The myth, of the high P myth?

[spurr]

Loving the internode spacing with low P

spurs recipe with couple of tweeks

day 10 flower

the slight cal/mag problem was from some root aphids. i gave em bayer and botanigard week before i flipped

Agree with YS. Donk are you using Spurrs recipe and adding Big Bud, and Bud Candy and Si K? What medium are you in? Looking good.

AFAIK and IIRC, no, Donk was not using my original mix (5/5/5/5) as base when he used Bud Candy and Big Bud; he was using near the GreatfulHead (original mix) of 6 ml GH-Bloom and 8 ml GH-Micro. But in the pics above, yes, he is using my mix as a base, to which he made some tweaks.

The 'tweaks' he made to my mix are not drastic, but I bet they will product some great bud.

Here is the post where DonkDBZ wrote about the Big Bud, etc., to improve the GreatfulHead mix (6 ml/9 ml), as well as the media he was (and is still?) using:
https://www.icmag.com/ic/showpost.php?p=4491588&postcount=509

Here is where DonkDBZ wrote about using the Big Bud, etc., with close to the Greatfulhead mix: https://www.icmag.com/ic/showpost.php?p=4490144&postcount=496

 

[YosemiteSam]

very high Ca...low P

very high Ca...low P

Just flipped them...






N-P-K-Ca-Mg 120-40-240-160-80

The exact formula in grams per gallon

CaNO3 1.3
KNO3 1.9
MKP 0.67
MgSO4 3.2
Met Ca 2.0 (Albion's Metalosate Ca)
micros 0.1 (I think it is Peter's STEM mix)

Try matching those numbers with bottled nutes...good luck on the Ca.

 

[YosemiteSam]

One gone slightly wrong

One gone slightly wrong

For some reason I decided to see what would happen if I went to a 4:1 Ca:Mg ratio instead of the 2:1 ratio I was using above (I blame Basement Breeder cause I got jealous of how well his plants faded

Anyways I cut the MgSO4 in half from the above formula and fed it to some seedlings. Took about a week for the deficiency to show up. May not look like a traditional Mg def...but what else could it be?

Overall I do not like how light in color the plants are and you can see the def on the single plant





Not sure why this did not work for me...but it didn't.

 

[spurr]

@ YS,

N-P-K-Ca-Mg 120-40-240-160-80

The exact formula in grams per gallon

CaNO3 1.3
KNO3 1.9
MKP 0.67
MgSO4 3.2
Met Ca 1.3 (Albion's Metalosate Ca)
micros 0.1 (I think it is Peter's STEM mix)

Try matching those numbers with bottled nutes...good luck on the Ca.

Looking good. I'm curious though, about the ppm of Ca from CaNO3 vs the ppm of Ca from Metalosate Ca. What is the % of Ca in the Metalosate Ca, it's 5% correct?

What about Si, do you not use it any longer? And do you not add B, or is that in the Peter's STEM mix? Also, do have a link for Peter's STEM mix, so I can check it out? Thanks.

BTW, what media do you use again? Is it straight coco?

 

[spurr]

For some reason I decided to see what would happen if I went to a 4:1 Ca:Mg ratio instead of the 2:1 ratio I was using above (I blame Basement Breeder cause I got jealous of how well his plants faded

Anyways I cut the MgSO4 in half from the above formula and fed it to some seedlings. Took about a week for the deficiency to show up. May not look like a traditional Mg def...but what else could it be?

Overall I do not like how light in color the plants are and you can see the def on the single plant

View attachment 120738

View attachment 120739

Not sure why this did not work for me...but it didn't.

Was it well flushed coco? (re Percent Base Saturation of CEC sites)

What was the Mg ppm? You could have had a fine Ca:Mg ratio, ex., 4, but the actual ppm of Mg could have been too low. Maybe try keeping the ratio the same, but increase the Mg ppm?

What was the K:Mg ratio?

Anyway, thanks for sharing, I like how much you test and then report.

 

[YosemiteSam]

Straight coco.

It is the powder Metalosate Ca...18% Ca.

I got the STEM at Custom Hydro. Probably a link to it from his site. It does contain B but not at the levels we have discussed. An experiment for a later date when I get some other things dialed to my liking.

Si I do love. I think it does everything you have claimed. But I ran out and those AgSil bastards just are not cooperating with my weed growing schedule...so I make do. I have a 50 lb bag ordered so this shit does not happen again.

When I get it I will basically go to 100 ppm SiO2 at this level of N. The K that brings will be offset by dropping KNO3...which will lead to more CaNO3 and less Met Ca...same N-P-K-Ca-Mg numbers, just some SiO2 added.

 

[YosemiteSam]

Sunshine Mix Just Coir straight out the bag. No prep at all.

