that means that conversion calculator is not working properly.
-
ICMag with help from Landrace Warden and The Vault is running a NEW contest in November! You can check it here. Prizes are seeds & forum premium access. Come join in!
The myth, of the high P myth?
- Thread starter epicseeds
- Start date
I was referring to all stages of veg and flowing, but I pointed out pre-flowering as an example, re "esp.". 174 ppm of P is too high at any stage of growth, IMO. It may not be high enough to damage plants (because they can store P and self-regulate Pi uptake to a degree), but it is too high in terms of fertilizer use, anion ratios in solution, etc.
I'm not suggesting you have to lower P, I'm only writing why 174 ppm P (or 150 ppm) is not needed and can be detrimental at that concentration.
Nope, I double checked the one mullray suggested against the Cannastats. I can also check by hand but it's gonna be the same results, I bet. I think Avenger and I entered differnt data at some point.
BTW, I think you're using ~150 ppm P, not ~174 ppm P. Regardless, nice pics, they look good. But I have seen my own garden, and many others, produce buds like that (and possibly better; it's hard to tell from pics) with P < 60 ppm, certainly < 100 ppm.
I stand by what I wrote before, it's probably the K giving you the big yield boost you wrote about, not the P. Just like is the case from people claiming yield increase from using Pure Flowers (and other sources of phosphites). But you won't know for sure until you test with high P and then high K, but not both high P and high K at the same time.
The goal should be to use as little ions (ppm) as possible to get the best result, ex., if 75 ppm P will do it, using 175 ppm P isn't wise (in terms of waste and efficacy). If there is large gain from using 175 ppm vs 75 ppm, then using 175 ppm might become worth it. However, everything has shown high P, ex., > ~100 ppm, offers little (if any) benefits in most cases.
I have never had a issue with P ever that I can recall and its been a long time. This is the first time I have used a boost I have noticed a difference weather you say its K thats doing it and not p. Did you notice how high K is @350 . If it ain't broke dont fix it. I will continue to use this product at it's recommended dosages. Im considering there Bio line to try.
Why dont you do that test???? It seems to me that this kind of stuff is more geared towards a experiment that right up your ally not mine.
Why dont you do that test???? It seems to me that this kind of stuff is more geared towards a experiment that right up your ally not mine.
)
You asked, and you got answers; whatever you choose is up to you.
I have. I only suggested you do so because you seemed to make the claim high P is better than sufficient P, at least in your case, yet you hadn't tested boosting only P and only K.
That's just a K booster it does not clear up anything until some one runs the test
Professor Spurr where is the Data for me to look at??? You have to remember its not just me that thinks so. There are many of us. Untill I see data and some plants grow over a period of time and not just a one time deal I might change my mind. You just cant tell someone there wrong with just you opinion. We all have them that does not mean there wrong they just have a diferant opinion then you do.
Low P
looks fantastic how would they look with a high p dosage any pics of that? Oh wait I posted those lol
right... hence why i said it would be useful.
Most 'flower boosters' are P and K (monopotassium phosphate). This one would be useful to test just K (or more accurately Potassium Sulfate).
--
I like your grows, your posts, your pics. You obviously are doing fine without the need to understand why, but i dont see how you can try to pick a bone with someone, when you dont know how to calculate your own PPM levels.
As i think i said earlier in this thread, my P is always ~60ppm.
Anyone running GH 6+9 without a pk booster is ~ 97N 60P 107K 41Mg 97Ca 1.9Fe (not including any contributions from your substrate and water source).
Ive got some decent looking girls, but nothing insane. The only passed around 'cutting' i have is LemonG, and most of the other pics ive seen of her are basically unimpressive (shes a mid/low yeilder, but Terrific flavor).
None of my BOG gear has produced 'baseball bats', but his stuff isnt really known for that (as much as fast flowering, squat plants).
I had some pics of Ganesh's StrwD F2's, that were thick ass colas. Not hog legs, but pretty decent, but my harddrive died before i could upload them, and my phenos didnt have much flavor so i axed them after 2 runs.
desertsquirrel
Member
This is my RDWC which i run at 1/2 to 2/3's strength.
So, 30-45 P.
They were veged for 9 days and these pics are 52 days into flower.
They are 6-7 feet tall and over 8 feet around. You need to crawl to get in and around the room.
So, 30-45 P.
They were veged for 9 days and these pics are 52 days into flower.
They are 6-7 feet tall and over 8 feet around. You need to crawl to get in and around the room.
Attachments
desertsquirrel
Member
I think the real question here is what constitutes P levels for:
Toxic consumption
Excessive consumption
Luxury consumption
Adequate consumption
Deficient consumption
With those numbers an idea of optimal consumption will become much more clear.
It is of interest to note that P is almost considered the least most used Macro nutrient by the agriculture industry in general.
Toxic consumption
Excessive consumption
Luxury consumption
Adequate consumption
Deficient consumption
With those numbers an idea of optimal consumption will become much more clear.
It is of interest to note that P is almost considered the least most used Macro nutrient by the agriculture industry in general.
Attachments
Overthinker
New member
I was thinking soiless, sorry I didn't realize this was a soil formula.
Overthinker
New member
TY for clarifying that for me.
Overthinker
New member
Home run.
I think we all are well aware that a vast array of feed formulas work. However, I would bet that 90% + of growers fall into a category above the adequate consumption category. Results may be acceptable but much resources are wasted, in many cases there is great environmental impact, and certainly much wasted money in the pockets of snake oil salesmen.
Yup, both of you are spot on, that is what I was trying to express to Hammerhead. Not only that but greater than sufficient (re "adequate") elements in solution can affect uptake of other like ions (re charge).
Here is something I posted before, but bears repeating, IMO:
