- Thread starter
- #241
They all got fed 3 gallons. 4ml Foliage Pro, 4ml Pro Silicate, 5ml Cal Mag, 5ml Terpinator. They are starting to frost up some and getting that sticky feeling on your forearms when you're moving them around.
Growing Without Bloom Nutes By Farside05
They look completely different outside the tent! The light's better inside 
.
Those buds are really starting to bulk up
.
.Those buds are really starting to bulk up
.- Thread starter
- #243
They look completely different outside the tent! The light's better inside
Those buds are really starting to bulk up
The lighting in that room is pretty poor and if I turn on the flash it makes the pics washed out. If I turn my phone to manual mode and select 3500k for the lighting it does a better job taking photos in the tent.
@farside05
I went to a greenhouse complex that specialized in tomato in North Holland for an assignment, and a manager from that place, who is (secretly) a cannabis grower, told me that cannabis requires a nutrient scheme quite similar to tomato plant. Therefore it is better to reduce N by 15% and increase K by 25% (P remains the same). He is actually using a lot of Calcium in his grow (~200 ppm) and reducing it by 10% during flower.
What do you think about this?
I went to a greenhouse complex that specialized in tomato in North Holland for an assignment, and a manager from that place, who is (secretly) a cannabis grower, told me that cannabis requires a nutrient scheme quite similar to tomato plant. Therefore it is better to reduce N by 15% and increase K by 25% (P remains the same). He is actually using a lot of Calcium in his grow (~200 ppm) and reducing it by 10% during flower.
What do you think about this?
- Thread starter
- #245
Some growers have been feeding similar to tomato plants for a long time, so that is nothing new. You'll find a number of suggestions from old school growers saying to use tomato fertilizer if you have limited options available to you, either by selection or budgetary constraints.
Increasing or decreasing based on a percentage is a bit arbitrary if you don't know what the starting ppm's were to begin with. In general 15% down for N is nothing real drastic, and increasing K by 25% isn't either, especially when you consider some standard "bloom" nutes may decrease N by as much as 66%, increase P 400%, and leave the K basically unchanged. N & K required amounts are pretty close, with N slightly more dominant in veg and K slightly more in bloom. I don't so much cut N in bloom but do add more K (through more Silica and Terpinator) to shift the ratio more in favor of K. My P numbers remain fairly constant. The greenhouse guy may be feeding higher levels of N to start with than I do. I try to keep it around 120-150 ppm of N and someone more aggressive may be feeding upwards of 200ppm. So all in all I'd say my style is fairly similar to his.
Higher levels of Calcium is something I'm playing with. The Advanced Nutrients tissue samples and the samples spoken about in the Dyna-Gro interview are dramatically different (both found in the first page of this thread) whereas their other results are very similar. AN's results would have Calcium requirements about half of N or K, where Dyna-Gro's results would say Calcium is the most important nutrient of all at 2.5-3x that of N or K. AN's results do show Calcium decreasing during bloom, actually by more than 10%. Without crunching the numbers (I did last week but don't have that at my disposal this very moment and don't recall the exact numbers) I'd say that it looks like Calcium may drop about 33% in bloom.
- Thread starter
- #246
Day 56/8Weeks
Another cold snap. Tent is only running around 63 degrees which I think has slowed their progress. Things are supposed to be getting warmer so I'm hoping the buds start to swell more soon.
Another cold snap. Tent is only running around 63 degrees which I think has slowed their progress. Things are supposed to be getting warmer so I'm hoping the buds start to swell more soon.
JustMeds
Well-Known Member
That tent has to put a smile on your face everyday when you peek into it. It would me. 
I'm with JM on that!That tent has to put a smile on your face everyday when you peek into it. It would me.
I thought I was the only one battling low temps! Is that 63º for a low at lights out or stable at that temp? When my strips are on the temps in the oval are around 70º but it's in the high 50s over night.
- Thread starter
- #249
It was a flat 63 degrees for high and low, lights on and off, for the last 24 hours. Outside it was 20 overnight and 42 during the day.
- Thread starter
- #250
Came across some info on why my previous attempt at making a concentrated liquid out of Mega Crop most likely failed. Forgive me for dumping all this info here. It took me a while to get the numbers straight in my head and I don't want to loose the info and have to recalculate it again at a later date.
