the healthiest plants. The secret to that is broad spectrum – "not 3K + 5K + 660" as all the cookie-cutter Chinese lights are these days.

Indeed, after all these years other LED lighting manufacturers are finally coming to the realisation that Far Red, violet and UV produce results you simply can't achieve with white and red alone. That is why their spectra are looking more and more like ours every time a new model comes out.

 

[Crooked8]

Bingo. Anthocyanin light stress.

The selective striping is the give-away: where fan leaves shade the stems, they are green; where they are not, they're red. I notice there appears to be a bit of defol towards the top of the plants, which will be the main contributor to light stress. One of the functions of anthocyanin is to reflect red and blue light where they are excessive. You see red stems on a liot of overly defoliated plants.

Not saying yours are "overly defoliated" but it is common to see red stems on a lot of (if not most) grows where mass defoliation is used. Fan leaves absorb light – once removed, that light still has to go somewhere.

Im not too heavy handed with the defol but some of our strains really need it especially up top. I dont mind seeing red striping here and there, now if they were purple stems all the way down with overall chlorosis id be concerned. Thanks for chiming in buddy.

 

[weedemart]

You have no idea. Seriously.

If the sun can do UV "at scale", so can any indoor horticultural facility.

Changing the definition of "UV" now are we?

Perhaps it is time you looked up what ultra violet light is. And violet light, for that matter. (Hint: you won't find it in 450nm blue pump phosphor LEDs).

If you don't know what the definition of UV is – and especially if you have no idea how the UVR8 pathway absorbs it – then just say so.


Not necessarily.


Wrong. In side-by-side tests with HLG panels with high red and low blue, our lights beat them for both dry yield (by virtue of finishing flowering seven days earlier in a nominal 77-day strain) and cannabinoids.

You know nothing about our samples because you weren't around when they were published 4-5 years ago. We've since done side-by-sides against other white/red LED fixtures and beaten those, too.


Tell that to the sun. Sunlight has 25-30% blue light. It also has 5% UV and 25% Far Red.

If you want to define "quality", let's compare sun-grown to indoors.


Again, you have no idea. Those Nichia UV diodes are not only expensive, they are over 70% efficient.

We've also tested 3.19 umol/j – even higher than your "3.15 umol/w" (and it is JOULE, not watt) so "efficiency" and "true full spectrum" are not mutually exclusive.

Keep speculating. Or better still, why don't you show us some plants you've grown? We still haven't seen anything from you, have we? Your little tub grow failed and yet you still troll these boards pretending to be some master grower who couldn't even manage to keep a couple of DWC plants alive in his cupboard.

The "best" fixture is the one that grows the healthiest plants. The secret to that is broad spectrum – "not 3K + 5K + 660" as all the cookie-cutter Chinese lights are these days.

Indeed, after all these years other LED lighting manufacturers are finally coming to the realisation that Far Red, violet and UV produce results you simply can't achieve with white and red alone. That is why their spectra are looking more and more like ours every time a new model comes out.

''bro'' let's face the reality; you will going opposite way to me because.... its not in your interest.You have an audience to please and your bullshit to keep alive. If you are the center of the ganja universe and know everything on leds and light fixture and weed. Why you wasting your time on a internet forum instead of travelling on your yacht and growing your international led business that will push our cannabis industry?

AW guess we are in the same position, you are not a mastergrower :| you are a seller. And seller have interest.And if it doesnt compute with your interest, im wrong. Right?

But my ''b.s'' you can find it anywhere on internet, and your ''b.s'' you can only find it in your secret''database'' , with your hidden batman cave grow.

Maybe you make money with your business, but its because people are fooled by your arguments and dont take time to make research and you have corrupted affiliate who promote you.

Speculating on true fact,that you can source,verify,put in metrics and repeat is always better than spreading bullshit with your own sheet nobody can find,where only you see the results. I see only you going that way with uv and far red.

When money talk no one cares about your uv/far red. they want yield and quality that produce a PROFIT. Not a fancy fixture.

Not going in a ego battle with you again. You are like me, everyone is wrong and you have the truth. But until you can prove it with real metrics from verified source, I will hold my position.

Show me the metrics and results, we will compare with my 100$ led panel and my dwc tub, which is not dwc..

thanks for promoting yourself, once again.

 

[Prawn Connery]

Don't "bro" me if you don't know me.

See the join date on my profile? It says "2004". I have been on these forums since Overgrow days. Probably since before you were born. I don't have to justify my online presence to you.

I also have nothing to prove to you that I haven't proven to everyone else over 30 years of indoor growing. There are people here who have been following me in all that time and have seen my results.

There's no "batcave" fool. But there are many years of results and research that have been shared online for over 20 years.

There are also peer-reviewed papers that have been published on the subject of UVA and cannabinoids. If you can't find them, then that's your problem.

You, however, have no track record here or anywhere else that I have seen You have shown us nothing except a little two-plant tub grow in a cupboard that you couldn't even finish.

Results speak for themselves.

 

[Porky82]

Bloody epic thread!
Some awesome buds @Crooked8 love the setup!

