desertsquirrel
Member
The P2O5 is 120 ppm, but actual available is 52P because P is only uptakeable in the form of HPO4. But i could be wrong, i have never used jacks.
-
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.
passive plant killer
- Thread starter delta9nxs
- Start date
the NPK value is based on the P2O5
seems crazy to me, but that is the way it is. In the USA the N is the only one that tells you the elemental amount, the P and K represent the oxides.
I showed my math and adjusted up for P and K to reflect this in the final 'NPK' ratio
I was under the impression that jacks and calc nit as directed was close to 3-1-3 or 3-1-4
seems crazy to me, but that is the way it is. In the USA the N is the only one that tells you the elemental amount, the P and K represent the oxides.
I showed my math and adjusted up for P and K to reflect this in the final 'NPK' ratio
I was under the impression that jacks and calc nit as directed was close to 3-1-3 or 3-1-4
desertsquirrel
Member
From what i understand the npk on the bottle is total (being 120) but actual available (52) is HPO4. No?
jj, i hate to keep referring you to links but they do a better job of explaining this than i can.
150-52-215 is 3-1.04-4.3. that's awfully close to 3-1-4
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPK_rating
hi, desertsquirrel! thank you!
150-52-215 is 3-1.04-4.3. that's awfully close to 3-1-4
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPK_rating
hi, desertsquirrel! thank you!
dagger, there is no complete description for making hash this way. i'll be doing another load soon and will document it for everyone.
i've used water to separate the material before similar to using bubble bags but no bags. just a big tub of water with a bunch of trim and ice. beat the shit out of it with a paint mixer and a drill. let the trichs settle and siphon the water out. you can wash it as many times as you like to get it as clean as you want it.
then i've done dry sieving with 75 and 100 micron screens.
what i do now is like a combination technique.
i don't put the bulk trim in water anymore. i dry sieve it then wash it. the end product is very clean. the wash removes most of the plant fiber and waxes.
i'll detail it soon. do a search in the meantime for ezstrainers. they make them in sizes that fit 5 gal buckets and 55 gal drums. the 5 gal size is good for about an oz of trim at a time. i run 8 oz's at a time in the big one. the 75 and 100 micron screens are both good as long as you intend to wash it.
d9
desertsquirrel
Member
Hey delta9, thank you too! i am loving that link. I look forward to talking with you more...
the P and K (not N) are for the oxides and don't equal the elemental PPM values of , the elemental PPM is for teh P and K.
I'm not sure but I think this is wht you are saying. I thought the P P2O5
lets do the math and find the actual ratio for the NPK rating
150 = 150
52*(1/.43) = 120
215*( 1/.83) = 259
this is where we disagre on the P and K, what numbers are you using to get 1.04 and 4.3?
ok this would be a ratio of
3.0, 2.3999999999999999, 5.1799999999999997
like 3-2-5 rounded
just to recap: how did you get 3-1.04-4.3 where do the 1.04 and 4.3 come from?
I'm using the same multiplier found on the wikipedia NPK page you sent me.
'l phosphorus is 43.6% so P= 0.43 x P2O5
potassium is 83% so K = 0.83 x K2O'
desertsquirrel
Member
P2O5 and K2O are not available.
43.6% of the total P (P2O5), is available P (HPO4--).
83% of total K (K2O), is available K (K+).
Think about it, how can the 43% your taking as the available be more the then total your taking the 43% from?
43.6% of the total P (P2O5), is available P (HPO4--).
83% of total K (K2O), is available K (K+).
Think about it, how can the 43% your taking as the available be more the then total your taking the 43% from?
daggerinmyback
Member
Sweet! I'll be waiting on your detailed write up!!! cause as is I have a pound of bud, plus trimmings that didnt exactly get dried/cured right I'm thinking ... on first hit it has a kinda harsh burn in the back of the throat... (maybe dried too fast in one of those damned cabinets)... maybe hash is the way to go...) but three hits had me flying... lol
first, thanks for taking the time to reply
do you agree with this
P205 needs to be multiplied by .43 to get the elemental P value?
and to go from the NPK label to the PPM you need to multiply .43?
If I am wrong I really want to know why, so please be patient.
please correct if you see an error:
the elemental value of N and P and K (not the NPK label)
are: 150 52 and 215 do we agree here?
the 150 stays the same on the NPK label the 52 and 215 are overrated so to get 52 ppm of P you'd need to see the larger number 52*(1/.43)
to go from the label of say 5-12-26 you'd multiple the 1 by .43
do you agree so far?
I have verified what I am saying with an nutrient app I have downloaded, a javascrip webapp, and have done the math repeatadly. I aslo have written a small program to do this. All three of these sources agree with what I am saying. Unless, I'm really lost.
You guys seems so confident (I think you are wrong by the way), that it is making me doubt what I am saying, and I really want to come to an agreement here. If I'm wrong, I'd be glad to know.
