You haven't answered my questions. No battle. Only children carry on like that. As for experts re nutrient science and tissue sufficiency ranges too numerous to mention. As for cannabis sufficiency ranges, Bryson, Mills, Cockson, Landis etc. Now also being researched by the Uni of Guelph. Now, as I have responded to your questions how about responding to mine. Why your belief that insane amounts of Ca is required for cannabis when the experts contradict you and also my questions re your sampling. Further, what did the fertilizer program look like inline to the tissue results you posted???
-
ICMag with help from Landrace Warden and The Vault is running a NEW contest in November! You can check it here. Prizes are seeds & forum premium access. Come join in!
calcium in tissue analysis
- Thread starter reghatesschwag
- Start date
You haven't answered my questions. No battle. Only children carry on like that. As for experts re nutrient science and tissue sufficiency ranges too numerous to mention. As for cannabis sufficiency ranges, Bryson, Mills, Cockson, Landis etc. Now also being researched by the Uni of Guelph. Now, as I have responded to your questions how about responding to mine. Why your belief that insane amounts of Ca is required for cannabis when the experts contradict you and also my questions re your sampling. Further, what did the fertilizer program look like inline to the tissue results you posted???
I'm still waiting for answers. BTW claims on forums don't impress me. I have formal qualifications also, plus years in hort and agronomy which is why I am questioning your claims and also your denial of current scientific knowledge. Odd thing to do for someone who claims to be university educated. Also though as you talking about soil I wonder how much of the Ca is bound? That does answer a part of the puzzle. Have you got any of your own data on soil solution available Ca etc? Could I have the source reference for that data please. No point posting data and not citing it. In fact it's not on in academia.
Last edited:
Current knowledge is not good.
Oh, and how did we get all that Ca into the plant? Go read the slownickel lounge. Lots have been learned since then. Watch the video in the very beginning. Those are "New PhD's" haha.
Oh, and how did we get all that Ca into the plant? Go read the slownickel lounge. Lots have been learned since then. Watch the video in the very beginning. Those are "New PhD's" haha.
Last edited:
So what is the study and could you cite it?
'Current knowledge is not good." haha, yeah they would say your knowledge is not good also
What you would be missing is I am actually generally interested in how you came to your findings. So for example if I was to take leaf tissue at week 8 of flower I often see 6.5% to 8.5% Ca. However, if I was to take the most recent fully formed leaf at week 3 of flower off the same plant I would see say 3.5% Ca under the exact same nutrient regime. So what I am looking for is the parameters around the findings. Could I have the citation to the study thanks. Oh and yeah also you missed that nutrient levels in the tissue are dynamic and change over time so when you sample plays a major role in the nutrients found in the tissue.
'Current knowledge is not good." haha, yeah they would say your knowledge is not good also
What you would be missing is I am actually generally interested in how you came to your findings. So for example if I was to take leaf tissue at week 8 of flower I often see 6.5% to 8.5% Ca. However, if I was to take the most recent fully formed leaf at week 3 of flower off the same plant I would see say 3.5% Ca under the exact same nutrient regime. So what I am looking for is the parameters around the findings. Could I have the citation to the study thanks. Oh and yeah also you missed that nutrient levels in the tissue are dynamic and change over time so when you sample plays a major role in the nutrients found in the tissue.
So what is the study and could you cite it?
'Current knowledge is not good." haha, yeah they would say your knowledge is not good also
What you would be missing is I am actually generally interested in how you came to your findings. So for example if I was to take leaf tissue at week 8 of flower I often see 6.5% to 8.5% Ca. However, if I was to take the most recent fully formed leaf at week 3 of flower off the same plant I would see say 3.5% Ca under the exact same nutrient regime. So what I am looking for is the parameters around the findings. Could I have the citation to the study thanks. Oh and yeah also you missed that nutrient levels in the tissue are dynamic and change over time a so when you sample plays a major role in the nutrients found in the tissue.
Sounds like you have it all figured out. You rub me the wrong way.
Good luck.
Sounds like it champ.
Beware of trolls.
You were sent to a consultant that made a webpage gathering "science" from the internet and who looks to be a good wannabe.
One and the same????
Beware of trolls.
You were sent to a consultant that made a webpage gathering "science" from the internet and who looks to be a good wannabe.
One and the same????
If that was aimed at me there's not much that can be said other than don't quote someone and then completely not address that quote or are you calling someone a troll who asked a simple question?
To demonstrate the point
To demonstrate the point
I'll post two tissue analysis taken from the same plants at different weeks to demonstrate a point. The first I posted before. That was week 3 of flower tissue analysis. The second is from the same plants at week 8 of flower. The second analysis (wk 8) was conducted at Phytotech Co, the first at Weld Labs Co.
You can see significant differences in Ca with week 3 @ 4.247% and week 8 (top leaves, top column) showing 8.6% and bottom leaves (bottom column) showing 9.47%. Bottom leaves will always show higher Ca than top leaves due to Ca being an immobile nutrient.
The important thing to understand here is that the nutrient regime re Ca had remained the same throughout flower at about 133 - 135 ppm Ca. However, these lab comparisons show how Ca builds up in the leaf tissue throughout the flowering cycle.
Now Slow Tickle claims in spite of expert evidence to the contrary that the Ca requirement of cannabis is about 8.5%. This is ludicrous and what I think has occurred is given his time of sampling he completely misread the data he presents as evidence of his more than flawed beliefs. Because he posts data and refuses to cite it, it's impossible for me to disseminate that data via looking at the paradigms of the study. Either way, Sufficiency range for Ca in cannabis is 1.47 - 4.42%. I BTW actually find about 3% optimal dependent on time of taking tissue samples.
