Question for the powder people, Jack's people and/or Tint Eastwood

[MustGro]

@Rdubz I don’t run without calcium, in the 321 you use Calcium Nitrate as the part B.
I’m not sure why the finish and RO formula don’t have calcium, but they do sell a calcium supplement, so likely $$$ is the reason.
Calcium is very important to the health of the plant as far as I know anyway.

 

[rkymtnman]

Easy choice for that one because the RO has so much calcium already. What do you think of that mix? Is it working well for you?

works awesome for me. one of the few that needs no Mg. but i do add epsom more for the sulfur.

 

[rkymtnman]

My first run with this and I had some great results so far !

very pH stable for me which is nice.

 

[rkymtnman]

RO formula don’t have calcium

i thought the Tap had no or low Ca? the RO has Ca.

 

[TintEastwood]

Jacks bloom 10-30-20 also has no CA.

Easy to add X amount of calnit. But that also effectively changes the NPK % ratios.
After adding calnit it could be equal to say 20-30-20. Vs 10-30-20.

 

[MustGro]

i thought the Tap had no or low Ca? the RO has Ca.

I don’t doubt that you’re right, I’m probably confused about that….

 

[Rdubz]

Jacks bloom 10-30-20 also has no CA.

Easy to add X amount of calnit. But that also effectively changes the NPK % ratios.
After adding calnit it could be equal to say 20-30-20. Vs 10-30-20.

Jacks finish is 7-15-30 so it would be 17-15-30 if u add calnit and is this even a good idea I guess I’m just confused as to why they don’t even suggest using calnit with these products I understand That the 12-4-16 has a lot in it for RO but why wouldn’t they suggest using calnit for the other bloom and finish product I’m thinking I’m just not even gonna use them anymore kinda disappointing

 

[TintEastwood]

I don’t doubt that you’re right, I’m probably confused about that….

The Tap has loads of CA. But needs supplemental MG.

 

[rkymtnman]

Jacks finish is 7-15-30 so it would be 17-15-30 if u add calnit and is this even a good idea I guess I’m just confused as to why they don’t even suggest using calnit with these products I understand That the 12-4-16 has a lot in it for RO but why wouldn’t they suggest using calnit for the other bloom and finish product I’m thinking I’m just not even gonna use them anymore kinda disappointing

maybe it was on the website? but Jack's says that you don't need any Ca for the finish formula. the plant has enough stored up to last until harvest. coulda swore i read that somewhere??

 

[Rdubz]

maybe it was on the website? but Jack's says that you don't need any Ca for the finish formula. the plant has enough stored up to last until harvest. coulda swore i read that somewhere??

Ok that makes perfect sense now I actually went into flower with a calcium deficiency so there was no fixing that it is what it is and I probably should of just stuck with the 12-4-16 they where doing beautifully

Edit : and I honestly had no idea it didn’t have calcium until this thread so thank u lol

 

[TintEastwood]

Jacks finish is 7-15-30 so it would be 17-15-30 if u add calnit and is this even a good idea I guess I’m just confused as to why they don’t even suggest using calnit with these products I understand That the 12-4-16 has a lot in it for RO but why wouldn’t they suggest using calnit for the other bloom and finish product I’m thinking I’m just not even gonna use them anymore kinda disappointing

Maybe keep it simple. Many just run the 321. Or you can adjust the proportions for different growth stages.

 

[Roger A. Shrubber]

I can say that the Jack’s finish 7-15-30 didn’t work at all for me. Blue dyed garbage in my setup. The plants would barely take it up so I had very low PPM drop the 4 days I let it run. I used more PH up in 4 days than I used in the previous 4 months. It made me uneasy about trying the other products in their line. The 321 is great but it was like the finish was made by another company.

you got old shit, maybe not even jacks...they haven't used the blue dye for years now

 

[Roger A. Shrubber]

they don't add calcium because sulphur and calcium are inimical, they'll combine and form calcium sulphate, which will precipitate out of your feed as a fine black powder that plants can't absorb, you have to add the calcium to your feed mix first and let it disolve good, then add the part with the sulphur in it, the chelating agent they use will block them bonding if the calcium has been diluted first

 

[MustGro]

maybe it was on the website? but Jack's says that you don't need any Ca for the finish formula. the plant has enough stored up to last until harvest. coulda swore i read that somewhere??

