B
-
As of today ICMag has his own Discord server. In this Discord server you can chat, talk with eachother, listen to music, share stories and pictures...and much more. Join now and let's grow together! Join ICMag Discord here! More details in this thread here: here.
G
Guest
Brother_Monk said:Has the Calcium issue been resolved in the eye of the thread starter? If so, then all the bantering is useless in this thread.
Peace
BM
Yes it has.
Im very interested in Learning about the nute ratioes and how they work so Im finding this interesting. Being a noob I have no real input to the thread except post #56 tells me what I want to know. I think it makes a very strong point.
Thanks Sun
Charles Xavier
Member
Greetings.
Interesting.... and it was such a civil thread...Alas.
Firstly Grat3fulh3ad, I am certainly not suggesting you change a thing about the way you grow. If you are satisfied with your end product....then that is all the verification of your process that you need.
I disclosed my informed opinion about the study you cited, without infringing upon your prerogatives. You may consider the opinion... or you may not.
Second, if my posts are read carefully they state (among others) two pertinent points:
1) You don't need to implement the ratio to be successful.
2) If you possess the experience, it is easier to prove 'point one'.
I believe that you, Grat3fulh3ad, prove both these points well.
Third, on the matter of your request for supporting documentation there can be three responses:
1) The documentation doesn't exist.
2) The documentation exists, but it cannot be retrieved by your self (not everything is on the internet)
3) The source citation is compromising.
This is a completely fair and reasonable position. I very much appreciate that you are not prepared (at this time, at least) to state that I am in error. My respect for you is intact and I am pleased that we could come to an amicable close to this dialogue.
Sincerely,
Charles.
p.s. Greetings Brother Monk, I admire your loyalty. I know it is a difficult thing to witness an attack and stand still. I would not expect it of anyone. I understand that the sanctity of your forum has been violated and you wish righteous retribution. I am but a pilgrim passing through...will shelter and sustenance be offered?
C.X.
Interesting.... and it was such a civil thread...Alas.
Firstly Grat3fulh3ad, I am certainly not suggesting you change a thing about the way you grow. If you are satisfied with your end product....then that is all the verification of your process that you need.
I disclosed my informed opinion about the study you cited, without infringing upon your prerogatives. You may consider the opinion... or you may not.
Second, if my posts are read carefully they state (among others) two pertinent points:
1) You don't need to implement the ratio to be successful.
2) If you possess the experience, it is easier to prove 'point one'.
I believe that you, Grat3fulh3ad, prove both these points well.
Third, on the matter of your request for supporting documentation there can be three responses:
1) The documentation doesn't exist.
2) The documentation exists, but it cannot be retrieved by your self (not everything is on the internet)
3) The source citation is compromising.
This is a completely fair and reasonable position. I very much appreciate that you are not prepared (at this time, at least) to state that I am in error. My respect for you is intact and I am pleased that we could come to an amicable close to this dialogue.
Sincerely,
Charles.
p.s. Greetings Brother Monk, I admire your loyalty. I know it is a difficult thing to witness an attack and stand still. I would not expect it of anyone. I understand that the sanctity of your forum has been violated and you wish righteous retribution. I am but a pilgrim passing through...will shelter and sustenance be offered?
C.X.
Last edited:
B
Brother_Monk
Charles Xavier said:
What loyalty? I am in no way loyal to any entity or persona on the internet. If you are inferring to some kind of loyalty between myself and Head, you are sadly mistaken. Your assumption is wrong. I appreciate his knowledge and wisdom.
As far as witnessing an attack...I see no attack. I see a pissing contest, and a duel of brow beating.
This is not "my forum" as you eloquently suppose. I am a member here. It is all of ours. I could give a shit less about "righteous retribution" I'm just wondering how this rediculous "pissing contest" is going to end. As stated by the thread starter, the calcium issue has been alliviated. But this debate is interesting to him...so be on with it for all I care.
Your vocabulary is impressive...too bad your gallery is not. The nasaly tone in which you come across reminds me of Charles Emerson Winchester III from the popalar television show from years ago...M.A.S.H. As far as I care...like The DUKE used to say..."Be on your way Pilgrim". Here's your sustinence
Eat hardy!p.s. this is the INFIRMARY
Last edited:
CharlesX, If you think you were ever attacked, you should re read my posts.
I was asking you to Document your position that 4:2:1 was proven and cannabis specific, You started posting in this thread to tell me that they were not numbers plucked from a hat, and were cannabis specific and proven. Knowing that this was not so, I asked for some proof. Knowing there is none you attempt to demote my position to attack. I have never been anything but civil to you.
