incorrect npk and supplement ratios are some of the reasons for shitty bud

[jidoka]

I do not wonder why something went wrong. I did analysis. I know why something went wrong. I see it in the statistical analysis. You are not up to date on experimental design if you fail to see that advantage of going over the edge

I will agree with 95% of the time what people claim to be a Mg def ain’t. Hell I find 0.25-0.3% ideal which is lower than most plants. And who hasn’t chased high N with mo Mg, or high Mg with more aminos...but is that ideal?

Too much K. If you use compost or ewc I agree. Too much K is a retard move...I cannot argue that one at all. I fucking hate most compost/ewc

 

[slownickel]

I do not wonder why something went wrong. I did analysis. I know why something went wrong. I see it in the statistical analysis. You are not up to date on experimental design if you fail to see that advantage of going over the edge

I will agree with 95% of the time what people claim to be a Mg def ain’t. Hell I find 0.25-0.3% ideal which is lower than most plants. And who hasn’t chased high N with mo Mg, or high Mg with more aminos...but is that ideal?

Too much K. If you use compost or ewc I agree. Too much K is a retard move...I cannot argue that one at all. I fucking hate most compost/ewc

The original experiments were done by Tiedjens. I have replicated his studies and knowing experimental design, I went to 90% Ca and in various crops. Did that for many years professionally, demonstrating nutrient uptake curves. At 90% Ca plants were hungry, you can see it.

Not knowing what you are applying, whether it is compost,ewc, bottled woowoo, etc. is silly Since you do know what is in your salt shaker, it is easier, no?

Realize you need humus sites to buffer and exchange elements so that plants can selectively pickup charges, not so much what is in solution. It is essential to use a humus source.

 

[Shmavis]

Shmavis,

Of all that holes that one can fall in, Calcium is the biggest. The reason is simple, you can't recover from a Ca deficiency, ever. So everyone pretty much starts with a ball and chain around their neck and then want to run.

This is why I get folks to run soil analysis correctly, using procedures for the type of media/soil that one is in. Those that have gone this route and applied their Ca up front in adequate quantities against K, Mg and Na, see excellent results.

Having more K than P, same issue, hard to catch up on that one too.

So yes, roots are roots. Just that if a Mom is malnourished, her clones are not going to form callus on the cut. Many seeds lose viability or have problems for the same issue, not enough reserves, especially Mn.

I will take some photos in February of a couple of grows that I work with to demonstrate my point regarding callus formation. I will probably post those in my thread though... slownickel lounge. Check it out. Lots of analysis, science, results!

I’m looking to expand my knowledge. So I’ll be over your way, to check out your thread. And I would very much like to run a soil analysis of the mix I use. So I look forward to learning how.

But in the meantime, what of my question? Such discussions only seem relevant to a homogenous garden with clones of one particular var. (To say nothing of abstracting away from environmental conditions.)

I agree with others who have said the variables are otherwise boundless - and I say this only because whether from clone or seed hasn’t been established - unless I missed it. In other words, is any of this relevant if growing from seed in a non 100% controllable environment? And under what sort of lighting? Artificial, natural? Do Ca requirements under natural lighting equate to the same under artificial?

It may be true that most mixes or bottled additives lack sufficient Calcium... but relative to what? One pheno may thrive and find all that is necessary to flourish in a particular medium, whereas another - or others - may suffer a tad; and at worst, struggle. Or, they may all shine.

All I’m wondering is if I up the Ca in my medium am I going to see full success growing from seed? Irrespective of phenotypical expression?

 

[jidoka]

What did your 90% Ca in the soil plants show on tissue analysis?

I know exactly what is in my salt shaker

And I use plenty of humus. It does not do much good to build cec for cations if you cannot hold anions, does it?

 

[jidoka]

I’m looking to expand my knowledge. So I’ll be over your way, to check out your thread. And I would very much like to run a soil analysis of the mix I use. So I look forward to learning how.

But in the meantime, what of my question? Such discussions only seem relevant to a homogenous garden with clones of one particular var. (To say nothing of abstracting away from environmental conditions.)

I agree with others who have said the variables are otherwise boundless - and I say this only because whether from clone or seed hasn’t been established - unless I missed it. In other words, is any of this relevant if growing from seed in a non 100% controllable environment? And under what sort of lighting? Artificial, natural? Do Ca requirements under natural lighting equate to the same under artificial?

It may be true that most mixes or bottled additives lack sufficient Calcium... but relative to what? One pheno may thrive and find all that is necessary to flourish in a particular medium, whereas another - or others - may suffer a tad; and at worst, struggle. Or, they may all shine.

All I’m wondering is if I up the Ca in my medium am I going to see full success growing from seed? Irrespective of phenotypical expression?

So 150 different strains, indo and gh. 1 basic fertigation and some (not a lot)difference in foliar

Do you need more Ca. I have no clue w/o testing...anyone that says different is a moron

 

[Avenger]

“The Sin of All Sins is to make Fertility Recommendations Without the Benefit of Plant Analysis” J. Benton Jones jr.

 

[SoulAnnoyed]

Nitrate based ferts seem to be the reasons for shitty bud.