This too is incredibly important to understand re working with tissue analysis and sufficiency ranges. Time of sampling and location from the plant where samples are taken from are extremely important when interpreting the lab data.
I'll post images/tables after this of cannabis sufficiency ranges that were established by academics/experts in research/trials. They also cover the other macro and micro nutrient ranges.
BTW, contrary to claims by Slow Chuckle these ranges are actually very good; however it is important to understand that ranges are developed through analysis at specific times off specific plant samples (in the case of cannabis, the most recently fully developed top leaves) so this needs to be contextualised in sampling *when and where to take samples.
To demonstrate the point
I'll post two tissue analysis taken from the same plants at different weeks to demonstrate a point. The first I posted before. That was week 3 of flower tissue analysis. The second is from the same plants at week 8 of flower. The second analysis (wk 8) was conducted at Phytotech Co, the first at Weld Labs Co.
You can see significant differences in Ca with week 3 @ 4.247% and week 8 (top leaves, top column) showing 8.6% and bottom leaves (bottom column) showing 9.47%. Bottom leaves will always show higher Ca than top leaves due to Ca being an immobile nutrient.
The important thing to understand here is that the nutrient regime re Ca had remained the same throughout flower at about 133 - 135 ppm Ca. However, these lab comparisons show how Ca builds up in the leaf tissue throughout the flowering cycle.
Now Slow Tickle claims in spite of expert evidence to the contrary that the Ca requirement of cannabis is about 8.5%. This is ludicrous and what I think has occurred is given his time of sampling he completely misread the data he presents as evidence of his more than flawed beliefs. Because he posts data and refuses to cite it, it's impossible for me to disseminate that data via looking at the paradigms of the study. Either way, Sufficiency range for Ca in cannabis is 1.47 - 4.42%. I BTW actually find about 3% optimal dependent on time of taking tissue samples.
This too is incredibly important to understand re working with tissue analysis and sufficiency ranges. Time of sampling and location from the plant where samples are taken from are extremely important when interpreting the lab data.
I'll post images/tables after this of cannabis sufficiency ranges that were established by academics/experts in research/trials. They also cover the other macro and micro nutrient ranges.
BTW, contrary to claims by Slow Chuckle
these ranges are actually very good; however it is important to understand that ranges are developed through analysis at specific times off specific plant samples (in the case of cannabis, the most recently fully developed top leaves) so this needs to be contextualised in sampling *when and where to take samples.Attachments
Last edited:
Yes, aimed right at you. Good catch.
You are trolling for better information for what looks to be YOUR
webpage offering consulting services based on copying and pasting content available from the internet.
There are dozens of you guys, some call themselves Doctors, others Agronomists, it is flavor of the day.
That is going to be some shitty weed with all that magnesium and those low micronutrients. You have a future with medmen.
After all that you still don't get tissue analysis do you?
'Boogieman'
Well-known member
How many cups of calcium based ammendments (lime, oyster shell, bone and crab meal, ect, does it take to achieve 80-85% base saturation assuming everything had time to break down?
Subbed.
Subbed.
That is a function of CEC. Can't calculate without a good analysis.
reghatesschwag
New member
slownickel - yeah i thought it was odd i was sent to a consultants page instead of a study like i cited. i completely tuned out when he started lecturing me on photosynthesis. i may be an old man but i know more than a thing or two.
bongfu - funny how you complained about name calling then started up yourself. my f**king grandchildren know better than that.
I only started this thread because ive spent my lifetime trying to grow healthy food for my family and friends. if there are ways to improve that i want to learn them. and yeah i might grow an herb plant or two for my "back". ha!
i will say this. i have family members who work/worked for universities and most of them tell me to take everything the universities say with a huge grain of salt. they dont think micronutrients are needed and think base saturation is a lode of bollocks. meanwhile they all started slowly incorporating base saturation into there potassium recommendations and some are slowly accepting they may have been wrong about calcium/magnesium too. dont get me started how they completely misrepresented albrechts lifetime of work. disgusting.
anyhow......carry on
bongfu - funny how you complained about name calling then started up yourself. my f**king grandchildren know better than that.
I only started this thread because ive spent my lifetime trying to grow healthy food for my family and friends. if there are ways to improve that i want to learn them. and yeah i might grow an herb plant or two for my "back". ha!
i will say this. i have family members who work/worked for universities and most of them tell me to take everything the universities say with a huge grain of salt. they dont think micronutrients are needed and think base saturation is a lode of bollocks. meanwhile they all started slowly incorporating base saturation into there potassium recommendations and some are slowly accepting they may have been wrong about calcium/magnesium too. dont get me started how they completely misrepresented albrechts lifetime of work. disgusting.
anyhow......carry on
Well said.
The thread title is "Calcium in Tissue Analysis"
Your second question/statement was: " this study suggests up to "4% calcium in herb. an interesting read
https://www.researchgate.net/publica...annabis_sativa".
The answer to that is yes and then things descended from there.
Another link albeit written by those no nothing researchers who dedicate their lives to getting the facts right
https://www.cannabisbusinesstimes.c...ition-problems-cannabis-leaf-tissue-analysis/This too is a very good article. The reason I link to these two articles is because they are the top two when you search "cannabis tissue analysis" on Google. Further, like many people I have a lot of respect for Manic Botanix as a credible source of information. Additionally, they are both very good articles (perhaps why Google ranks them number 1 and 2). Just trying to throw some good info in for those more inclined to respect the science. And nope just another fact that Slow Nickel has wrong. I aren't connected to either article but then the facts seem quite irrelevant here. Perhaps why forums are dying, favouring conferences and information provided through the likes of Cannabis Business Times etc.
Last edited:
