And you didn’t have to prompt flowering with a jolt of PK!
Growing Without Bloom Nutes By Farside05
- Thread starter
- #2,842
THIS is a good read. It goes into the difference between "traditional" vs "contrarian" nutrition theory. Surprise, I'm a "contrarian" based on the authors definition. I like this guy's writing style over at GardenMyths. He puts things in fairly simple terms that are easy to understand. I haven't gotten into the 27 page linked research study yet, but I have it saved to my Google Drive for later.
Great link farside, thanks for posting it! I'll have to read the original paper this weekend but I'm not sure there's enough in his post to convince anyone who doesn't already believe the contrarian to go that way. There was enough equivocation along the way for folks to latch on to if they want to argue the "historical" theory.
It's still an excellent support to everything you've been saying, including fruiting plants needing more K.
I hope you and your family have a wonderful Christmas and that all is quiet on the job front this weekend!
It's still an excellent support to everything you've been saying, including fruiting plants needing more K.
I hope you and your family have a wonderful Christmas and that all is quiet on the job front this weekend!
- Thread starter
- #2,844
At least the data that is posted in the original article shows that multiple species of plants have fairly similar requirements. In no case is P even close to N or K. Kinda disproves products like Dyna-Gro Bloom (3-12-6) or any Fox Farm nute. They all show fairly consistent N needs. K is the one that seems to fluctuate the most.
Have a Merry Christmas y'all! I was off yesterday and today, but working Christmas Day, so we just changed our Christmas Eve to the 23rd, and today is Christmas.
Perfect! Merry Christmas. 
I decided to skip Christmas and just dive in head first into this one. Blessings Farside and I will be skipping ahead a few pages (140).
Merry Christmas Farside. All the best to you and your family. Stay safe.
- Thread starter
- #2,848
I decided to skip Christmas and just dive in head first into this one. Blessings Farside and I will be skipping ahead a few pages (140).
Not sure how this post shows up that I posted it. Must have been a glitch in the system.
Had a great, weed related X-Mas.
- Thread starter
- #2,849
Excerpt/Conclusion from the article referenced prior.
4.7. Possibilities if the challenging theory is correct
4.7.1. Simplicity
The challenging theory provides a grossly simplified approach towards supplying nutrients within green house cultures. The nutrient supply will be very similar regardless of plant species, physiological age, season or external factors. Only small adjustments will be necessary due to small variations in the need of Potassium, and due to a few other exceptions. Thus, when providing the
actual requirements of the plants, there will be no need to adjust the nutrient ratios in the irrigation water. The only real matter that remains is to accommodate the total demand of nutrients required by the culture, which is very simple.
4.7.2. Effectivity
The nutrient efficiency increases dramatically, due to supplying the actual requirements of the culture. The actual requirements of the plants concerning the nutrient ratios, is equivalent to the uptake. Consequently, it means that the culture will have no excess uptake of a certain nutrient.
Neither will there be any accumulation in the substrate of a certain nutrient. Thus, optimizing fertilization will become easier. Furthermore, fertilization and the supplying of nutrients will become cheaper. It will be so regarding both the amount of fertilizer used, as well as the management required. In the same sense it also prevents leaching of nutrients into the environment,
which otherwise would cause pollution.
4.7.3. Amount per unit of time
Correct ratios of the nutrients supplied meets the need of the plants. Thus, to supply nutrients according to the total demand is a matter of amount. The total nutrient demand should be met through amount per unit of time (Ingestad 1982). It should be measured in mass per time unit. Since the nutrient ratios are known as well as stable, there is no need to keep track of concentrations. Thus, management is simplified further as a consequence of the challenging theory.
4.7.4. Enabling new habitats in hydroponics
The challenging hypothesis enables virtually any plant species to be cultivated in hydroponic cultures. Since all plants share the same basic nutritional needs, there is no reason to assume that
variety in habitats and abilities postulates anything else than controlled temperature and irrigation.
5. CONCLUSIONS
5.1 Summary Challenging Hypothesis
In summary the challenging theory has a profound scientific foundation, as well as many strong points. It provides with a good theoretical model, based on universally accepted biology and plant physiology, and it can predict events with good accuracy. It can explain why it shows results different from the established paradigm. Extensive material of data collected over a long time is coherent and consistent. Beyond scientific validity and credibility, the hypothesis also provides many benefits if true, of which simplification of plant nutrition theory and application is the most important. Further benefits are increased economic efficiency, prevention of environmental pollution and no build up of unbalanced accumulations in the nutrient circulation system. The challenging hypothesis appears valid, strong and with strong arguments.