I don't understand why you say I am claiming there is more. I am saying there is less available than on the NPK label.
for example 5-12-26 means 50 52 215 according to the peters data, I agree with this
so say instead of 5 -12 26 you say 50- 120 260 then adjust you by .43 and .83
you get 50 52 215. My math agrees with the label with out the calcium nitrate, so I am confident (maybe, wrong , but confident) that I am right. I've gone over this like 10 times used other apps to calculate and wrote my own script. All these things confirm I am correct, unless I am missing something (which is very possible)
I just want to be able to calculate the NPK from the PPM myself. If you are right, I am not able to do this, else you are wrong and I am able to do this.
Does anyone reading this agree with me, or am I the only one with doubts?
Just to be really clear, I'm not being defensive and I'm not upset.
I understand I am in the minority here. Can you simply post the math on say the K conversion from ppm to NPK rating? I want to see how you do the math.
to get to the labeled PK you must adjust to make them larger not smaller, I am saying the NPK label is overrated if you are just looking for available PK
do you agree with this
P205 needs to be multiplied by .43 to get the elemental P value?
and to go from the NPK label to the PPM you need to multiply .43?
If I am wrong I really want to know why, so please be patient.
please correct if you see an error:
the elemental value of N and P and K (not the NPK label)
are: 150 52 and 215 do we agree here?
the 150 stays the same on the NPK label the 52 and 215 are overrated so to get 52 ppm of P you'd need to see the larger number 52*(1/.43)
to go from the label of say 5-12-26 you'd multiple the 1 by .43
do you agree so far?
I have verified what I am saying with an nutrient app I have downloaded, a javascrip webapp, and have done the math repeatadly. I aslo have written a small program to do this. All three of these sources agree with what I am saying. Unless, I'm really lost.
You guys seems so confident (I think you are wrong by the way), that it is making me doubt what I am saying, and I really want to come to an agreement here. If I'm wrong, I'd be glad to know.
I don't understand why you say I am claiming there is more. I am saying there is less available than on the NPK label.
for example 5-12-26 means 50 52 215 according to the peters data, I agree with this
so say instead of 5 -12 26 you say 50- 120 260 then adjust you by .43 and .83
you get 50 52 215. My math agrees with the label with out the calcium nitrate, so I am confident (maybe, wrong , but confident) that I am right. I've gone over this like 10 times used other apps to calculate and wrote my own script. All these things confirm I am correct, unless I am missing something (which is very possible)
I just want to be able to calculate the NPK from the PPM myself. If you are right, I am not able to do this, else you are wrong and I am able to do this.
Does anyone reading this agree with me, or am I the only one with doubts?
Just to be really clear, I'm not being defensive and I'm not upset.
I understand I am in the minority here. Can you simply post the math on say the K conversion from ppm to NPK rating? I want to see how you do the math.
to get to the labeled PK you must adjust to make them larger not smaller, I am saying the NPK label is overrated if you are just looking for available PK
I agree, this is what I am using in my calc, where do I say more is available? Can you quote it? This may be the cause of all my confusion.
I use .43 to go from the label to the ppm
and 1/.43 to go the other way
Hi, just wanted to drop into this thread and say thank you all so much for making this thread, esp. delta. I signed up to IC here so I could see the pics and know what they hell you were talking about exactly. It's been two days of reading and I'm only on page 27 of this.
I got a million questions at this point, where the first pure cocos are coming off, you just switched to Jacks, and just drilled holes for 'air pruning'. I'll have a bunch of questions when I'm done, but for now: did you keep up with the (Edit: regular pruning you describe, not 'air pruning'] pruning, change it, or form any opinions on the necessity for this system? Like I said, I'm only on page 27.
You all are rocking this... now I got to go back and look at some of those links on earthboxes and hawaii and urban modularity.
I got a million questions at this point, where the first pure cocos are coming off, you just switched to Jacks, and just drilled holes for 'air pruning'. I'll have a bunch of questions when I'm done, but for now: did you keep up with the (Edit: regular pruning you describe, not 'air pruning'] pruning, change it, or form any opinions on the necessity for this system? Like I said, I'm only on page 27.
You all are rocking this... now I got to go back and look at some of those links on earthboxes and hawaii and urban modularity.
jj, i personally have never done the math on this, and really don't intend to as i trust jrpeterslab on their product. they claim 150-52-215 when mixed according to directions. i'm inclined to believe them as they are a working plant lab with a lot of large commercial clients.
i know that i am growing large beautiful plants at high speed so it seems to be a good ratio.
have you seen the cannastats site?
http://www.angelfire.com/cantina/fourtwenty/
there is a nutrient calculator there that might help you.
also there are recommendations from the old pot gurus as to proper npk for weed. but remember these were made long ago without the benefit of tissue analysis.
you might consider talking to jrpeters staff about this.
later, d9
i know that i am growing large beautiful plants at high speed so it seems to be a good ratio.
have you seen the cannastats site?
http://www.angelfire.com/cantina/fourtwenty/
there is a nutrient calculator there that might help you.
also there are recommendations from the old pot gurus as to proper npk for weed. but remember these were made long ago without the benefit of tissue analysis.
