LST AK-47 DWC

[ShroomDr]

But it says
'Addition of 5ml of Hydroplex, per gallon of water, will yield the following ppm of indicated nutrients:'

That's not implying that they did the math?

Its not like they said,
53.50 ppm of p2o5
130.00 ppm of k2o

It was stated the other way around,

'will yieldthe following ppm'

You see what im saying, or do you think im still off?

 

[sproutco]

"as" = the form they are using for k and p

I am sure you have to do the math if pure k and p are the forms we are using.

Addition of 5ml of Hydroplex, per gallon of water, will yield the following ppm of indicated nutrients:
Nitrogen 6.25ppm
Phosphorus (as p2o5) 53.50ppm
Potassium (as k2o) 130.00ppm
Magnesium (Mg) 6.00ppm
Sulfur 6.00ppm


Once you use the conversion factor on the guaranteed analysis, you can see there is quite a bit more potassium than phosphorus

Quote:
Guaranteed Minimum Analysis
Total Nitrogen (N) 0.5%
0.0% Nitrate Nitrogen
Available Phosphate (p2o5) 4.0%
Soluble Potash (k2o) 10.0%
Magnesium (Mg) 0.5%

If you take the guaranteed analysis and make the conversion you get:

10% k2o x .83 = 8.3% pure k
4% p2o5 x .43 = 1.72% pure p

So you end up with a ratio 8.3:1.72 k to p

8.3 divided by 1.72 = 4.82 x more k than p ratio

If you multiply 4.82 x 53 p it should = 255 k

It does not. K is listed as k2o = 130

All they did was multiply 4%/10% (the uncoverted numbers ) x 130 k2o = 53 p as p2o5

 

[sproutco]

Here are some known numbers in the thread lucas compares 100-100-200-60 target by Mel Frank and the lucas formula to other ferts. You can see if you do the math the same way as above and they match up.

Calculating Nutrient profiles for Canna, GH and PBP

the following specs are in N-P-K-Mg format
canna aqua a plus b vega 6-3-8-1
Canna aqua a plus b flores 4-4-11-1.2
Canna Coco a plus b flores 5-5-3-1
Flora Nova Bloom 4-8-7-2
Flora Nova Grow 7-4-10-1.5
Flora Micro 5-0-1
Flora Bloom 0-5-4-1.5

8 fnBloom
n 124
p 108
k 180
Mg 62

8% p2o5 and 7% k2o
8 x .43 = 3.44 % pure p
7 x .83 = 5.81 % pure k
5.81 divided by 3.44 = 1.69
1.69 x more ratio k to p in this fert

108 p listed x 1.69 should = 180 k; it works out to be 182

So you can see you have to make the conversion of the fert guaranteed anaylsis to get a ratio of true p to true k. It is common practice to express in a guaranteed analysis nitrogen, p2o5, k2o. I think the story was to make the fertilizer look better. With higher numbers. Old tradition.

 

[sproutco]

Here is a modified steiner nutrient solution. It is ok to raise k levels higher.
n 171
p 48
k 304
ca 180
mg 48

 

[sproutco]

http://hubcap.clemson.edu/~blpprt/bobweb/BOBWEB24.HTM

WHY IS PHOSPHORUS EXPRESSED AS P2O5 AND POTASSIUM EXPRESSED AS K20 IN THE SOIL TEST REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS AND BY THE FERTILIZER COMPANIES?
In earlier times, before current lab instrumentation was developed, chemists used a gravimetric (weighing) method after ignition to determined the phosphorus and potassium content of fertilizers in the form of phosphorus oxide (P2O5) and potassium oxid e (K2O). By convention, the amounts (or analysis grade) of phosphorus and potassium in fertilizers are still expressed in this oxide form. The Association of American Plant Food Control officials have developed a uniform state fertilizer bill which says that available P2O5 and soluble K2O must be guaranteed by the manufacturer and so the guaranteed analysis must still be expressed in the oxide form. Nitrogen content has always been expressed as simply N.

