I never said you had to run at anything. You are running a completely different nutrient line and a different strain.nope. got more ca and mg than DG foliage pro which is a proven cannabis nute start to finish.
only running at 0.7EC (0.2EC well) and no deficiencies. @haze010 thinks i need to run at 2.0EC yet his plant shows tip burn and mg deficiency. lol.
what are your threshold elemental ppms for the micros?
I use jacks at 100% every other watering and house and gardens coco a/b every other watering between the jacks at 75% with Neptune's harvest 0-0-1, growers recharge, humic acid, house and gardens aminos, tribus grow or bloom bacteria, golden tree, house and gardens root Excelurator and have seen phenomenal growth.I've been doing alot of digging and research on Jack's 321 schedule. I picked up alot info on Greengenes Garden YouTube channel and checked out some of his formulas. I basically just want to see what Modified Jack's 321 schedules Everyones using for Success? So far I've heard everything From Adding in a heavy PK For Flower (Mkp, Moab) from dropping the Magnesium Sulfate altogether and just running Jack's Hydro and the Cal-nit and having good results. Post up your personal recipes for success!
tap looks interesting. heres a comparison to 5-12-26 and 15-5-20 jacks.well you mentioned iron and the other micros. Tap has more than GH micro and DG FP so i'm not sure how you come up with that it lacks micros. what are the micro % of jacks321?
but yes, i agree with the Sulfur. I add that via Epsom in flower. i've only had one strain need Ca since i switched to well years ago. i never grow the same strain twice: usually multistrains at the same time
Made an account here just to say thank you for being the beacon of truth amongst the bullshit. You seem very knowledgeable and actually tied up a few things I was thinking in my head but felt they were too dumb to ask mainly ppfd being one of the main driving factors for ec need and transpiration.There's a lot of wrong blanket assertions here becasue there are multiple ''correct'' angles.
For example what ppm are you guys even talking about?. There are 3 different types that I am aware of from a ''meter'' reader and then there is one other type called ''elemental ppm''. All of them will give a different reading of the exact same nutrient solution. For you to say 800 is my max could mean 600 to somebody else on a different scale. Also I would imagine not all ppm meters are the same, what error rate do they have and are you actually calibrating them properly and consistently?.
EC isn't much better. That will change depending on your water and even solution type, it also gives you no understanding of what the plant is using more of. Basically your own EC reading will only be a ball park figure and it likely won't be much use to somebody else. If you start at 0.3 ec water, 0.3 ec consisting of what?. It could mean you personally need less or more calcium than the next person. To simply advise somebody to use 1.6ec because it works for you is vague as fuck.
Aside from EC/meter ppm your environment has a big effect on what levels you can run. PH is a good one, if you let it get out of range then say more N becomes available and then you have to lower N. If you consistently let ph swing from res fill to res fill you will tailor a N ppm specific to your swing. If you then give this N figure to another person it could well be wrong, if they hold a more steady ph.
Humidity also directly dictates nutrient uptake. As renf said he can use 2.0, fair enough.. but that might be with a sustained RH above 60% where the plant transpiring at a slower rate. Essentially the plant is only using 70% of the 2.0 strength (example). If you hold a 45% RH @2.0ec then your plant is transpiring a hell of a lot more and using 90% of the 2.0 ec (again example number) and that then leads to toxicity or nute burn. But again a toxicity or nute burn of what?.. for ren it could be N for you it could be P from your higher level of MKP. But you just say ''well it's nute burn don't use 2.0ec'' or ren could say ''they are defficient use 2.0ec''. Defficiant in what?. Maybe you don't need 2.0 ec, maybe raising it to 2.0 ec is the easy way of giving the plant more P at the expense of giving it more of other stuff it doesn't need. I'm not saying that's the case but you must see how messed up it is to just talk in EC values, or even in meter ppm values.
Light intensity also factors in to the level of nutrient strength you use. If your flower intensity is 600W (in simple terms) over a 4x4 it will be fine with X amount. If you use 200W in a 4x4 it won't be fine with X amount. The edges of the canopy will start building N tox as a first warning.
The truth of it is that Elemental PPM is the most accurate form of understanding nutrient strength. If we are to get into any great detail about sharing nutrient values we all need to be using elemental ppm. The other key thing is to mention what RH and light intensity you are running, broken down to a 4x4 since it's a very common foot print. It would really help all of us.. I find it almost impossible to get info from other people around here because everybody is litterally speaking in different languages of ppm/ec.
just saw this post from you:tap looks interesting. heres a comparison to 5-12-26 and 15-5-20 jacks.
View attachment 4690294
View attachment 4690295
i like the npk but since its missing sulfur ill pass and just stick to dynagro foliage for veg since it has every micro and macro. they really couldnt figure out a way to add some sulfur to avoid deficiencies? weird.
some calmag and epsom and it should be solid but that ends up being 3 nutes like jacks 321. so it defeats the purpose of simplicity for me.
let us know how it goes though.... whatever im saying is all on paper.
I remember tint saying its a 2:1 ratio without epsom so it should be around 12%just saw this post from you:
so here's a question for the jacks 5-12-26, if there is 6.3% of mg, what % of Ca do you get when you add the cal/nit? if you go by the 2:1 rule for ca/mg, it "should" be 12% roughly.
and i made up for the lack of Sulfur by using a powdered kelp mix. (once i got the RO formula dialed in)
runs that for rooted clones. not trees. not bushes.runs 2.0-2.2 if I remember
That sure is awfully hot for clones. If I go over 940PPM I get foliage burn. And this is on large flowering bushes. I'd be interested to know what method that particular gardener is growing in which 2.0-2.2 EC is necessary for rooted clones. And I'd love to see some pictures. I find it hard to believe no tip / edge burn is evident watering a rooted clone with those kinds of EC values.runs that for rooted clones. not trees. not bushes.
Plants are looking good.PH adjusted t 5.8
a ppm meter, no matter which scale its working with, just measures the EC of a soltion and convert it to PPM.There's a lot of wrong blanket assertions here becasue there are multiple ''correct'' angles.
For example what ppm are you guys even talking about?. There are 3 different types that I am aware of from a ''meter'' reader and then there is one other type called ''elemental ppm''. All of them will give a different reading of the exact same nutrient solution. For you to say 800 is my max could mean 600 to somebody else on a different scale. Also I would imagine not all ppm meters are the same, what error rate do they have and are you actually calibrating them properly and consistently?.
EC isn't much better. That will change depending on your water and even solution type, it also gives you no understanding of what the plant is using more of. Basically your own EC reading will only be a ball park figure and it likely won't be much use to somebody else. If you start at 0.3 ec water, 0.3 ec consisting of what?. It could mean you personally need less or more calcium than the next person. To simply advise somebody to use 1.6ec because it works for you is vague as fuck.
i think youre doing right going higher with the cal nitrate to jacks ratio, youre on the right track.It looks like the problems seem to have resolved since adjusting to 3g jacks and 2.4g calcium nitrate. I really didn't see much to photograph. After looking at the pictures I don't think there was a deficiency of any kind. I think full strength just burned them plain and simple.
View attachment 4813537View attachment 4813539View attachment 4813542
Girl scout cookies. Looks pretty darn healthy I suppose. Maybe I overreacted?
View attachment 4813540
Ghost train haze looking healthy also.
View attachment 4813541