-
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.
Check out this on -NPK ratios- Canadian University study
- Thread starter Tomatoesonly
- Start date
jackspratt61
Active member
600ppm P,6000 Ca is good starting point.
led05
Chasing The Present
What organic sources P you use?
Ca++
Well-known member
Good technically led reply that. Just what this topic needs. Perhaps I should of made a similar contribution, by just saying the first 65% of your post was nothing. However, I just thought some facts might be useful. Which was a bit cruel, knowing you can't communicate on that level. My bad. I should just be crusading without merit.
My dick is so big, you can shrink away in it's shadow.
Is that something you can reply to?
I'm done with you now. Enjoy getting the last word in. I feel confident you can offer nothing to this tread worth replying to. I really shouldn't of fed you, which lets be honest, we all know I knew.
jackspratt61
Active member
Calcium phosphate from eden blue. Best I've seen available. Micronized and has good balance. Low aluminu
jackspratt61
Active member
If you have time to let react with media triple super phosphate works ok too. Couple of months keeping consistently moist.
Ca++
Well-known member
10:1 sounds like soil.Everything is over complicated by purpose ($$$), give them a good organic medium with all a plant needs, they’ll find it - focus on proper watering & transpiration especially while young…. Most fail due Ca IME & transpiration
“I'm happy to see hydro results in line with outdoor results, and my own thoughts regarding K's usefulness. The Mg:Ca ratio is more where I like it at about 100:50 not 100:30 like a lot of calmag bottles.”
^^^ something is very off here on your ratios
Ca should DOMINATE Mg in the ratio, at least 10:1 IMO and CalMag has been a fools errand for over 2 decades+ now, using the two together is silly…
Anyone wanna see the proof, I grow many species of plants, pics all @
KISS, people often tripping over the basics for their PhD’s - Forrest BF the trees
PS: manage your bases during the grow, walking up & down Ca & K especially, end loading K is another fools errand but if your gonna do it, use K Sulfate
Peace bros
They grew at 5:2 (110-45)
I have looked at many bottles, so you name some top brands, and I will show you their Ca:Mg ratios. You can plan ahead and check them first obviously. I'm happy to give you the head start. I'm not 'very off' with my figures. Many Lucas like formula's are 100 50.
In a study of Mg vs result, one plants yield started to fall at 80ppm. No real gains were seem past 60ppm, and it seemed 45ppm was enough to get in the zone. I often struggle to get enough Mg to them, and have to get in the zone, while also reducing the antagonists. The option is there to spray them, but I'm quite insistent that they can get their feed at the roots, while still being acceptable. So to a degree the KISS idea has it's place in my grow. However, I don't like dumbing things down for an easy result. That for me, seems at odds with reading such papers.
We are meant to be talking about the paper, but as a general round up of opinions, lets look at a major survey
I'm not sure you will want to carry on this discussion. However, I will come your way a bit, and point out the above study has a lot of field based signatories. People with no need to add more Ca. So the actual response can be modified proportionally, to about my figures, or that of the study. A study that once in bloom starts changing the Ca to reflect N still. While leaving the Mg alone. They are sticking to acceptable standards, where Ca and N about balance. Such as the Lucas where you find 100N and 100Ca common numbers peoples phone apps provide. With the 45Mg of this study hard to shake. Though I speak of my own use of 50ppm, I'm happy to see my green fingers align with such studies.
I'm not happy with Canna and Plagron soil feeds having Mg but not Ca. There it is though. While Growth Technologies is N:Ca 2:1 with Mg listed but not quantified. I'm a GT user, which might explain my need to add the Mg, though you don't agree. In any case, if I try to run any of these 100N bloom feeds at 150N, I really need to look at both Ca and Mg which has been a focus of my efforts for a while.
I find these threads of great use. I love a share, even if disagreement is what drives me to research more. Which to be honest, is a greater driving force than agreement.
Back to the matter at hand though. They actually grew at 100N then used many greater levels of N in bloom, finding 150N about as low as we might like. Which is about 50% higher than most commercial bottle feeds. Even this was thought to be low, and they are knocking on the door of 200ppm N like some other researchers we follow. Me.. I can't see a good outcome past 160ppm, which is productive and not KISS in any way I could settle with. This 150N would suggest 150Ca and 45Mg from this study alone. A 3:1 Ca:Mg. However they actually say 190N so a 6:1 Ca:Mg could be on their cards. So we are seeing the ratio increase from 2:1 with a Lucas like 100ppm of N, to 6:1 when they are really hitting it. Figures suggest they really are hitting it too. The drive behind the Ca level isn't Ca:Mg ratio though. It's N:Ca ratio, with Mg just a token gesture. This is not typical of US agriculture I have seen. Where golden ratio's are often spoke of, that in the UK are dismissed. Here we group K Ca and Mg still, and look at a total of that group beside others, but not ratios within that group. It's here I peer into the can of worms, and look at that high N, with it's Ca needs, and the Mg called for, then look at K allowance. Somewhere in that is a story that threads through many studies. One unfit for discussion where sheep ready to have an aneurysm may graze.
Tomatoesonly
Active member
The thing is they don't show the end product. We have no idea what these nerds are looking at as "inflorescence". It could be a giant pile of green green green leaves and some tiny buds buried in the middle that nobody would feed to livestock. But hey, it weighs more, so it should be better, right?