According to the conventional fertilizer standards, a 100 pound bag of 10-10-10 contains 10% or 10 pounds of nitrogen, 10% or 10 pounds of P2O5 and 10% or 10 pounds of K2O. Since P2O5 is really only 44% actual elemental phosphorus and K2O is only 83% actual elemental potassium, a 100 pound bag of 10-10-10 contains 10% or 10 pounds of nitrogen, 4.4% or 4.4 pounds of elemental phosphorus and 8.3% or 8.3 pounds of elemental potassium.

Perhaps the reluctance of the fertilizer industry to convert to expressing the nutrients in the elemental forms is due to the perception that less fertilizer is being purchased for the same amount of money. A 100 pound bag of 10-10-10 containing N, P2 O5 and K2O would be equivalent to a 100 pound bag of 10-4.4-8.3 containing N, P and K.

Once the fertilizer is added to the soil, the oxide forms, P2O5 and K2O, are no longer used when discussing these two nutrients. The amount of these nutrients analyzed in the soil is expressed as the pounds per acre of P and K. The plant content is expressed as the percentage of P and K.

 

[ShroomDr]

Once Again, your the shiznit!

after about 25 minutes of writing it all out, i was compehending your numbers solutions, just not sure why you were comming up with different numbers than Botanicare.


Then I looked at this line
'All they did was multiply 4%/10% (the uncoverted numbers) x 130 k2o = 53 p as p2o5'

.4(there % ratio of P to K) X 130 (there listed K ppm) = 53ish (there listed P ppm)

Now I understand how they dumbed it down. And they would not have had the same numbers if they had factored in the Oxygen in the k2o (they did not ratio it out)

I'll rework my math again, It should just be a matter of adding a few ml/Gal of the Hydroplex.

Day 39 Flowering










And my FAVORITE Probably my best close up ever!

 

[sproutco]

If you raise the k level with the hydroplex to 300 (which is fine), your p would be 63. 13.9 ml. 130 x .83 = 108 true k in 5 ml. 300/108 = 2.77 2.77 x 5ml = 13.9 ml

53 ppm p2o5 in 5ml then 13.9/5 x 53 = 147 p2o5 147 x .43 = 63 p which is still cool.

magnesium would be 13.9/5 x 6 = 17 ppm in the hydroplex; no conversions

4:2:1 ratio potassium to calcium to magnesium

Raise calcium to 150 ppm using the cal mag plus. Find amount of magnesium added. 60 magnesium desired (this should be plenty) - cal mag plus' magnesium - 17 ppms from the hydroplex = amount of sweet needed containing just magnesium.

See if you come up with the same thing.

This will be excellent. Compare to the modified Steiner solution. Little more mag and phosphorus. And alot less nitrogen because your flowering.

 

[sproutco]

Here is another well known nutrient solution to look at. Its Cooper's nutrient solution. Dr. Allen Cooper devised the Nutrient Film Technique (NFT) and perfected its practical application through his research work at the Glasshouse Crops Research Institute in the UK.

n 236
p 60
k 300
ca 185
mg 50

Everything except nitrogen works out the same. You don't need all that in flowering anyway. Cool huh? :wink:

Looks like 13.9 ml hydroplex (for 300 k, 63 p) and 18.1 ml cal mag plus (150ca) per gallon of water. Nothing else needed.

The Cal-Mag+ bottle says 10ml per gallon will add

N 52
P 0
K 0
Mg 31
Cal 83
Fe 2.5

10 ml cal mag plus = 83 calcium 150 ppm calcium desired/83 = 1.8 1.8 x 10 = 18ml needed
1.8 x 31 = 56 magnesium in the cal mag plus

56 ppm mag + 17 from the hydroplex = 73 total magnesium ppm

How much nitrogen did you come up with?

I came up with 17 from the hydroplex and 94 from the cal mag plus = 111 nitrogen ppm.

4:2:1 potassium to calcium to magnesium

n 111
p 63
k 300
ca 150
mg 73

 

[sproutco]

Into the rez, you should add

13.9 ml x 3.25 gallons = 45.2 ml hydroplex

18.1 x 3.25 gallons = 58.8 ml cal mag plus

 

[ShroomDr]

Well without changing everything right now, and fixing my earlier math, these were/are my levels(ive topped of with 0ppm water since):
N 83
P 40
K 183
Mg 68
Ca 108
S 30
Fe 4
If i add 4.5ml more of Hydroplex (13ml total, like sproutco suggested) Ill get:
N 84
P 61
K 28
Mg 76 <---is that too high now?
Ca 108
S 46
Fe 5

If i add more Ca, i have to add more N (Ca83:N52= .62) so im not sure i really wanna do that. Bringing the Ca up to 140(which still wouldn't be enough for a 2:1 Ca:Mg (Mg would now be 76 with they hydroplex)
Adding 4ml more would yield:
N 105
P 61
K 280
Mg 69
Ca 141
S 46
Fe 5
I could drop the Mg by using less Sweet, but that would require changing the entire reservoir (as opposed to just adding the other two)

So, Add hydroplex only?
Hydroplex & CalMag?
Let it ride for a few days, and then change everything and lower Sweet levels?

I know you like the Levels of S to be close to P, sproutco, so lowering my Mg will also lower the S.

All this math is actually fun now

Not fun until finished though.

 

[ShroomDr]

Double post sry

 

[ShroomDr]

and i guess we were both doing the math at the same time

 

[sproutco]

I know you like the Levels of S to be close to P, sproutco, so lowering my Mg will also lower the S.

You could do 2 things to get more sulfur.

1. add 1/8 teaspoon powdered gypsum per gallon of water which is 23% calcium and 19% sulfur. This would add 35 ppm calcium and 29 ppm sulfur. You are aiming for about 50 ppm sulfur so this would be close enough with a little bit from the hydroplex's potassium sulfate and magnesium sulfate. Also this would increase your calcium 150 + 35 = 185ppm which is identical to coopers nutrient solution

or/and

2. Change your ph down to battery acid/sulfuric acid. Directions are in my signature for making your own ph down.

Interestingly with the 45.2 ml hydroplex + 58.8ml calmag plus in 3.25 gallons of pure water, your magnesium level is 73 ppm's. Lucas formula level of magnesium is identical:

pH's "Lucas Formula" values for 8ml micro, 16ml bloom
n 130
p 106
k 183
Mg 73

Canna fertilizers use alot of k like your nutrient solution will have. When using so much potassium, you have to increase your magnesium levels up. Lucas suggests adding 30 more ppm magnesium (1/4 teaspoon epsom per gallon) to both these formulas. original mag 42 + epsom 30 = 72 ppm magnesium. Its identical to your level of 73. Cool huh. Strangely, there is no talk about calcium levels in the entire thread.

Here we see Canna Coco hitting hard with P and K
canna coco 14/a and 14/b plus 6ml pk13-14

212 n
177 p
317 k
42 mg

and here is Canna Aqua Flores at 3ml/litre each of A and B (it does not resemble GH bloom recipes, but is slightly similar to 15ml PBPBloom plus 5ml Cal Mag)
138 n
60 p
316 k
42 mg

I dont know why Canna and PBP use such lower P and Mg levels than GH, nor do Canna and PBP hit Mel Franks 100-100-200-60 targets the way GH does. Yet folks with Canna and PBP produce excellent results, just like folks with GH do.

Bear in mind that when looking at Canna Aqua Flores, the K level is rather high, and this inhibits uptake of Mg, which is already a bit low imho.. I have heard repeatedly that Canna Aqua, AND Canna Coco produce Mg deficiency if not supplemented with Epsom at the rate of 1/4tsp per gallon...

http://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=21119

Other growers use the 4:2:1 ratio potassium to calcium to magnesium. This guy from North Carolina State university suggests this for Geranium plants.

