What's new
  • ICMag and The Vault are running a NEW contest in October! You can check it here. Prizes are seeds & forum premium access. Come join in!

Advancing Eco Agriculture, Product Science

jidoka

Active member
jidoka1.jpg

This is the hand ground and ground and weighed sample. It confuses me more than it helps me. I am going with Logan...I have made yr over yr improvements with them.

pH is wildly different. Si is so far different it is a joke.

Anyways, my path has been chosen. Everyone should decide for their ownself.
 

Space Case

Well-known member
Veteran
Every lab will show different results. The idea is to build a baseline and correlation, to record data on improvements and problems and compare them to what is observable. If you have a ton of data with one lab and have been able to observe improvements, it makes sense to stick with the same lab, regardless of what lab it is.
 

Space Case

Well-known member
Veteran
Oh, and why doesn't AEA make that PHT Calcium product using micronized Calcium Silicate, instead of Calcite? Then you would have Ca, Si, and B in one bottle...instead of excess CO3...a little H2SO4 should keep it soluble...
 

jidoka

Active member
The m3 logans are close to the aa 8.2 spectrums

I have tested logan. Reasonable for same sample sent multiple times. I have not done that with spectrum, nor will i.
 

jidoka

Active member
Oh, and why doesn't AEA make that PHT Calcium product using micronized Calcium Silicate, instead of Calcite? Then you would have Ca, Si, and B in one bottle...instead of excess CO3...a little H2SO4 should keep it soluble...

That right there is one fine question. I will ask
 

Space Case

Well-known member
Veteran
It wont be soluble...but neither is most of their stuff

The current PHT Calcium made with micronized calcite is also not very soluble. Lots of caking on the bottom, small sandy grains that clog the sprayer and leave white residue on the leaves. So what would be the difference? LOL
 

reppin2c

Well-known member
Veteran
I was running all my foliar nutes thru a 25 micron bag before I put it in the fine sprayer. Really made a difference in time spent cleaning the head. The atomizer didn't seem to clog though.

I was thinking about switching labs as well but like jidoka I don't want to fuck up a good thing.
 
Best berry grower in the world told me the important thing is to stay with one lab so you have consistency in results and a reference point to interpret results from

I think it's funny and a reflection of the copy cat bro science mentality of most weed growers , they want to follow... not figure out ... slownickel says use spectrum so we must use spectrum ... fuck outta here
 

slownickel

Active member
ICMag Donor
Veteran
The best lab is the one that will do what you need to explain your problem. Sticking with a lab that gives you the wrong answer consistently makes little sense.

Getting foliar numbers that can't be explained by soil analysis is worthless.
 

jidoka

Active member
Give me real data...not your opinion. How do i absolutely know which is correct? What i do know is the closer i come to logan numbers the better i do
 
The best lab is the one that will do what you need to explain your problem. Sticking with a lab that gives you the wrong answer consistently makes little sense.

Getting foliar numbers that can't be explained by soil analysis is worthless.

Yea but the lab you says does it right just assumes a scoop weighs a certain amount and we all know that the weight of a soil is a huge factor like the irrigation water is too.

How good is bad data
 

slownickel

Active member
ICMag Donor
Veteran
Read the bi-line article that Avenger has posted by promix. Pretty clear, once you are over .2 density, forget this density stuff.

Nothing to do with you all.
 
Top