cal-mag is it really needed
- Thread starter conni
- Start date
I agree, in that context it sounds wrong. But, if someone said "I'd like to do something more organic," why is that a "not right" thought? Why wouldn't Flora Nova be a natural "next step" for someone using purely synthetic (3-part)? If it's not 100% synthetic, what am I supposed to call it?
Obviously, the problem was that jbone "split" this into an either/or proposition by asserting that I called Flora Nova "organic." Since then, he's danced around how '-ish' either has no meaning, or precisely the meaning he won't define.
I'm perfectly comfortable calling Flora Nova whatever anyone wants me to call it. I just don't understand why a diminuitive -ish qualification (first conflated into non-existance, then apparently not diminutive enough) had to become a divisive (all or nothing) wedge, hijacking the OP's thread.
BTW: I see a lot of nutrient discussions suffer from such domineering by the same few people. I respect everyone's experience. But, this seems like it's all about egos.
Sativied
Well-Known Member
Organic-ish would refer to something hypothetical in between minerals and organics for example, and not a mix of mineral and organics so the percentage question is non applicable. It would have to be a certain amount "like" organics and not a certain amount of organics.
Very good word. I am prepared to "trade semantics for peace." I will concede Flora Nova is hypothetically organic'ish. And, I declare that italics has become an part of our global language.
Be it known: Art. 1, Sect. 2.
purplehays1
Well-Known Member
"Coco/perlite/dwc yep, why do I need to do a weekly flush if I havent fed something they dont need?"
U do realize there is a HUGE difference between coco and dwc. U sound really really dumb. When i feed my coco i dont have a lot of runoff and the nutes DO NOT GET REUSED or thrown out like in dwc. Thus they stay in the coco. U are not flushing u are just giving the roots another oportunity to eat the nutes. U really dont have a clue what u are talking about.
U do realize there is a HUGE difference between coco and dwc. U sound really really dumb. When i feed my coco i dont have a lot of runoff and the nutes DO NOT GET REUSED or thrown out like in dwc. Thus they stay in the coco. U are not flushing u are just giving the roots another oportunity to eat the nutes. U really dont have a clue what u are talking about.
Last edited:
Yep, if you are constantly overfeeding or feeding in the wrong ratios in soilless then a weekly "water only" would be needed, but when you feed correctly at the correct ppm you dont have salt build up, nothing to reuse. Simple concept to grasp
Whered you guys go? Thought you in az2000 would like to tell me more about how floranova was kinda organic or how cal treated mag defs or how werkly flushes were needed. Whats up? I just walked in and checked my shit and nothin? Come on now?
You can take it for what its worth but il say this, calmag is not needed, you need to treat the particular def, if you are afraid of raw salts I get it it, if you get rust spots not from a splash you need cal, use either calcium nitrate(first choice) or cal /mag , if ur leaves fade outside in you need mag( epsom/mag sulfate ) , rarely will you have a legit cal and mag def so calmag is most certainly not needed. Utilize ur ppms accordingly and you wont have the issues of other newbies .
941mick
Well-Known Member
Using CaMg throughout the whole life cycle is a good way to cover your bases so you don't have to worry about getting a deficiency. I couldn't tell you the last time that I have ran into either deficiency since implementing it into my feedings. I also have not had any over feeding issue based on using it either, granted I'm using a form without any nitrogen content.
jbone I think you are right in what your saying in that plants usually don't have both deficiencies at the same time, however your message is being lost with an antagonistic form of dialog. You tried to "test" me when it came to the pk boosters question, and how over use of P can lead to issues, but if you know you are supplementing with CaMg already, in those situations it's easy to realize that you are not deficient in Ca or Mg(since your giving more to your plant on top of your base). I think your biased opinion of bottled CaMg is allowing you to shut out how it can be useful in ones garden, and if your happy using calcium nitrate and mag sulfate as a preventative measure or in treatment situations awesome. There is no need however to get so riled up over another gardeners use of a product that works for them and that may have solved their issues in the past.
jbone I think you are right in what your saying in that plants usually don't have both deficiencies at the same time, however your message is being lost with an antagonistic form of dialog. You tried to "test" me when it came to the pk boosters question, and how over use of P can lead to issues, but if you know you are supplementing with CaMg already, in those situations it's easy to realize that you are not deficient in Ca or Mg(since your giving more to your plant on top of your base). I think your biased opinion of bottled CaMg is allowing you to shut out how it can be useful in ones garden, and if your happy using calcium nitrate and mag sulfate as a preventative measure or in treatment situations awesome. There is no need however to get so riled up over another gardeners use of a product that works for them and that may have solved their issues in the past.
Bricksquad2625
Well-Known Member
hell yes
Indoor Sun King
Well-Known Member
it's been a rather civil discussion, so I'm glad you asked.....remember that we can not agree upon a single thing in this forum
BTW:...I use Cal-Mag, about 4ml per gallon...without it I have serious ugly issues, with it all stays nice and green and happy....it's not an option for me