Calcium (Ca): Calcium is a major constituent of cell walls. Deficiency symptoms are expressed as death (blackening) of growing points of terminal buds and roots. Ca is a non-mobile element and uptake is by the root tips. Excess levels of Ca can reduce the uptake of K, Mg, and B. A fertilization rate of 50 to 100 ppm Ca should be used, remembering to maintain the K:Ca:Mg fertilizer ratio of 4:2:1. Ca can be supplied from your irrigation water (if adequate levels exist), dolomitic limestone, or calcium nitrate. Remember that Ca uptake into the plant and transportation within the plant is through the water flow, so promoting good root growth so water uptake can occur and good shoot growth that aids in transpiration will assist in Ca uptake

http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/hort/hil/hil-504.html

I think you should dump the rez and install the new nutrient solution without the sweet. Use pure water and not tap water.

 

[ShroomDr]

Well, going though my old feeding schedules, this is what i came up with

Day 16 Flowering
N 93
P 27
K 131
Mg 40
Ca 55
S 25
Not terrible

Day 23
N 106
P 25
K 119
Mg 90
Ca 55 + my tap water
S 100
(Start of problems probably. K:Mg:Ca is not 4:1:2, closer to 2:2:1, Is this where the Ca problem started)

Day 32
N
23
P 23
K 108
Mg 78
Ca 27
S 98
(Again K:Mg:Ca is not 4:1:2 or 8:1:4. It is a 4:3:1 {roughly})

Day 37 (current)
N 83
P 40
K 183
Mg 68
Ca 108
S 30

Are there any available 'lock out' ratios? for example twice as much Mg as Ca will cause a Ca lockout. (I think that is what happened to me, but it probably locked out some trace elements too).

How about feeding guidelines for Fe S Zn and the rest of the traces? Maybe there are so low that as long as your not locking them out, your probably good.

Pictures to come. Ill also post up my Calculations for NPKMgCaSFe for Sweet, Cal-Mag Plus, & Hydroplex i little farther down the line.

 

[sproutco]

How about feeding guidelines for Fe S Zn and the rest of the traces? Maybe there are so low that as long as your not locking them out, your probably good.

We never touched on the micro rates. According to you, the cal mag plus has alot of micros. Then switching to the 300:150:73 k ca mg rate using just hydroplex and alot more cal mag plus without sweet may be desirable to boost the micros. If you come up with a micro ppm rate for the ferts, you can look in my make your own nutes thread in my signature for common ranges.

 

[ShroomDr]

Pictures!
Day 41 Flowering 15-20 more days.

The pistils have all started to change, all the trichs look clear still.












I've been reading up on Silica (and everything else) and I'm thinking of adding it back into the mix.

If it was AN Barricade, i probably would have already done it, because it contains 100% Potassium Silicate. My Botanicare Silica Blast has Sodium and Potassium Silicate.

the Sodium would probably be OK (I've read of studies where silica protects against too high a salinity solution in Hydroponics, that would otherwise (without Si) been killed by the Sodium.

It also is the second most abundant element on the planet (O is #1) and fight fungus, transport metals easier, and is a building block of trichomes.
[/end silica rant]

 

[Guest]

fuckin-A-sweet my friend

 

[steveoi812]

Very nice. I just got some ak clone from a friend of mine. I tell you what these bitches stank dont they? Goodness. I am growing in soil, Lst style, with lots of love mixed in. Hey shroomdr? Have you ever been to thenook.org? Check it out sometime bro...Later

 

[Jam Master Jaco]

Alright I'm gonna start guessing your yield....3 ounces and 15 grams is my guess. Just shy of a QP


You should host your pics on this site, not imageshack or whatever you're using. I keep getting pop ups from that site when I click on your pics.

 

[local_grower]

3 ounces and 15 grams?

boy i would be disappointed with a yield like that