Advancing Eco Agriculture, Product Science

[neverforget4/20]

A gardener over on riu turned me on to SSTs once a week straight through flowering. I tested it out last run using barley SST and it worked really well.

In my current grow I still see good effects but not as consistent as last time. I believe it may be the result of smaller pots.

 

[milkyjoe]

So I have been following the cytokinin manipulation for a while. But this yr I accidently added the Mn. I know a guy that is like a leaf whisperer and we noticed I have been short on Zn all yr. So we surmised I would also be short on Mn...tied up with P.

So I have been using Salute Mn and Zn on top of micropak for a while.

My actual P is 133 ppm...far lower than most weed soils. Tainio recommends 35 ppm and that is where I am headed. Even Nova Crop Control says they virtually never see P shortages world wide. And they constantly talk about P tying up Zn, Mn and Fe. I did not address Fe because my numbers are high.

I kinda have more bud set than I ever have. There is no control though so statistically I cannot prove anything.

 

[milkyjoe]

The downside...I run these in 200 gallon pots cause when they get rootbound they end up finishing quicker. That ain't happening this year...I am in for the long haul like it or not

edit...Gary tells me the bud set formula is seriously increasing yields on soybeans and potatoes for what it is worth. I don't even wanna say by how much cause it just sounds like bullshit. In fact, if it were anybody other than Gary telling me I wouldn't even consider it true, but I trust that guy.

edit dos...kinda ironic when you see dudes top dressing high P shit at the onset of flower huh? It may be complexing the things they actually need.

 

[Cep]

That's a sea of green. What was the physical indicator for the Zn def? Redding spotted it?

 

[milkyjoe]

Gary is too busy this yr to stop by. Dude that grew the ogkb, talent without integrity, but I am working hard on him about that. Gotta give him credit though, a short visit weekly and he sees things I miss every single time. And then he comes out with you need Mo...how the fuck can anybody see that.

Any time a leaf is not symmetrical is Zn. So bad Zn you may see an uneven number of blades. More subtle you see the tip not go straight out...goes slightly to the side. Duckfoot is a damn sure sign.

I will get a pic of the subtle leaf tip thing tonight and post it.

Gary says when you see a def like that you are already 20% below ideal sap levels. And I can believe it...I have hammered Zn and never totally eliminated the problem. I may have been able to get ahead of Mn since it is a reproductive thing and I started early

Then again I have not addressed the true root cause....high P so I am chasing my tail really...but at least circling in the right direction.

 

[MrBungle]

Are you using your soil as your only source for Phosphorus?

 

[FatherEarth]

MILKEEJO
Wow, that budset is photoshopped bruh. Clearly no cannabis plant grows like that, I'm calling GMO...

 

[milkyjoe]

Are you using your soil as your only source for Phosphorus?

There is 1% P in sea shield. That is my only non soil source. I do use tainio products that keep P available though

 

[MrBungle]

I would think 135 PPM is perfect... Only cause plant available P is so hard to come by in soil.. 35 ppm seems so low...

 

[milkyjoe]

I would think 135 PPM is perfect... Only cause plant available P is so hard to come by in soil.. 35 ppm seems so low...

You could be right. But I gotta find out for myself...I can't help it.

So...be careful with Mn. I got such a good reproductive response I found a branch with full on balls this morning. Easy to spot but now I get to deal with that anxiety the rest of the season whilst crawling around in there looking for more.

So I would say use Gary's formula 2 weeks out and see how it goes before going with a second time.

 

[milkyjoe]

So here is a pic that shows a couple of things. One is the slight Zn def. See the ends that don't go straight out...that is Zn. Don't react to a single leaf like that...but when you see several. And I bet you a lot of people have this one.

Second...take a look at where petiole meets leaf. See the ones that are reddish...that is the beginning of a base cation def, probably Ca, maybe Mg. But see how it corrects in newer growth. That is foliar nutrition. If you catch it early about a week or two later you can see defs going away provided there is not some other ion blocking.

So the base cation I can clear up quickly and easily. The Zn, not so much. I think it is P blocking Zn, so spraying helps a little but does not solve the actual problem

I think. I have been wrong a few times in me life

 

[cannascholar]

going fairly heavy with micropak, last spray was 15 ounces Over a 20x100 .Followed cep's method of 1:100 sea crop to water but did 2 separate applications at 15 ml per gallon. using a gallon or more of sea stim and shield per week p trying to deter RA.

Roots 707 soil sucks and is an insect attack waiting to happen, having much better luck with mendo mix, ammended bio ag , and native. Bio ags price isnt horribel in bulk(250) and could be mixed with native soil.

2nd run bioag ammended with feathermeal , precipated bone meal, high n bat guano, dolomite, potassium sulfate, azomite, and a little mendo mix(coco) is doing much better than straight out the bag.

 

[cannascholar]

Ra damaged roots 707 dep. byf recommended heavy sea crop, shield and micro5000 to prevent them. Seems to be helping,
fertigatedd pht calcium and gypsum to supplent soils low ca and s. Gary said adequate ca improves insect resistance. Also tried the post flower mn, stim and shield drench he recommended and it seemed to help considerably. Supplanting k with agsil foliars and an occasional pht k foliar or drench.

 

[MrBungle]

You could be right. But I gotta find out for myself...I can't help it.

I don't blame ya. Let those microbes do their thing!

 

[plastochron]

You could be right. But I gotta find out for myself...I can't help it.

So...be careful with Mn. I got such a good reproductive response I found a branch with full on balls this morning. Easy to spot but now I get to deal with that anxiety the rest of the season whilst crawling around in there looking for more.

So I would say use Gary's formula 2 weeks out and see how it goes before going with a second time.

I have had a similar herming response with certain strains when frequently applying Ca-B foliars... almost always on parts of canopy that are heavily shaded. Have even had entire branches revert to male after frequent/heavy applications applied deeper into flowering.

 

[leadsled]

So here is a pic that shows a couple of things. One is the slight Zn def. See the ends that don't go straight out...that is Zn. Don't react to a single leaf like that...but when you see several. And I bet you a lot of people have this one.

Second...take a look at where petiole meets leaf. See the ones that are reddish...that is the beginning of a base cation def, probably Ca, maybe Mg. But see how it corrects in newer growth. That is foliar nutrition. If you catch it early about a week or two later you can see defs going away provided there is not some other ion blocking.

So the base cation I can clear up quickly and easily. The Zn, not so much. I think it is P blocking Zn, so spraying helps a little but does not solve the actual problem

I think. I have been wrong a few times in me life

Gary is too busy this yr to stop by. Dude that grew the ogkb, talent without integrity, but I am working hard on him about that. Gotta give him credit though, a short visit weekly and he sees things I miss every single time. And then he comes out with you need Mo...how the fuck can anybody see that.

Any time a leaf is not symmetrical is Zn. So bad Zn you may see an uneven number of blades. More subtle you see the tip not go straight out...goes slightly to the side. Duckfoot is a damn sure sign.

I will get a pic of the subtle leaf tip thing tonight and post it.

Gary says when you see a def like that you are already 20% below ideal sap levels. And I can believe it...I have hammered Zn and never totally eliminated the problem. I may have been able to get ahead of Mn since it is a reproductive thing and I started early

Then again I have not addressed the true root cause....high P so I am chasing my tail really...but at least circling in the right direction.

Thanks for sharing the details and pics on what you are finding. Excellent information.

You stated your p level but what is you soil test showing for Zn?

Have you tried adding additional zinc to the soil 1/10 of p (up to 50ppm) to see if this helps out with the Zn def.

Testing out on some of my soil that is at 190ppm p. P levels went down on the soil test after a run.

Where did you get the tainio p value of 35ppm from?
AEA recommends 75 ppm and hugh lovel recommends 70ppm. (140-150lb/acre) logan labs rec on p is 200lb an acre, 100ppm.

vs mastera rec /logan on p are higher.