Here’s a pic of my bag of the finish. It says depending on your source water you may have to boost the calcium with their CaNO3.
It was the first place I saw it and it’s likely that @Roger A. Shrubber is right and I got old product. So it might be different now, but it won’t matter much to me, just going to use the 321 from here out personally.
I wouldn’t doubt that the plant would have lots of calcium as long as you fed it well in flower, like @rkymtnman said.

 

[Snowback]

this 15-6-17 is for clones isnt it? i tried the ro formula with my tap and it gave good results. just the blue dye staining all my equipment made me stop using it. it also was missing sulfur but had everything else in it. i cant remember if i gave epsom salt with it though.

does this have blue dye in it too like blossom booster and finish and ro formula?

They say that's it's for clones, but it's a formula like any other, and it is very similar to some other Jack's mixes. There is some blue dye, but it appears to be much less than what I am reading about for the other mix. The finished water at about 1.4 EC is a light green color and has not dyed any of my equipment that I have noticed. Next time that I mix a batch I will try to remember to take a pic and post here what it looks like. It could be that they received some complaints about the other stuff and decided to back off the dye a little bit in this newer mix. I dunno...

 

[Snowback]

Hope these breakdowns are of some help.
If you add epsom, for example - Watch the ratio of Mg to Ca. Usually Mg is lower than Ca.

View attachment 4972142

Older stock seems to have more dye than the new stuff.

Excess Mg may lock out Ca and/or K
View attachment 4972145


View attachment 4972149

Thanks for checking in Tint and thanks for the charts. If you were in my place, which of the two would you prefer to use? The gypsum or the magnesium sulfate? I am getting the vibe from your post here that you might prefer the gypsum????

 

[Snowback]

I made it 4 days on the finish before I dumped it, my plants really didn’t like it, they didn’t take up more than maybe 50 ppm in that time. Never used the RO, but I’d like to as my water is pretty low at 55 ppm(.1ec), but I’m afraid to buy another bad product from them. There’s a lot of products in the line too. Another thing that pissed me off about the finish was it had no calcium in it. There’s no mention of this in their ads, that I remember anyway, but it does mention on the finish package that you should add a calcium supplement; like theirs…
@TintEastwood ‘s charts are in grams per ml, I think anyway. So the 321 is listed as 89 g/ml mag in 728 mls. So it’s less than 10%, just over 8% according to me but I’m pretty stoned right now…
I have been running the 321 at about 70% of the recommended dose of epsom in veg because of the mag. So like .7 grams per gallon instead of the .99 Jack’s called for. Don’t know if it was necessary to cut it back or not, but read it in a post so thought it made sense. I’m running their ratio now. 3.78A, 2.52B, and .99 of epsom.

I know that you were unhappy with it and I'm not trying to make you rethink using it, but I will just point out that the girls need very little calcium when they are finishing.

 

[TintEastwood]

Thanks for checking in Tint and thanks for the charts. If you were in my place, which of the two would you prefer to use? The gypsum or the magnesium sulfate? I am getting the vibe from your post here that you might prefer the gypsum????

I have always used Epson if I need only MG.
No experience with gypsum.

I also would not be comfortable running the clone formula during flower.

 

[Snowback]

I have always used Epson if I need only MG.
No experience with gypsum.

I also would not be comfortable running the clone formula during flower.

I need a sulfur source, and it looks like for now I will be using magnesium sulfate, since I can buy it just down the street and it's looking like the 4% calcium in the stock solution is working well enough. As you wrote, I have to be careful regarding the calcium to magnesium ratio.

As for using the formula for flowering I guess that I will be the guinea pig. If it doesn't work out, I will report back to this thread what a fool I was. But it's been working quite well at about 3 weeks into flowering so far. They look very happy. What's your objection? Is it the high percentage of ammoniacal N? ( note: I am also supplementing a little P during the first weeks of flower but I will stop by the end of week 3).

 

[TintEastwood]

Not my intention to discourage you using the clone formula. I hope it works for you.

The clone formula worked great for my seedlings and Starter plants.

I just prefer the flexibility of the 2-part to accomplish the same. It already has plenty of P, MG and sulfer.