Food consumption in flower?

[Douglas.Curtis]

Transpiration rate is affected my many things including temperature, humidity, stage of growth, nutrient profile, and nutrient strength.

PLS (Puffy Leaf Syndrome) is a sign of too much calcium, and the reason I keep it moderate with little usage the last few weeks. Only times I see puffy leaves are when I use too much water soluble calcium (knf). I do not appreciate the 'larger' calcium boosted cell size as I can taste it as extra burnt plant flavor vs. same strain without.

Your tank is balanced when you mix it, same as soil, so where is the plain water unbalancing things? All r/o does is rehydrate what is there. The key is the full and complete pH swing you get from 5.4 to 6.0 by only topping off with pure r/o. Without this full swing you will definitely see irregularities in your baseline ec.

Good stuff

 

[Douglas.Curtis]

In soil grows, variations in how dry you let the soil get makes for a full pH swing.

 

[jackspratt61]

Oh.. I got a handle on the canna terra in veg. Should be 5ml and pretty much is. After adding 90ppm more Ca and 15ppm more Mg, that is. Not calmag though, as the N in calmag means using less feed which isn't as good a result. I tried half feed on one, full on other, 1.5X on another. However it was the Ca they really wanted. I may still need more, but they are not red and woody now, like you would normally associate with P or Mg. Soft and green was found with a plant getting excess Ca along with the 5ml recommendation from the terra feed bottle. Extra Mg caused them to bush.

Where did that put the K/Ca?

 

[f-e]

Where did that put the K/Ca?

Difficult to answer that. The Terra substrate is high in Ca they say. The Terra feed lists non, but it took lab testing to find it in there coco feeds, so there is good evidence they don't list what Ca is present. I have also gone back to the tap, which is 280ppm calcium carbonate.

What I do know, is the feed claims I added 130ppm K and the Mono Calcium (calcium chloride I suspect) added 88ppm of Ca. My test plant got 120ppm but the whole group are getting that 88 since the test plant came good.

I also found a lower pH than expected was working. Using Nitric. Which has a direct effect on the taps calcium carbonate. Thus, it might not be the lower pH helping. I'm making calcium nitrate from the calcium carbonate.

I had not noticed how close to 2:1 that is. However, there is a lot more Ca hiding.
We don't chase the ratio's in the UK. We apply enough of each (K,Ca,Mg) without the total being too high.

I'm taking a back seat for this run. Trying to use what I'm sold, and only stepping in when it fails. The straight feed could meet demand at about 250 ppfd, which isn't that bad for 24h light. The modified feed shows no limit imposed by chronic disorders, but at silly high light, it's still calcium and mild mix of Mg and N showing. Mostly Mg.

I just slipped them some macro's as I have not seen a BIG leaf in a couple of years, and the nipped tops loosely associated with Zn remain. The last time I did see big leaves, was going quite heavy on P and Ca.

In that PDF I linked to, they saw no difference in dried flower weight from differing K input at any site. I must read it again, as it seems so unlikely. My only progress of late, was raising K and lowering Ca to get it ahead. You also spoke of lower Ca. If K truly has no goal, then lowering Ca is all we are doing. I can't speak of ratio's as my local labs won't entertain the idea. I apply the ideas but not strictly.
Ca does slow fluid movement. Getting more to a plant, can mean giving it less, sometimes. I have thoughts of aging root systems on my mind, but find myself here on a though path I have not walked before. Wondering if my morning coffee is ready.

 

[jackspratt61]

The ppm are easily converted to meqs and then use meqs for your ratios. Zn is directly related to overall leaf size..particularly width to length.

 

[f-e]

The ppm are easily converted to meqs and then use meqs for your ratios. Zn is directly related to overall leaf size..particularly width to length.

I'm a little lost here pal. Are you saying the ratio's you are interested in, are not that of the PPMs. Rather, the ratio of their chemical activity?
I have never had reason to see what meq means before. It looks a little beyond my needs.


I notice john kempf's latest blog entry about manganese and light leaf structure with interest. I have seen a few reasons for light veins given by different sources. Be interesting to see if the raised levels cause a difference there. The mono trace at label dose is nothing like their feeds contain. Looking at Zn the grow is 0.005% (use 5ml) and the Trace Mix 0.3% (use 1-2ml) so at least a 10 fold difference. I used just 0.25ml hoping that might address any antagonisms from my calcium additions. That's about 0.8ppm extra, above the 0.25ppm the feed gives (looking at % not weight)

 

[nono_fr]

Hello,

I follow this picture to know what / when she need :

 

[jackspratt61]

I'm a little lost here pal. Are you saying the ratio's you are interested in, are not that of the PPMs. Rather, the ratio of their chemical activity?
I have never had reason to see what meq means before. It looks a little beyond my needs.


I notice john kempf's latest blog entry about manganese and light leaf structure with interest. I have seen a few reasons for light veins given by different sources. Be interesting to see if the raised levels cause a difference there. The mono trace at label dose is nothing like their feeds contain. Looking at Zn the grow is 0.005% (use 5ml) and the Trace Mix 0.3% (use 1-2ml) so at least a 10 fold difference. I used just 0.25ml hoping that might address any antagonisms from my calcium additions. That's about 0.8ppm extra, above the 0.25ppm the feed gives (looking at % not weight)

My understanding so far fe is this:
Meq is representative of the atomic weight of each element. Ammonia =17 Nitrate=61 P=31 K=39 Ca=40 Mg=24 S=32 and so on. 17ppm ammonia has equal weight to 39ppm K. So a 1:1 K/N ratio using ammonia is different in ppm from using nitrate in the same ratio. Very important and neccessary for comparison.
He's correct on mn. But extra Mn may not be the solution of course. High Fe,Cu,P,Ca could be the problem.
It is about balance,which John mentions,between the elements. Hence the need for some understanding of equivalent weights.