 

[weedemart]

Don't "bro" me if you don't know me.

See the join date on my profile? It says "2004". I have been on these forums since Overgrow days. Probably since before you were born. I don't have to justify my online presence to you.

I also have nothing to prove to you that I haven't proven to everyone else over 30 years of indoor growing. There are people here who have been following me in all that time and have seen my results.

There's no "batcave" fool. But there are many years of results and research that have been shared online for over 20 years.

There are also peer-reviewed papers that have been published on the subject of UVA and cannabinoids. If you can't find them, then that's your problem.

You, however, have no track record here or anywhere else that I have seen You have shown us nothing except a little two-plant tub grow in a cupboard that you couldn't even finish.

Results speak for themselves.

All you print is word without value, ''results'' without numbers and insults for your ego.

Maybe I know you.

 

[DARKSIDER]

All smooth in here so far, happy ladies, lights at 80%. View attachment 19012408
No matter what my truffle mintz curls downward. Its just a genetic trait. The budsite foliage does it from the start. Nothing else in the room is doing it,
TM curl….
View attachment 19012406
View attachment 19012405
Roots look terrific….
View attachment 19012404
Everything else NOT curling…..
View attachment 19012403 View attachment 19012402

View attachment 19012400

Transplanted clones as well, veg going strong
View attachment 19012407

I dont think the TM curl issue is correctable, or even a real issue. Gg4 always has leaf twist, could simply just be an expression but im done obsessing over it

Looking Well Crooked8

 

[Crooked8]

Looking Well Crooked8

Thanks my friend! Appreciate it, its coming along for sure.

 

[Crooked8]

Bloody epic thread!
Some awesome buds @Crooked8 love the setup!

Thanks porky, lots of fun working this room. Really looking forward to the new genetics were sorting through.

 

[Porky82]

Thanks porky, lots of fun working this room. Really looking forward to the new genetics were sorting through.

I'll be here watching mate. Good luck with finding something special!

 

[Rocket Soul]

Thank you for contributing here! As for the ph swings, i do not want to swing too low where more micros become available considering im already too high in some areas. I think that accumulation could have come from the slabs staying too wet in the early days. If i had these tests available for cheaper, id do them at day one of flower, week three and week 6. Ive had plenty of runs in my life where there was not one leaf looking deficient or toxic in any way. Zero chlorosis or necrosis. This all gets more difficult to achieve when were hitting higher umol than is possible with HPS. Back in those days i never saw any nutrition issues, it was super rare. Kind of like driving a volvo or something. Now i feel like im driving a ferrari that always needs a tune up but our product is better and there is more of it for the input costs so hey ill keep pushing.

As for the values being “potentially” the same for bugbees material vs ours, im not so sure anymore. I used to be the guy arguing with you here about bugbees lessons. As ive stated before i took his USU course twice and am currently enrolled for a third time. Ive learned a ton from their modules despite having grown for over 20 years in many formats. But the point is, some have disproven his findings when it comes to drug type cannabis. @Prawn Connery showed me this first with a UV test result. In bugbees course they showed several samples and their cannabinoid results with and without all UV ranges. Nothing was of any note as far as impact on cannabinoids so they concluded it does nothing. Prawn showed a chart where the literal opposite was true for drug type cannabis. This for sure made me scratch my head and think twice before assuming all i hear from their team is precise for what im cultivating. The lab manager also told me from what they have seen(they test drug type cannabis every day for years now), that in our case the plant likely requires more than hemp because of production impact compounds and higher cannabinoid production. He found bugbees levels very low and that if pushed with that feed at my light intensity he would expect deficiency. Which i was on my last test.

We can all assume everything is fine but another lesson in bugbees course was how deficient a plant needs to be to actually display it. Nitrogen deficiency does not show until a certain very low level. So just because something looks good doesnt mean the tissue will say the same. Anyone can come in here and speculate on how to fix my results, but unless youve done it yourself i still have to be careful what advice i employ. Although i do appreciate the effort and I will consider everything before i fill the lab again next run.

Cant agree more full heartedly. Bugbee does some good research but some is flawed, especially his UV paper. He brings in his own bio-uv-dose-equivalent measure into his paper, from all i can understand he just uses an actionspectrum for suntan to get his measure and states that this is a "scientific consensus measure". Not realizing that what he does will screw with the results.

I hate the phrase but "do your own research" is the best idea . Start small. If you can start with a base spectrum low in green. If youre worried about pushing uv to hard and that it will cause yield loss then add your UV together with some red; weve had nice results with this type of supplement though we havent had a chance to measure it by canabinoids.

Check out the close ups Piecho did of our latest pheno run (which we f-cked up somewhat):

Piecho's photo journey

Some fun with the light these are fun shots! kick ass my man

www.icmag.com

I know photos doesnt prove a thing but there should be enough on those to get peeps thinking beyond Bugbee. But i think we may have even overdone them, some places have nothing but amber heads and cloudy stalks.