Zinc rec from graeme sait is 10:1 in favour of p
The phosphorus / zinc see-saw: There is a very strong relationship between phosphorus and zinc. High phosphorus will invariably reduce zinc uptake, and excess zinc will have the same effect on phosphorus. The ideal phosphorus / zinc ratio is 10:1 in favour of phosphorus.

CONDITIONS CREATING ZINC DEFICIENCIES
1) High pH soils – solubility increases 100-fold for each pH unit lowered.
2) Soils lacking Mycorrhizal fungi.
3) Calcareous soils.
4) Over-limed soils.
5) Light, sandy soils.
6) High phosphorus levels – phosphate ties up zinc.
7) Cold, wet soils.
8) Soils featuring anaerobic decomposition, ie zinc bonds with sulphides produced in these conditions and becomes insoluble.
from trace element essentials: http://blog.nutri-tech.com.au/trace-element-essentials/



tainio values:
300 ppm p1 phosphorus
and
250 ppm p2 phosphorus.

Zinc recommendations:
Mastera: 1/10 of p up to 50ppm
lovell: 7-10ppm
sait: 5-10ppm
AEA: 8ppm
Tainio: 5ppm
logan: 5-10ppm.

What you shooting for on zinc in your soil test?

I recently got a handbook on the BFMS, from that I learned that Tainio uses midwest labs instead of logan so there will be a difference in numbers between them.

Tainio values from tainio products and procedures manual.

 

[milkyjoe]

Hopefully I can focus enough to not miss a question:

Here is my soil test...it is 50% top soil, 25% peat (for carbon) and 25% small lava rock.

tcec...20.15
pH....6.5 and still holding right there
organic matter....13.25
S...90 ppm
P2O5...606
Ca....68.59%
Mg...13.25
K......5.2
Na...0.55
H...,7.5
other shit....4.9
B...0.6 ppm
Fe.....193
Mn....49
Cu....2.38
Zn....8.51

I know Michael ties micros to P levels but most other consultants do not when dealing with high P levels...Sait, Tainio, Brunetti, that dude out of MO whose name I forget. My thinking is that it is a tail chasing exercise...too much of both P and micros just makes more tied up stuff in your soil. I back this up with Nova Crop Control stating on the webinar FE listed somewhere in this thread that worldwide they do not see P shortages really ever. But they talk a lot about high P locking up micros.

So while I do respect Michael I disagree on this point.

I got the Tainio recommend from this page near the bottom https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=310770&page=4. It is their recommends based on a Logan Labs test.

The thing is Tainio is talking about P. Kempf talks about Mehlich III Phosphorous which is really P2O5. When you do the math they are the same P2O5 x 0.44 = P. I got AEAs recommend based on Logan from Gary...again when you do all the math you will see AEA in fact uses Tainios recommends. I also suspect (without actually checking) that Logan is recommending 100 ppm P2O5 since that is the number they always report...so 44 ppm P.

I would not shoot for higher than 10 ppm Zn in my soil. And if you do check my ratio it is 8.51/133 = .064. So not terribly out of line anyways.

When it comes right down to it I tend to blend Tainio/Sait for my soil. Tainio/Microbeman for microbes. Kempf for enhancements.

Ultimately though most of us are working with super high carbon soils and all of these guys are dealing with less than 10%...so how does that alter things? Try dumping enough N into a 40% carbon soil to reach a 20:1 C:N ratio and you will get your first clue they aren't exactly the same.

Anyways...hhopefully I answered your questions. And it is just my opinion...that does not come anywhere close to making it a fact.

 

[milkyjoe]

And while I am on it I don't think Tainio's recommends from the sheet I used are where they want you to end up cause when you add up the numbers they are over 100%. I think they are used to get you to normal Albrecht ratios. For example take Ca...they are recommending 75%. I believe they are saying shoot for 75 because what you add will not all be available for the first grow anyways. Dude from MO always said CaCO3 took 3 grows to become totally available...he would also manipulate adjustments.

