High Ec or no? Let’s debate

High “Ec”

  • Nooo wayyy Lowww and slowww (below 4.0)

    Votes: 4 80.0%

  • To the moon! It’s the only way (above 4.0)

    Votes: 1 20.0%

  • Hahahahahaaha f testing just feed em that good soil!

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    5
  • Poll closed .
PJ Diaz

PJ Diaz

Well-Known Member
I run my EC around 1.3. Jacks 321, plus fulvic, kelp, and Southern Agg GFF. Mono-silicic adic is added from time to time, depending upon the phase of the plant's life. Coco & rice hulls drain to waste.
 
PJ Diaz

PJ Diaz

Well-Known Member
I don't know anything about Rasta Jeff, but I just checkout his IG page. Lots of nice looking buds, but almost all of his pics show tipburn and what look like overfed plants.
 
G

GrodanLightfoot

Well-Known Member
Billy the Mountain said:
I agree wholeheartedly with the P requirements. I've read a few studies as well and iirc, there's little, if any, benefit of having P over 50ppm.
Bugbee recently commented on that as well and his numbers were similar. High P levels simply lead to high P levels in the leachate; i.e. the plants are not using it.

I've based my nutes entirely on established tomato and pepper feed recipies, none of which call for P > 50 ppm.

The high P logic so common in the cannablis world is fatally flawed.
Click to expand...

Pro tip: Don't listen to anyone who talks in Ppm/EC.

Nute burn is not from high ppm, it's from imbalance. Ppm/ec is literally irrelevant. Nute burn is nothing but boron and potassium being locked out by too much calcium 99.9999% of the time. You add Boron and K nutes to prevent burn, you don't lower ppm or whatever. .
 
F

f.r

Well-Known Member
Balance of minerals in nutrient solution I would think is most important?

xtsho said:
"Fertilizer rate studies conducted in marijuana have indicated that increased fertilizer rates during the vegetative phase did not increased THC concentrations, while higher fertilizer rates resulted in reduced THC and CBG concentrations when applied during the flowering stage"

journals.plos.org

Response of essential oil hemp (Cannabis sativa L.) growth, biomass, and cannabinoid profiles to varying fertigation rates

Five essential oil hemp (Cannabis sativa L.) cultivars (Cherry Blossom, Cherry Blossom (Tuan), Berry Blossom, Cherry Wine, and Cherry Blossom × Trump) were treated with six fertigation treatments to quantify the effects of synthetic fertilizer rates and irrigation electrical conductivity on...
journals.plos.org journals.plos.org


"HA was found to reduce the natural spatial variability of all of the cannabinoids studied. However, the increased uniformity came at the expense of the higher levels of cannabinoids at the top of the plants, THC and CBD were reduced by 37 and 39%, respectively."


"Increasing fertilizer rate was found to have a dilution effect on THC, THCA, and CBGA; therefore, excessive organic fertilizer application during the flowering stage should be avoided despite increased biomass yield."

https://journals.ashs.org/hortsci/view/journals/hortsci/52/12/article-p1796.xml
Click to expand...
That first study seems to be using a 20-20-20 fertillizer?

Seems like it's pretty logical you feed a high N feed at high EC during flowering your gonna have a bad time.

2nd study in relation to the NPK levels of the control still seems to be higher than normal N levels, as a casual observer 1:2 N:K seems to be pretty standard for bloom. for the + NPK plants they didn't seem to adjust micro nutrient levels which could of possibly had an effect.

3rd study seems to be tracking the effect of different N/L levels.

What I am taking away personally is that balance of nutrition is very key, as two different nutrient solutions at EC of X will have different elemntal ppm values for all elements.

Also too much N during flowering isn't great
 
Billy the Mountain

Billy the Mountain

Well-Known Member
GrodanLightfoot said:
Pro tip: Don't listen to anyone who talks in Ppm/EC.

Nute burn is not from high ppm, it's from imbalance. Ppm/ec is literally irrelevant. Nute burn is nothing but boron and potassium being locked out by too much calcium 99.9999% of the time. You add Boron and K nutes to prevent burn, you don't lower ppm or whatever. .
Click to expand...
Damn, looks like I got some book burning to do.

Thanks for the insight
 
xtsho

xtsho

Well-Known Member
f.r said:
Balance of minerals in nutrient solution I would think is most important?



That first study seems to be using a 20-20-20 fertillizer?

Seems like it's pretty logical you feed a high N feed at high EC during flowering your gonna have a bad time.

2nd study in relation to the NPK levels of the control still seems to be higher than normal N levels, as a casual observer 1:2 N:K seems to be pretty standard for bloom. for the + NPK plants they didn't seem to adjust micro nutrient levels which could of possibly had an effect.