Another point with Bugbees studies is that they dont exactly follow the natural progression of a grow. As a grower you see the plants react, and then you act on that accordingly. Bugbees studies are made to perfectly maintain all variables for later on doing statistic tests, though the approach (test scores made to mean and standard deviation and apply T-test) is only one of many statistic tools you can use.
If i can get our grow sorted out with one new light ill make some adjustments so that we can grow the same cuts using our horticentric, HE (4k +660) and plain white 3k over the same samples - this should give us the material for doing ranking type statistic approach: just have people test the samples for smell and see if they can smell the difference reliably. This to me is a better approach for going forward, in the end we are not talking about thc levels as much as perceived quality as most of this crop later goes to market. And if you have 3 different conditions (great/good/plain light) over say 5 different cuts its much easier to filter out noise in the numbers. Its also a clever way of wrestling the power of research out of moneyed institutions: doing it bugbees way is really only an option if you have access to unlimited and reliable thc testing. As in 2 tests per plant which is generally not available unless you have full funding which may come with strings attached.

Bugbees uv paper only really proved it wasnt good enough experiment to find the answers asked: iirc correct there was some effect (+thc) but no statistical significance. People touting this paper have not ever done science on their own: effects plus no statistical significance is a sign of doing more research, not closing the book saying nothing happened, and argue forever online.

 

[Ca++]

You pay a lot for sampling. My first search result was $30, and I pay $40 in the UK for feed analysis. Not the $200 you speak of. I wonder if you should find another lab.

I think it was star labs, though I might be confused.

nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, calcium, magnesium, sulfur, zinc, iron, manganese, copper, boron and molybdenum

$32 at Ward. It's why I can't understand more people not getting it done. Which would give us all a push to really interpret them results.


Here is Manganese and Boron toxicity pics, as you may need them

I wouldn't take too much notice of the lab guy. He can only see your top leaves, and may not even have a horticultural background. For example, he has no idea that the N is good, while the plant is relocating it from lower leaves.

I'm not sure about Boron, but Manganese can be from plastics. All plastics contain metals. We don't want lead, but must compromise. Don't be surprised if you can't find it in your water or feed. While Boric acid doesn't have a great rejection rate with RO. So if you send a tank sample, you don't quite know where the Boron is from. A local water report is useful, and presume a 50% rejection rate by the filter. Though it really could be wildly different.

 

[Crooked8]

You pay a lot for sampling. My first search result was $30, and I pay $40 in the UK for feed analysis. Not the $200 you speak of. I wonder if you should find another lab.

I think it was star labs, though I might be confused.

$32 at Ward. It's why I can't understand more people not getting it done. Which would give us all a push to really interpret them results.


Here is Manganese and Boron toxicity pics, as you may need them
View attachment 19022841

I wouldn't take too much notice of the lab guy. He can only see your top leaves, and may not even have a horticultural background. For example, he has no idea that the N is good, while the plant is relocating it from lower leaves.

I'm not sure about Boron, but Manganese can be from plastics. All plastics contain metals. We don't want lead, but must compromise. Don't be surprised if you can't find it in your water or feed. While Boric acid doesn't have a great rejection rate with RO. So if you send a tank sample, you don't quite know where the Boron is from. A local water report is useful, and presume a 50% rejection rate by the filter. Though it really could be wildly different.

The lab manager sees the leaves i send, nothing else. They arent seeing photos of my room. I purposefully send the ones that look the most suspicious, but it needs to be mrml(most recently mature leaves). This run looks great. Ive looked into the boron tox quite a bit back when I did my last tissue test. I dont see anything that clearly resembles the sample photos. Same for mang tox. Ive talked with some other labs and they arent even close to as cheap as you mentioned. You can send leaves to a lab for tissue testing for 40$? Id love to have that option. They literally just raised their prices at perry labs its like 160$ per or something now. Are you suggesting the boron could be from….the trays? Im not sure how plastics would be incorporated otherwise unless its literally the nutrient containers themselves which seems absurd. And you really think the lab manager who does this all day should be ignored? I dunno about that, feels almost like saying dont take a doctors advice or a golf pros advice on your swing. Just because he doesnt have his own tent or grow(assuming he doesnt), doesnt mean he has no understanding, i mean he manages the lab in one of the most prime areas for cannabis cultivation in the world. The lab came highly recommended, which is why i use them bc i want the best, i do not want some budget possibly fake results like cannabinoid tests ive seen. People literally paying labs off for higher cannaninoids etc its all bullshit. Either way, since this last run was our best yield and quality weve had a surge in demand. Cant get it trimmed fast enough. Meanwhile most are struggling to move their product at the moment. Something is certainly going well, the smoke is fantastic(pardon my nagging ego speaking here…….lets see everyone elses fuckin tissue tests!!! Achem, excuse me). Ill look again into some other labs, and ive already dialed back our feed plan for next run. The only real explanation for the micros accumulation again is the slabs being too wet. Well have to get this done again soon. Im also not quite understanding how boron gets through an RO membrane. It wouldnt show up? After we ro and uv sterilize the water is literally 0 ppm. I guess theres always next run but tbh the quality looks exciting on this one too.