DEALING WITH FERTILIZER POWDERS
Many of the fertilizers available in the marketplace are in powder form, as they can be formulated to be more concentrated and can be shipped less-expensively than liquids. While that does make them more economical to purchase, there are some issues with fertilizer powders that can complicate life for the hobbyist. One of those problems may be a lack of homogeneity or uniformity in the powder.
A fertilizer manufacturer typically makes many different formulations utilizing a variety of minerals. They therefore keep stocks of those mineral raw materials and blend them in specific proportions to create different formulas. Some of those raw materials are powders, some are chunks, and some are “prills” – little spherical particles – and when you mix them, it’s not a truly uniform blend. To a large-scale user who might consume entire bags, it’s not a problem, but for those of us dipping a spoonful out of the package, it may result in slight differences in the final chemistry each time we mix up a batch of nutrient solution. Then there’s the measuring of the powder itself.
We hear mixing recommendations of “teaspoons per gallon” or “milliliters per liter”, but those are volumetric measurements while the contents of the fertilizer package are expressed in weight percentages on the label. Even if we’ve graduated to using parts-per-million controls – a mass-to-mass measurement – we’re still stuck, because we don’t know the bulk density (weight per volume) of the formula (unless it’s provided by the manufacturer), which would allow us to do a simple mathematical conversion. The fact that the bulk density can vary between formulas further complicates matters.
Another problem is that many of the raw materials are extremely hygroscopic – they “suck” moisture right out of the air over time. As there is no practical way for us to know exactly how much water has been absorbed, we can no longer use weight to accurately measure how much to use, and as it affects the bulk density as well, volume measurements are thrown off as well. So what can we do?
The answer is really quite simple: make a concentrated solution! (Please note that this is an example only; you may wish to make a more concentrated solution for convenience, be keep in mind that 2 pounds per gallon is a practical upper limit to the solubility of most fertilizers. I recommend staying closer to 1 pound per gallon for stability of the solution, especially for formulas containing calcium.)
The advantage of this is that it’s totally uniform (just be sure to shake well before measuring it). it’s not going to absorb more water from the air (keep the container closed to prevent evaporation), and you can now work on a volume-to-volume basis to mix your nutrient solution.
...So when I made up my batch I used 192 grams per quart. That would be 768 grams per gallon. Per the authors recommendation, you shouldn't use more than 453.6 grams per gallon (113.4 per quart) for powders that contain calcium. That's probably why I had particles fall out of suspension, which I believed were calcium because I saw calcium deficiencies within 2 days after feeding them with the chunky solution. If I were to dilute 113.4 grams of Mega Crop into 1 quart of water, it would be a 1/9 dilution rate and each tsp or 5ml would be 14 ppm Nitrogen. Based on those numbers I'd feed 10ml of the diluted fertilizer per gallon in week 1, and increase 10 ml each week until week 5. I don't have enough Mega on hand to make a new batch to test the theory. Maybe I'll have to order another bag.
DEALING WITH FERTILIZER POWDERS
Many of the fertilizers available in the marketplace are in powder form, as they can be formulated to be more concentrated and can be shipped less-expensively than liquids. While that does make them more economical to purchase, there are some issues with fertilizer powders that can complicate life for the hobbyist. One of those problems may be a lack of homogeneity or uniformity in the powder.
A fertilizer manufacturer typically makes many different formulations utilizing a variety of minerals. They therefore keep stocks of those mineral raw materials and blend them in specific proportions to create different formulas. Some of those raw materials are powders, some are chunks, and some are “prills” – little spherical particles – and when you mix them, it’s not a truly uniform blend. To a large-scale user who might consume entire bags, it’s not a problem, but for those of us dipping a spoonful out of the package, it may result in slight differences in the final chemistry each time we mix up a batch of nutrient solution. Then there’s the measuring of the powder itself.
We hear mixing recommendations of “teaspoons per gallon” or “milliliters per liter”, but those are volumetric measurements while the contents of the fertilizer package are expressed in weight percentages on the label. Even if we’ve graduated to using parts-per-million controls – a mass-to-mass measurement – we’re still stuck, because we don’t know the bulk density (weight per volume) of the formula (unless it’s provided by the manufacturer), which would allow us to do a simple mathematical conversion. The fact that the bulk density can vary between formulas further complicates matters.