3rd study seems to be tracking the effect of different N/L levels.

What I am taking away personally is that balance of nutrition is very key, as two different nutrient solutions at EC of X will have different elemntal ppm values for all elements.

Also too much N during flowering isn't great
Click to expand...
You are 100% correct.

"What I am taking away personally is that balance of nutrition is very key"
 
D

Delps8

Well-Known Member
xtsho said:
Who knows where the high P originated but the cannabis specific nutrient companies have ran with it and all offer high P bloom additives. They don't care about people's plants they care about selling high margin products. MKP is extremely cheap and mixing it with water, putting it in a bottle, and marketing it as a bloom booster is nothing but profit.
Click to expand...
"nothing but profit" except for all of the indirect costs and the direct costs associated with designing, marketing, selling, and supporting that product. But besides that, sure, it's "nothing but profit".

Companies provide goods and services to willing buyers. The fact that people are buying something that is of minimal value (sunshine in a can, pet rock, bloom boosters) or perceived to be of minimal value to others is not the fault of the company - mentally competent adults are allowed to enter in to contracts.
 
xtsho

xtsho

Well-Known Member
Delps8 said:
"nothing but profit" except for all of the indirect costs and the direct costs associated with designing, marketing, selling, and supporting that product. But besides that, sure, it's "nothing but profit".

Companies provide goods and services to willing buyers. The fact that people are buying something that is of minimal value (sunshine in a can, pet rock, bloom boosters) or perceived to be of minimal value to others is not the fault of the company - mentally competent adults are allowed to enter in to contracts.
Click to expand...
You nailed it. Time to start selling "sunshine in a can". Someone will buy it. Just say it's for growing cannabis. :mrgreen:

:peace:
 
D

Delps8

Well-Known Member
Billy the Mountain said:
Bud candy?
Terpinator?
Superthrive?

There's no demonstrable benefit for any of those products
Click to expand...
Amen, brother! Sing it!

I have no doubt that there's no demonstrable benefit but it's taken me some time to get to that position (I'm finishing my third grow, ATM).

First grow - Fox Farms Hydro with a lot of really cool looking bottles.
Second grow - Botanicare with quite a few really cool looking bottles plus a gallon of CalMag because "LED's need more Cal Mag".
Third grow - Threw out all but two really cool looking bottles, scraped off the labels, wrote "Jack's Part A 100:1" on one bottle and "Jack's Part B 100:1" on the other. Gallon bottle of CalMag is unopened and looking for a good home.

Even though I'm a skeptic by nature, I went along with the "magic elixirs" when I got started. Fox and Botanicare are established vendors and respected names in the industry so why not use their products?

When you first growing, there's a strong pull to buy a standard set of products and a huge number of growers on multiple forums who use those products. It's not that people are stupid; it's that we don't have the knowledge about how plant nutrition works so we tend to "go with the flow". Ah, how about "grow with the flow". It might have been a couple of hundred dollars out of pocket but that was OK because that was "the right stuff".

It takes a while to gather the knowledge, and the conviction, to move away from "what everyone else is doing". Further, there's a lot on the line - if things screw up, there's an emotional price and a grower might lose months of work that they've put into a crop.
 
rkymtnman

rkymtnman

Well-Known Member
GrodanLightfoot said:
Pro tip: Don't listen to anyone who talks in Ppm/EC.

Nute burn is not from high ppm, it's from imbalance. Ppm/ec is literally irrelevant. Nute burn is nothing but boron and potassium being locked out by too much calcium 99.9999% of the time. You add Boron and K nutes to prevent burn, you don't lower ppm or whatever. .
Click to expand...
you should put up pics of plants fed at an EC of 10 but with a balanced formula. that would be so cool
 
DrOgkush

DrOgkush

Well-Known Member
F_T_P! said:
I max out at 1.2-1.4 ec in mid flower, anything else is a waste imo. I used to run my ec between 2-3 but since I lowered it I get better overall product and yield.
Click to expand...
I just started this myself. And now I’m not seeing any burnt tips after week 6. And no stalling in flower at all. It’s was the missing link lol. I guess I was over feeding the entire time. I cut that shit in half. And now I have no problems. I used to think I had no problems until someone pointed out I was over feeding. I didn know. I was just following my schedule and the people at 420 said LISTEN TO YOUR SCHEDULE. Lol. Bad idea
 
stnr420

stnr420

Well-Known Member
f.r said:
I'd like to see studies regarding high ec feeds leading to lower THC production.

Those p studies afaik are done in DWC type setups where phosphorous is always available. In something like coco drain to waste as you let medium dry out you can get some precipitation of calcium and phos locking it up. Not saying high P is the way to go just seen that point brought up in regard to low P studies.
Click to expand...
You never let coco dry out
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top