Mg was 40 ppm when I got the deficiency. The Scott's guys had told me no plant ever needed over 50 ppm...they may not grow a lot of weed.

edit...K was 240 ppm...so 6:1 K:Mg.

120-40-240-160-40.

edit...my dumb ass wrote down the Met Ca wrong...it is 2 grams per gallon...I will fix in the first post.

one mo edit...here is the link to STEM http://customhydronutrients.com/zen...=product_info&cPath=1_50_51_32&products_id=16

 

[cyat]

Hey sam when I was talkin to M.M Melendrez who is a soil scientist, hey said calcium is needed in higher amounts than even nitrogen.keep up the good work! curious how you do ur runoff. I see your pots are raised , do you water to runoff?

 

[YosemiteSam]

When they are small I water to somewhere around 20% runoff.

Once they go in the 20 gallon pots I quit that. Occasionally I get a little runoff...but it goes into a container and I just leave it...the plant eventually sucks it back up and it is never much. (I am actually trying a 45 and 65 gallon smart pot this grow...the container is a kiddie pool for those).

That way I can run lots of different strains at once. Some drink way more than others...but if the ratios are decent I seem to get by with the same formula for a bunch of different plants.

 

[spurr]

Straight coco.

It is the powder Metalosate Ca...18% Ca.

I got the STEM at Custom Hydro. Probably a link to it from his site. It does contain B but not at the levels we have discussed. An experiment for a later date when I get some other things dialed to my liking.

Si I do love. I think it does everything you have claimed. But I ran out and those AgSil bastards just are not cooperating with my weed growing schedule...so I make do. I have a 50 lb bag ordered so this shit does not happen again.

When I get it I will basically go to 100 ppm SiO2 at this level of N. The K that brings will be offset by dropping KNO3...which will lead to more CaNO3 and less Met Ca...same N-P-K-Ca-Mg numbers, just some SiO2 added.

Sounds good, thanks. It's nice to see someone 'on their game'. LOL at "... those AgSil bastards ..."!

The next fertigation, maybe tomorrow, I will be adding boric acid for the first time. I bought some human grade boric acid from the pharmacy yesterday. I will be adding 0.15 gram/gal for ~69 ppm B. Together with the 0.167 ppm B already from GH FLoraMicro at 5 ml/gal, my mix should have ~0.86 ppm B. I am shooting for right around 1 ppm B; however, I may use 0.2 gram/gal of boric acid for total mix B of ~1.09 ppm, but I'm not sure yet.

Also for the next fertigation I am adding Dutch Master Gold Range Silica for the first time, it's supposed to be monosilicic acid, not silicon dioxide as found in (IIRC) Pro-TeKt, AgiSil, Rhino Skin, SilicaBlast, etc. I am unsure if that means a product better for the plant, because the plant uses silicic acid as the Si source it absorbs; and silicic acid is H2SiO3 while monosilicic acid is H4SiO4. What I am a bit happy about is there seems to be no 'chunks' in this product, unlike Pro-TeKt. I need to due to the 'jar test' with a full fertilizer mix with the D.M. Silica, and then add CalMag Plus, to make sure the CalMag Plus (or D.M. Silica depending upon how one looks at it) does not cause precipitants to form.

What I like about D.M. Silica, aside from the possible benefit of H4SiO4 vs SiO2, is there is more K with respect to Si than in Pro-TeKt. What I dislike is the molecule H2SiO4 is only 29.48% Si and D.M. Silica only has 5% H4SiO4; so it takes ~7.5 ml/gallon to provide ~1 mM of Si (i.e., ~29 ppm Si).

Using D.M. Silica I can put K over ~202 ppm and put Si at ~39 ppm, but I think I will stay at ~1 mM Si (and ~191 ppm K) for a few more grows, until I get the rest of my mix figured out exactly.

 

[spurr]

@all,
is there a good refernce where one can look up salt compounds to find out how much elemental ppm they contribute to solution?

Not sure if you still need this info, but here is an example of finding Si, K and Mg by ppm of liquid fertilizer. From the percent by weight of H4SiO4, K20 and Mn on the label; along with specific gravity because it's liquid.

Here (link) is a post I made about finding ppm of B when using boric acid, for an example of dry fertilizer.


Ex.: Dutch Master Gold Range Silica:

• 2% K20 (aka potassium oxide)
• 0.001% Mn (aka manganese, as Mn-EDTA I think)
• 5% H4SiO4 (aka monosilicic acid)
• specific gravity is ~1

Things to know:

1. K2O has 83.01% K, and H4SiO4 has 29.85% Si (by mass). You can use a good molar mass calculator to find out that info, here is a good calculator: link (thanks to Tester for the link).