Another problem is that many of the raw materials are extremely hygroscopic – they “suck” moisture right out of the air over time. As there is no practical way for us to know exactly how much water has been absorbed, we can no longer use weight to accurately measure how much to use, and as it affects the bulk density as well, volume measurements are thrown off as well. So what can we do?
The answer is really quite simple: make a concentrated solution! (Please note that this is an example only; you may wish to make a more concentrated solution for convenience, be keep in mind that 2 pounds per gallon is a practical upper limit to the solubility of most fertilizers. I recommend staying closer to 1 pound per gallon for stability of the solution, especially for formulas containing calcium.)
- Before you even open the powder container, read the label to determine the net weight.
- Remembering that a pint of water is a pound in weight, pour five pints (two quarts plus a pint) of hot water into a sealable container for every pound of fertilizer powder in the package. (For those dealing with metric measures, that would be five liters per kilogram of powder.)
- Add the powder and stir or shake to completely dissolve it.
The advantage of this is that it’s totally uniform (just be sure to shake well before measuring it). it’s not going to absorb more water from the air (keep the container closed to prevent evaporation), and you can now work on a volume-to-volume basis to mix your nutrient solution.
...So when I made up my batch I used 192 grams per quart. That would be 768 grams per gallon. Per the authors recommendation, you shouldn't use more than 453.6 grams per gallon (113.4 per quart) for powders that contain calcium. That's probably why I had particles fall out of suspension, which I believed were calcium because I saw calcium deficiencies within 2 days after feeding them with the chunky solution. If I were to dilute 113.4 grams of Mega Crop into 1 quart of water, it would be a 1/9 dilution rate and each tsp or 5ml would be 14 ppm Nitrogen. Based on those numbers I'd feed 10ml of the diluted fertilizer per gallon in week 1, and increase 10 ml each week until week 5. I don't have enough Mega on hand to make a new batch to test the theory. Maybe I'll have to order another bag.
- Thread starter
- #251
Day 57
Temps over the last 24 hours. High 66, low 63. Id like to see another 10 degrees. RH 50%. Everyone got 3 gallons again.
The Cookies
Temps over the last 24 hours. High 66, low 63. Id like to see another 10 degrees. RH 50%. Everyone got 3 gallons again.
The Cookies
- Thread starter
- #252
The Glues
Tomuk17
Well-Known Member
Looking nice there my friend, will pull up my chair and watch the rest of this, good growing
Nicely done farside! Still for me and my four plants, maybe a couple more, I don't mind the small doses. True enough I'll get more Ca one time and less maybe the next. The way I see it, in five gal pots I'm pretty much watering every other day depending on the stage, so there's not enough variance in mho to effect the plant's def of one nute over the other.
I'm not sure, in the case of MC, that you'll ever have a liquid concentrate the same from one batch to the next either. So one week they get lots of Ca and the next the get less because less balls got into the batch. Just thinking out loud.
Nice work, and it will be exciting to see your results if you choose to test again.
Interesting find! I'm with MrS on mixing as I go, but I am going to spend some time crushing the white balls this weekend and mixing them back into the powder. That part bugs me when I'm using a scale measure in hundredths of a gram.
Put tape over the last digit and you into the tenths 
- Thread starter
- #257
I'm stubborn enough to try again. I just ordered a 750g bag. As this grow is winding down, I'm considering a Mega Crop vs Dyna Gro comparison for my next. Maybe do 2 GSCs and 2 Blue Dreams and do one of each with each nute line.
Not sure if you have come across this thread or not...
Making Your Own Nutrient Concentrates
This is my attempt to compile and condense all of the information I've collected from other grower sites and share it here on 420 in hopes of generating more feedback and ultimately learning more myself. I grew with General Hydroponics for years, but could never seem to nail down a perfect feed...
www.420magazine.com
- Thread starter
- #259
Maybe not that one in particular but I know I ran across the program in question some time ago (before that thread was made). I had it (hell maybe I still do) on one of my computers. At least when I looked at it before, sourcing everything was tougher but I know there are more raw ingredients on Amazon now. That and it makes SO MUCH that I'd have fertilizer until the apocalypse since I only grow 4 plants at a time. Maybe I'll gave to give it all another look. Would be cool to have my own custom fertilizer. Kind of up my nerdy alley.
- Thread starter
- #260
Day 58
Bud porn
Bud porn