Also take a look at what Tainio says about Ca/pH. If your pH is below 6.5 use CaCO3, between 6.5 and 7 use both carbonate and gypsum and they give a brilliant way to calculate it, above 7 use gypsum.

I am also fascinated by their recommend to use MAP if you need P. I am sure that is based on their microbes making P available but have not talked with them about it. But it damn sure tempts me for getting off to a fast spring start.

 

[plastochron]

Ultimately though most of us are working with super high carbon soils and all of these guys are dealing with less than 10%...so how does that alter things? Try dumping enough N into a 40% carbon soil to reach a 20:1 C:N ratio and you will get your first clue they aren't exactly the same.

What is the origin of 20:1 C:N ratio suggestion? I believe 30:1 is usually the ratio recommended for composting... makes sense to me that the optimal rhizosphere C:N ratio may very well be different than the optimal composting C:N and now that I'm contemplating I sure would appreciate a jumping off point to refer to.

Now that my train of thought is chugging I'm wondering if the lower C:N ratio would be more conducive to bacterial growth (because relatively speaking they have a higher N requirement than other microbes)... likely it is not that simple and you really have to look at it like chess and consider the protozoa that will later feast on the thriving bacteria.

Lastly, it always seemed very oversimplified to me to assume all carbon is same and to not distinguish between the degree of recalcitrance of your carbon source when considering the C:N ratio... it makes sense to me to try to distinguish between carbon complexes that don't break down (ie the functional groups that end up becoming humic/fulvic acids and highly lignified substrates that don't really breakdown and thus are used as soilless media components) and readily decomposing organic matter.

 

[Humphry Davy]

Hopefully I can focus enough to not miss a question:

Here is my soil test...it is 50% top soil, 25% peat (for carbon) and 25% small lava rock.

tcec...20.15
pH....6.5 and still holding right there
organic matter....13.25
S...90 ppm
P2O5...606
Ca....68.59%
Mg...13.25
K......5.2
Na...0.55
H...,7.5
other shit....4.9
B...0.6 ppm
Fe.....193
Mn....49
Cu....2.38
Zn....8.51

I know Michael ties micros to P levels but most other consultants do not when dealing with high P levels...Sait, Tainio, Brunetti, that dude out of MO whose name I forget. My thinking is that it is a tail chasing exercise...too much of both P and micros just makes more tied up stuff in your soil. I back this up with Nova Crop Control stating on the webinar FE listed somewhere in this thread that worldwide they do not see P shortages really ever. But they talk a lot about high P locking up micros.

So while I do respect Michael I disagree on this point.

I got the Tainio recommend from this page near the bottom https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=310770&page=4. It is their recommends based on a Logan Labs test.

The thing is Tainio is talking about P. Kempf talks about Mehlich III Phosphorous which is really P2O5. When you do the math they are the same P2O5 x 0.44 = P. I got AEAs recommend based on Logan from Gary...again when you do all the math you will see AEA in fact uses Tainios recommends. I also suspect (without actually checking) that Logan is recommending 100 ppm P2O5 since that is the number they always report...so 44 ppm P.

I would not shoot for higher than 10 ppm Zn in my soil. And if you do check my ratio it is 8.51/133 = .064. So not terribly out of line anyways.

When it comes right down to it I tend to blend Tainio/Sait for my soil. Tainio/Microbeman for microbes. Kempf for enhancements.

Ultimately though most of us are working with super high carbon soils and all of these guys are dealing with less than 10%...so how does that alter things? Try dumping enough N into a 40% carbon soil to reach a 20:1 C:N ratio and you will get your first clue they aren't exactly the same.

Anyways...hhopefully I answered your questions. And it is just my opinion...that does not come anywhere close to making it a fact.

Did you run a paste test on that as well?

I never felt comfortable running Solomans recommendations using a log function to determine K targets from TCEC (essentially lowering K% targets with increasing TCEC) but I recently got a soil back w just under 2% and borderline high K levels in the saturated test (13 ppm). Going to keep an eye on the correlations as I'm usually sending out 2-3 soils a week for clients but I can say a lot of my original targets for standard soil tests will be changing accordingly.