2. for the Si content in D.M. Silica find 29.85% of 5 = 1.4925% Si

3. for the K content in D.M. Silica find 83.01% of 2 = 1.6602% K

4. To find ppm of Si by ml of D.M. Silica per gallon, the needed info is 0.014925 and 1.

5. To find ppm of K by ml of D.M. Silica per gallon, the needed info is 0.016602 and 1.

6. To find ppm of Mn by ml of D.M. Silica per gallon, the needed info is 0.00001 (i.e., 1E^-5) and 1.

Ex., D.M. Silica at 5 ml per gallon; finding Si:

1. (1)5 = 5
2. (5)0.014925 = 0.074625
3. 0.074625/3785.41178 = 1.971383943E^-5
4. (1.971383943E^-5)1E^6 = 19.71383943 ppm Si

Ex., D.M. Silica at 5 ml per gallon; finding K:

1. (1)5 = 5
2. (5)0.016602 = 0.08301
3. 0.08301/3785.41178 = 2.192892209E^-5
4. (2.192892209E^-5)1E^6 = 21.92892209 ppm K

Ex., D.M. Silica at 5 ml per gallon; finding Mn:

• (1)5 = 5
• (5)E^-5 = 5E^-5
• 5E^-5/3785.41178 = 1.320860263E^-8
• (1.320860263E^-8)1E^6 = 0.013286026 ppm Mn

​

Note: 1E^1 is the same thing as 10^1 and 1E^-1 is the same thing as 10^-1.

 

[YosemiteSam]

It seems like I like a little higher Si.

If I got this right the molecular weight of SiO2 is 50.09, the molecular weight of Si is 28.09.

So 100 ppm SiO2 = 28.09/50.09 x 100 = 56 ppm Si. Almost double what you are using.

edit...if you use powders and you like to work in grams per gallon 2.64 is the magical conversion number developed by CH. So that 18% Ca product is 2.64 x 18 = 48 ppm when you dissolve 1 gram in 1 gallon of water. That will work for any powder.

If your liquid is listed as w/w the same trick will work. Say you have a liquid Ca at 5% w/w. 2.64 x 5 = 13.2 ppm when you dissolve 1 gram in 1 gallon of water. Make sure you actually weigh it though...do not just use 1 ml instead of measuring 1 gram. To figure out how many ml you take the ppm for 1 gram/gal x the density of the liquid you have.

Or just go metric and make the whole thing easier.

 

[spurr]

It seems like I like a little higher Si.

If I got this right the molecular weight of SiO2 is 50.09, the molecular weight of Si is 28.09.

I get 60.0843 g/mol for SiO2 and 28.0855 g/mol Si; so we agree on the Si, just not Sio2.

So 100 ppm SiO2 = 28.09/50.09 x 100 = 56 ppm Si. Almost double what you are using.

I get this:

• 100 ppm Si = 46.74 ppm Si, i.e., (100)46.74% = 46.74

Or, using your way:

• 28.0855/60.08x100 = 46.74

SiO2 is comprised of 46.74% Si by mass. So, SiO2 ppm times 0.4674 should convert to Si; just like K2O ppm times 0.8301 converts to K.

 

[spurr]

It seems like I like a little higher Si.

That's fine. I am using the low end at ~1 mM Si (~29 ppm), the high end would be ~5 mM Si and higher. For example, SS uses around 86 ppm Si and it's fine. Si can be used at levels exceeding Ca, from what I have read, but I think keeping it < 100 ppm is a good goal.

edit...if you use powders and you like to work in grams per gallon 2.64 is the magical conversion number developed by CH. So that 18% Ca product is 2.64 x 18 = 48 ppm when you dissolve 1 gram in 1 gallon of water. That will work for any powder.

Hmmm, I got the following, so that conversion number seems accurate enough (I have never read about it, do have links so I can read more?):

• (0.18)1000/3.78541178 = 47.55096947 ppm Ca

If your liquid is listed as w/w the same trick will work. Say you have a liquid Ca at 5% w/w. 2.64 x 5 = 13.2 ppm when you dissolve 1 gram in 1 gallon of water.

Cool, I have never heard or read about that. How accurate is it? Will it come within say 1-2 ppm of the actual ppm (ex., see above)?

Or just go metric and make the whole thing easier.

It interesting you write that. About two weeks ago I decided I was going to starting using the metric system. I am learning conversions in my head so I can go from what I know (ex., 'F and inches) to what I want to use (ex., 'C and centimeters). The metric system is so much better than what we use.

 

[YosemiteSam]

It was developed by CH...or maybe they got it somewhere.

Anyways...perhaps one of their representatives will drop in and do a proper explanation.