you might consider talking to jrpeters staff about this.
later, d9
hi, griptape! welcome! your first post at icmag and i got it! i'm truly flattered!
i've been using 100% coco. the atami brand until yesterday when my local grow store informed me they weren't going to stock it anymore.
so i bought a bunch of botanicare bricks. i know someone here has used it before. maybe they can report their results with it.
ask anything you want. i obviously don't have all the answers but usually someone can reply accurately.
later, d9
i've been using 100% coco. the atami brand until yesterday when my local grow store informed me they weren't going to stock it anymore.
so i bought a bunch of botanicare bricks. i know someone here has used it before. maybe they can report their results with it.
ask anything you want. i obviously don't have all the answers but usually someone can reply accurately.
later, d9
desertsquirrel
Member
jjfoo....
130 oz / 1000 gal
1.3 oz /1 gal
37.05 g/ 3.785 L
9.8g/L= (or 980 ml/mg per L or 980 ppm)
5% n
12% p
26%k
n = 9.8 X .05 =.49
p= 9.8X .12= 1.176
k= 9.8X .26 = 2.548
So totals for total NPK are
N =49 ppm (NH4)
P= 118 ppm (P2O5)
K = 254 ppm (K2O)
Because P2O5 and K2O are not available.
43.6% of the total P (P2O5), is available P (HPO4--).
83% of total K (K2O), is available K (K+).
So actual available PPM:
NH4 = 49 ppm
HPO4 = 118 X .436 = 51.4
(K+) = 254 X .83 = 210.82
130 oz / 1000 gal
1.3 oz /1 gal
37.05 g/ 3.785 L
9.8g/L= (or 980 ml/mg per L or 980 ppm)
5% n
12% p
26%k
n = 9.8 X .05 =.49
p= 9.8X .12= 1.176
k= 9.8X .26 = 2.548
So totals for total NPK are
N =49 ppm (NH4)
P= 118 ppm (P2O5)
K = 254 ppm (K2O)
Because P2O5 and K2O are not available.
43.6% of the total P (P2O5), is available P (HPO4--).
83% of total K (K2O), is available K (K+).
So actual available PPM:
NH4 = 49 ppm
HPO4 = 118 X .436 = 51.4
(K+) = 254 X .83 = 210.82
daggerinmyback
Member
Ive been using Botanicare all of my 3 PPK runs lol, it seems to hold in more moisture but allows for the smaller pulse schedule to equalize the salt distribution throughout and trusting that math with my shoddy power grid having blackouts etc, I have beasts if I could figure out how to post a pic I would of my 3 weeks and 2 days old babies that are about 1 cubic foot each but I am using a few tips from verdantgreen on modular scrogging and also HEAVY defoliation(every 4 days) to keep budsites compact and plants shorter... 5 week veg schedule will be almost impossible as the size of these already
Attachments
Plants grow in it. Relatively clean product without too ultra dusty fine shit.
I never looked at the salt content in it when prepping... soaked it an squeezed it, charged it an ran it. If there was anything weird in there, it never showed in growth patterns.
I am thinking of lightening it a bit down the line with something more coarse... But:
Plants grow in it.
daggerinmyback
Member
I must stress, PRE RINSING IT, Ive done the ph/ppm(ec) things with it fresh out of brick form and got variations that could kill a crop...
one brick was 1.9 EC PH 6.8 ? same case order had another 1.2 EC PH 5.8... just saying rinse and charge with jacks and all is stable... and I agree needs something coarse, but perlite or huge chunks of hydroton(done the botanicare and hydroton mix and it was alright, but that was before the Jack's change over) .... Hmmmm now my head hurts again.
time for another awesome cookie...
one brick was 1.9 EC PH 6.8 ? same case order had another 1.2 EC PH 5.8... just saying rinse and charge with jacks and all is stable... and I agree needs something coarse, but perlite or huge chunks of hydroton(done the botanicare and hydroton mix and it was alright, but that was before the Jack's change over) .... Hmmmm now my head hurts again.
time for another awesome cookie...
with all due respect,
the numbers you are giving are based on elemental values, right, so to get from 150-52-215 you must convert the P and K.
so 150-52-215 becomes 150 121 259, do you agree with this?
this isn't 3-1-4 but actually, Jacks never claims 3 1 4, do they? I think this is based on assumption.
I'm claiming that it is actually 3-2-5
you claim it is 3-1-4, to me it seems you based this on elemental values, but standard NPK is based on oxide amounts for P and K. I assume you understand this because you posted a wikipedia link that explains it in detail.
If this is not important to you please let me know and I will not bring it up again. I talked to jrpeters labs, the person on the phone couldn't answer my question but said someone will call back, would you like to know what they tell me?
It is really frusttrating when I am doing the math, using hydro nutrient calculators and writing my own programs and they all say 3-2-5.
I don't know alot about what plants need but have been targeting 3-1-4. Maybe this is not the best and 3-2-5 is, but to say jacks is 3-1-4 is something I can't see.