We have no "smoke" report. Stuff could be like burning coal in your lungs and have more leftovers than Chinese plastic.
dramamine
Well-known member
Also, which strain(s) they used is important. We all know how much they can vary in their requirements.
Loco 420
New member
Top notch!
kingape
Active member
led05
Chasing The Present
Cheers buddy;
It tastes even better than it looks, nutrient density only sun grown organics could ever provide
Peace & TY
Ca++
Well-known member
They used Gelato and chopped at 7 weeks. Removed the flowers from the stalks and trimmed off the leaf. Dried it down to 20% as is the usual figure we speak of. Then found 15% total THC. Presuming they mean the Larry Bird #42 then Leafy lists at as 17%, while others give a 14-20% range. I don't see how many weeks it should take, but I have not seen it in the 7 week threads.
It does sound like they understand the product. They have got a long way to be questioning that, but there are gaps a commercial grower really needs filling. Such as the yield quantified in space needed. They offer a very amateurish grams per plants. They speak of pot size and spacing. However, they give the spacing on three sides of the plant, and each plant is beside a wide alley. How far the plant can reach in, is unknown. However, if the plant is limited in space equally on all 4 sides, then they are putting 9 plants in a 4x4 and suggest 1.3Kg at 570umol. If they fill the alleyway completely, you can half the yield. From 930g per meter, to 465g per meter. With 570umol that seems more reasonable. I think in reality, you can pass down the alleys, but the plants do encroach upon it. Leaving a walk way, that lets a bit of stray light become sidelighting. The bet result seems to be a competent grow, making the right numbers of around 600g per meter.
It is of course impossible to be sure. However they are not missing the expectations required to do such a study. They are just not proving conclusively that they met them. The figures align though, and they agree their was so much more they could of done, with time, space and funding.
It does sound like they understand the product. They have got a long way to be questioning that, but there are gaps a commercial grower really needs filling. Such as the yield quantified in space needed. They offer a very amateurish grams per plants. They speak of pot size and spacing. However, they give the spacing on three sides of the plant, and each plant is beside a wide alley. How far the plant can reach in, is unknown. However, if the plant is limited in space equally on all 4 sides, then they are putting 9 plants in a 4x4 and suggest 1.3Kg at 570umol. If they fill the alleyway completely, you can half the yield. From 930g per meter, to 465g per meter. With 570umol that seems more reasonable. I think in reality, you can pass down the alleys, but the plants do encroach upon it. Leaving a walk way, that lets a bit of stray light become sidelighting. The bet result seems to be a competent grow, making the right numbers of around 600g per meter.
It is of course impossible to be sure. However they are not missing the expectations required to do such a study. They are just not proving conclusively that they met them. The figures align though, and they agree their was so much more they could of done, with time, space and funding.
Ca++
Well-known member
Okay. I'm beat. I have spent an hour on the calculator, and can't get there 180/60/200/130/45 figured out. I have even played with gallons, where 1.6g of potassium nitrate and 2.6g of calnit give 160/ /196/130 and figure it's their desire to balance the N types, leading to an N addition I don't see.
I did once download an app.. rapidly deleted it and went back to the type of calculator with buttons on it.
I don't think I can do this quite how they did. That's a lot of sulphur to, for rainwater corrected with sulphuric acid. I'm gonna put my hand up and ask for help. Though I might just hunt a feed with similar proportions.
I did once download an app.. rapidly deleted it and went back to the type of calculator with buttons on it.
I don't think I can do this quite how they did. That's a lot of sulphur to, for rainwater corrected with sulphuric acid. I'm gonna put my hand up and ask for help. Though I might just hunt a feed with similar proportions.
Ca++
Well-known member
Botanicare CNS17 Coco Bloom
152/65/187/190/37
Coco feeds tend to have that lower K, as K needs are met by the coco's decomposition. There is also an excess of Ca when using other feeds as a comparison, to reduce the K accumulation. While I don't think that Ca is a particular problem on it's own, the effect it has on the Mg isn't desirable. I think there is scope here to raise Mg with magnesium nitrate, which offers about 10% more N than Mg. With thoughts towards bringing the N up towards the Ca, taking president over the Mg need.
I can feel my brain waking up after 6 months off. I should really get an app, as it will look at the ionic balance which I'm just not ready for. though there is little accounting for how a coco feed might be balanced in respect of the coco's addition to the ionic balance.
Christ... I have never even seen such talk, never mind done the math. I'm not sure such polishing really matters
152/65/187/190/37
Coco feeds tend to have that lower K, as K needs are met by the coco's decomposition. There is also an excess of Ca when using other feeds as a comparison, to reduce the K accumulation. While I don't think that Ca is a particular problem on it's own, the effect it has on the Mg isn't desirable. I think there is scope here to raise Mg with magnesium nitrate, which offers about 10% more N than Mg. With thoughts towards bringing the N up towards the Ca, taking president over the Mg need.
I can feel my brain waking up after 6 months off. I should really get an app, as it will look at the ionic balance which I'm just not ready for. though there is little accounting for how a coco feed might be balanced in respect of the coco's addition to the ionic balance.
Christ... I have never even seen such talk, never mind done the math. I'm not sure such polishing really matters
Last edited:
kingape
Active member
Are those values N-P-K-Ca-Mg?
per litre?
Hiddenjems
Well-known member
Please figure out how to grow tomatoes. We get huge delicious tomatoes in marietta Ohio without them cracking.