Nothing trumps reality: the sources and application matter more than the ratio IME.

It surprises me, the lack of discernment between organic digestion methodology and synthetic direct injection practices on these forums. Traditional farmers do not worry with ppm because the count of the medium is not shared with the plant. Just saying. Its two distinct systems.

The source matters. In mature weed sheds and feeds itself. Thats a clue what it wants. If we were growing briar bushes, fed em furry dead animals, thats why they have thorns. Its what they want.

Get back to nature and quit worshipping numbers.

 

[Douglas.Curtis]

Nitrate based ferts seem to be the reasons for shitty bud.

Nothing trumps reality: the sources and application matter more than the ratio IME.

It surprises me, the lack of discernment between organic digestion methodology and synthetic direct injection practices on these forums. Traditional farmers do not worry with ppm because the count of the medium is not shared with the plant. Just saying. Its two distinct systems.

The source matters. In mature weed sheds and feeds itself. Thats a clue what it wants. If we were growing briar bushes, fed em furry dead animals, thats why they have thorns. Its what they want.

Get back to nature and quit worshipping numbers.

You worship the passive ionic uptake pathway of organic growers. This methodology grows awesome tomatoes and strawberries.

Cannabis enjoys additional pathways of uptake and needs to be treated as such a plant. Growing organic or refined mineral, the plant responds the same. Too much of something? Poor quality. Extra un-needed somethings? Poor quality. Feed only what it wants, when it can use it properly. The precision of hydro makes this much easier than with amended soil.

I'm still waiting to meet organics who can match what I do. I know you're out there and I can't wait to meet and swap info.

 

[Xanode]

I use GH 3 part cause NASA uses it, bro's...... in turn, increasing the gravitational pull of my planet-sized, competition-winning mutant buds. I think I'm starting to form a tear in the fabric of space/time. Shit need more calmag!

 

[growingcrazy]

You worship the passive ionic uptake pathway of organic growers. This methodology grows awesome tomatoes and strawberries.

Cannabis enjoys additional pathways of uptake and needs to be treated as such a plant. Growing organic or refined mineral, the plant responds the same. Too much of something? Poor quality. Extra un-needed somethings? Poor quality. Feed only what it wants, when it can use it properly. The precision of hydro makes this much easier than with amended soil.

I'm still waiting to meet organics who can match what I do. I know you're out there and I can't wait to meet and swap info.

Soil can be just as precise if you know what you are doing.

 

[Douglas.Curtis]

.

 

[growingcrazy]

lol The unicorn's.. I like it!

It is so true too...

Most hydro I see locally is grown to 85-90% of genetic potential, now with soil, maybe 65-75% of potential... it takes work with soil, no doubt.

 

[clearheaded]

Science in agriculture is 99% based on yield data. Not quality.

!

just wanted to point out a little symantics(sp) here .. help maybe shift your view from quality being an un-quantitative thing... yeild data sure, what makes quality wheat from cheaper wheat? protien YEILD. poor canola from great canola. oil yield.. what defines quality cannabis?? vegative yeild is only part of it your right buut yield of cannabinoids and terpenes surely is 99% of what makes a quality flower as far as growing 99% of everything else is processing soo can have wonderful huge yeild of fragrant rice but is processed bad and has mold sticks husks dust pesticides heavy metals but would be still poor quality when selling on the market. aaanyway bit off topic... carry on. just wanted to point out there is ALOT to be said about quantifying quality in ag. ...dyslexic speed reader lol..

 

[jidoka]

.

 

[Douglas.Curtis]

Good point, clearheaded. I yield an awful lot more oil than plant matter, lol.

 

[larry badiner]

Larry,

Excellent observations!

I have found that sativas want more N than indicas...

Your observation about water is more than likely due to an irrigation calculation factor called roughness. Basically the bigger the leaf and leaf density, the more "roughness", meaning more evaporation from the leaf due to its' size, width, etc, thus the observation you have made, the plant wants more water. The sativa will take longer to dry out as a result.

And I also agree with you completely about the mathematical formula for each variety, not just a grow! In large crops like mandarin oranges, an Okitsu has a very different feeding requirement than an Owari. COMPLETELY DIFFERENT! Cannabis is the same of that I am sure.

Excellent!

thanks! it could be roughness, or maybe something in the humidity levels, or maybe something in the seed lineage.. i only have experience with one or two real sativas (sams thai haze) but im pretty sure your spot on with N and sativas since they branch like crazy

 

[YukonKronic]

Stop. Talking. And. Listen.

 

[YukonKronic]

Guys like slow and jidoja are just trying to give us a hand. I'm with Avenger on the "why did I read that post?" Sentiment. Cannabologist. Please. Stop talking.

 

[larry badiner]

is there a way to find out what chemical a plant needs scientifically and not horticulturally? like some kind of star trek phaser that gives you a profile of a plant

a device like that could seriously help growers who are trying to break into botany

 

[Cannabologist]

is there a way to find out what chemical a plant needs scientifically and not horticulturally? like some kind of star trek phaser that gives you a profile of a plant

a device like that could seriously help growers who are trying to break into botany

Yeah its called a "soil test" pretty sure they've had them since they started mass producing mass spectroscopy machines