Plus...I think we have just seen why I always have them check my calculations They are a full service supplier.

 

[spurr]

Below is something I thought was worth posting in terms of sufficient P levels. Ex., < 60 ppm and def. < 100 ppm. In the figure below, "sufficient" for any element used as a plant nutrient would be zone B:

Taken from:

Tools and Tips
by SMART! Fertilizer Management software company
http://www.smart-fertilizer.com/tips-and-info#nutrition​

 

[spurr]

Anyways...perhaps one of their representatives will drop in and do a proper explanation.

That would be great. I wonder why they do not sell boron products (like boric acid or Solubor), and a few other elements that they also do not offer retail.

I would also like to suggest they rent out the Li-cor LI-190-SA quantum sesnor and the LI-250 light meter. Instead of, or along with, the Apogee unit they now rent out. I ask becuae that Apogee is about the worst quantum sesnor one could use; it's hard to compare irradiance ressuts with that Apogee and say, a Li-cor quntum sesnor. Of course if they did that, they probably couldn't ask for a security depoist neraly equal to cost of the unit, as they now do with the Apogee, because few people would be able to afford the security deposit (~$1,200). Maybe they could work on credit, like check credit agencies; but of course that bring the whole 'big brother' issue into the deal ... shitty.

Plus...I think we have just seen why I always have them check my calculations They are a full service supplier.

Ha, no worries. I took the math I presented on the last page mostly from Tester. I was using a different method than what I assumed to be Tester's method, and his method he uses is cleaner so I started using it, too.

So you can tell the folks at CH that you want, ex., that you want X, Y and Z ppm for various elements (i.e., in fertigation water), and they will crunch the numbers and make you concentrate(s) for what you ask? Or do they send you separate salt compounds and you mix according to their directions?

 

[YosemiteSam]

No ribbon mixer yet so no custom salt formulas.

But yea, tell em what ppms you want and they will figure it out for you.

Plus they have access to info about a few grows...for example mine...so they end up knowing what is up and can help. I keep zero secrets from them. Excellent service.

They generally help as much, or as little as you want.

Good dude...he has helped me a lot.

So let me shut up before I sound like Sensi Bowl.

 

[spurr]

N-P-K-Ca-Mg 120-40-240-160-80

The exact formula in grams per gallon

CaNO3 1.3
KNO3 1.9
MKP 0.67
MgSO4 3.2
Met Ca 2.0 (Albion's Metalosate Ca)
micros 0.1 (I think it is Peter's STEM mix)

Try matching those numbers with bottled nutes...good luck on the Ca.

I just realized your mix as no ammonium (NH4), why not?

If I may suggest, you should have NH4 in there, esp. if you supplement with Co2(!). I like to use a NO3:NH4 ratio of ~10-15; right now I am using ~13, but soon I plan to try ~8. Going below 6 is not a good idea, IMO, esp. not below 4. Cannabis and other C3 type plants prefer most of their N to come as NO3, esp. during flowering.

Not providing NH4 prevents your plants from attaining optimum growth, IMO. I would suggest using MAP, they sell it at CH; but other sources of NH4 are also good, like ammonium molybdate.

A few points about NH4:

1. It can burn root tissue if plant can't move enough sugar to roots, fast enough (one reason the NO3:NH4 ratio is important).

2. NH4 gets converted into NO3 pretty fast and pretty well by microbes in media/water.

3. Plants cannot self-regulate uptake of NH4, nor NH3, like they can with NO3 (via amino acids in phloem).

4. Plants can take up and use NH4 quite a bit faster than NO3. And when NH4 and NO3 are co-applied, NH4 initially potentates uptake of NO3; but then, after some hours/days, NH4 can hinder uptake of NO3.

5. It has been that found some species of plants and trees, that have increased rate of photosynthesis due to increased Co2 (ex., from a Co2 burner), will not (can not) keep up the heightened rate of photosynthesis from high Co2 after many days/weeks, or longer. Basically, it has been found that a few species of plants were given only NO3, and were grown under increased Co2, the plants to loose much of the benefit from Co2 after a few days/weeks after they started getting only NO3. However, plants given only NH4 and those given a NO3:NH4 ratio that was fairly low, continued to benefit from increased Co2 over time. It is thought, due to a few studies, plants that take up NH4 are better able to 'use' increased Co2 for better growth and rate of photosynthesis, over a longer time period, than those that get only NO3.

 

[YosemiteSam]

There is some NH4 in the Yara Liva CaNO3. It ain't much but it is enough to work for me. Plug it into the CH nute calculator and it will tell you exactly how much.

I am not quite the "detail" guy you are. I rely on CH and tester for the mental "heavy lifting". They are far better at it than I.