I was asking you to Document your position that 4:2:1 was proven and cannabis specific, You started posting in this thread to tell me that they were not numbers plucked from a hat, and were cannabis specific and proven. Knowing that this was not so, I asked for some proof. Knowing there is none you attempt to demote my position to attack. I have never been anything but civil to you.
I have no clue if im in range....
Charles Xavier
Member
Greetings Grat3fulh3ad
No, No, sir....please allow me to clarify.
I thoroughly enjoyed our discourse. I am in full agreement that it was civil; and found the exchange quite pleasurable. The allusion to 'attack', is to rationalize to myself, another member's contribution to the thread. I surmised that the forum was under attack by 'trolls' and that this member's position was not only understandable, but also commendable. I intimated that the member was loyal to the community and as such, displayed what I find to be an admirable trait.
There was no attempt to demote or belittle your opinions or your experience. Publicly stated: I respect your entity and I am 'grateful' (pun intended) for your many contributions to the community.
Sincerely,
Charles.
p.s. To you SunBursT, I extend my deepest apology, for the unfortunate tangent of this thread.
p.p.s To you Grat3fulh3ad, I humbly suggest, that if there is anything left to discuss on this matter, that we do so in private.
C.X.
No, No, sir....please allow me to clarify.
I thoroughly enjoyed our discourse. I am in full agreement that it was civil; and found the exchange quite pleasurable. The allusion to 'attack', is to rationalize to myself, another member's contribution to the thread. I surmised that the forum was under attack by 'trolls' and that this member's position was not only understandable, but also commendable. I intimated that the member was loyal to the community and as such, displayed what I find to be an admirable trait.
There was no attempt to demote or belittle your opinions or your experience. Publicly stated: I respect your entity and I am 'grateful' (pun intended) for your many contributions to the community.
Sincerely,
Charles.
p.s. To you SunBursT, I extend my deepest apology, for the unfortunate tangent of this thread.
p.p.s To you Grat3fulh3ad, I humbly suggest, that if there is anything left to discuss on this matter, that we do so in private.
C.X.
Last edited:
G
Guest
No apology is needed and as I stated I find the discussion very interesting and informational and well spoken to say the least. 
I learned that 421 and the Lucas formula are a good place for someone like myself to start and a formula I should learn . I also learned it is not the endall of growing and I should get busy finding out what my nute mixes are doing and not totaly rely on someone elses work in this area to sustain my grow.
Thanks again everyone
Sun
I learned that 421 and the Lucas formula are a good place for someone like myself to start and a formula I should learn . I also learned it is not the endall of growing and I should get busy finding out what my nute mixes are doing and not totaly rely on someone elses work in this area to sustain my grow.
Thanks again everyone
Sun
Last edited:
Wonderfully put Sunburst, and the best lesson of all to learn...
And... thanks for the clarification CX... Peace and Love to You, my friend...
And... thanks for the clarification CX... Peace and Love to You, my friend...
Last edited:
B
Brother_Monk
Ok Chuck, I admit I was in the wrong. I'm guilty of being a dick head. I humbly apologize to you for coming across like I did. I have a problem with passive agressive behavior. Also, I mostly apologize to you sunburst for not contributing anything positive. That's not like me at all.
That would have saved me from showing my ass in public.
Peace
BM
Chucky X said:
That would have saved me from showing my ass in public.
Peace
BM
G
Guest
Anyone find info yet regarding 421 being optimum? Charles can you hint on where one would possibly look to find this info?
Last edited:
Indica Sativa,
I've found plenty of info, and nothing indicates 421 as optimum. I have found info that plants will use what they need as long as the ratios are fairly proportionate. In fact... within the range of acceptable ratios, there is very little difference in the amount of nutrient actually used by the plant. You can't cause a plant to take up nutrient at a rate you specify, and as long as the nutrients are there and available, A given plant will use the same amounts of each element regardless if the ratio is 4:2:1 or 3:2:1 or 2.5:1.5:1.
Experiments with different food crops has shown that regardless of specific ratio, plants use what they need. Formulating a workable nutrient mix is alot like building... There are usually quite a few different ways to achieve precisely the same result, and each carpenter will put it together in a slightly different manner...
I've found plenty of info, and nothing indicates 421 as optimum. I have found info that plants will use what they need as long as the ratios are fairly proportionate. In fact... within the range of acceptable ratios, there is very little difference in the amount of nutrient actually used by the plant. You can't cause a plant to take up nutrient at a rate you specify, and as long as the nutrients are there and available, A given plant will use the same amounts of each element regardless if the ratio is 4:2:1 or 3:2:1 or 2.5:1.5:1.
Experiments with different food crops has shown that regardless of specific ratio, plants use what they need. Formulating a workable nutrient mix is alot like building... There are usually quite a few different ways to achieve precisely the same result, and each carpenter will put it together in a slightly different manner...