5.2. Summary Established Paradigm
In summary the established paradigm has a profound scientific material with strong implications from its large bank of data, but it has a flawed model. That model cannot satisfactory explain, in terms of biology or plant physiology, neither differences in data and nutritional needs, nor the
inconsistencies. Its methodology has a weaker case than the challenging hypothesis. It has considerable weaknesses and many gaps. The established paradigm appears inconsistent and insufficient regardless of its great foundation. Even the most moderate scrutinization of the established paradigm would lead to, no matter how established, conventional and empirically
verified, the raise of many questions concerning its accuracy and validity.
5.3 Conclusion
It is therefore concluded that the evidence in favor of the challenging hypothesis is sufficient, and that the evidence that shows the established paradigm inconsistent, incoherent and weak, is strong enough, to question the ruling paradigm. The evidence material is not sufficient to settle the case,
nor provide any final evidence. However, it strongly indicates that the established paradigm is questionable, and that the challenging hypothesis is a valid alternative. Thus it is finally concluded that it is scientifically accurate to seriously question the legitimacy of the ruling paradigm.
Henceforth, research with a complete new approach is requested. Requested research should address two aspects; the validity of the challenging theory, especially regarding optimal nutrient ratios, and the inconsistency of the ruling paradigm. The approach should be to examine the very nutritional needs of the plants per se in steady state at maximum growth.
4.7. Possibilities if the challenging theory is correct
4.7.1. Simplicity
The challenging theory provides a grossly simplified approach towards supplying nutrients within green house cultures. The nutrient supply will be very similar regardless of plant species, physiological age, season or external factors. Only small adjustments will be necessary due to small variations in the need of Potassium, and due to a few other exceptions. Thus, when providing the
actual requirements of the plants, there will be no need to adjust the nutrient ratios in the irrigation water. The only real matter that remains is to accommodate the total demand of nutrients required by the culture, which is very simple.
4.7.2. Effectivity
The nutrient efficiency increases dramatically, due to supplying the actual requirements of the culture. The actual requirements of the plants concerning the nutrient ratios, is equivalent to the uptake. Consequently, it means that the culture will have no excess uptake of a certain nutrient.
Neither will there be any accumulation in the substrate of a certain nutrient. Thus, optimizing fertilization will become easier. Furthermore, fertilization and the supplying of nutrients will become cheaper. It will be so regarding both the amount of fertilizer used, as well as the management required. In the same sense it also prevents leaching of nutrients into the environment,
which otherwise would cause pollution.
4.7.3. Amount per unit of time
Correct ratios of the nutrients supplied meets the need of the plants. Thus, to supply nutrients according to the total demand is a matter of amount. The total nutrient demand should be met through amount per unit of time (Ingestad 1982). It should be measured in mass per time unit. Since the nutrient ratios are known as well as stable, there is no need to keep track of concentrations. Thus, management is simplified further as a consequence of the challenging theory.
4.7.4. Enabling new habitats in hydroponics
The challenging hypothesis enables virtually any plant species to be cultivated in hydroponic cultures. Since all plants share the same basic nutritional needs, there is no reason to assume that
variety in habitats and abilities postulates anything else than controlled temperature and irrigation.
5. CONCLUSIONS
5.1 Summary Challenging Hypothesis
In summary the challenging theory has a profound scientific foundation, as well as many strong points. It provides with a good theoretical model, based on universally accepted biology and plant physiology, and it can predict events with good accuracy. It can explain why it shows results different from the established paradigm. Extensive material of data collected over a long time is coherent and consistent. Beyond scientific validity and credibility, the hypothesis also provides many benefits if true, of which simplification of plant nutrition theory and application is the most important. Further benefits are increased economic efficiency, prevention of environmental pollution and no build up of unbalanced accumulations in the nutrient circulation system. The challenging hypothesis appears valid, strong and with strong arguments.
5.2. Summary Established Paradigm
In summary the established paradigm has a profound scientific material with strong implications from its large bank of data, but it has a flawed model. That model cannot satisfactory explain, in terms of biology or plant physiology, neither differences in data and nutritional needs, nor the
inconsistencies. Its methodology has a weaker case than the challenging hypothesis. It has considerable weaknesses and many gaps. The established paradigm appears inconsistent and insufficient regardless of its great foundation. Even the most moderate scrutinization of the established paradigm would lead to, no matter how established, conventional and empirically
verified, the raise of many questions concerning its accuracy and validity.
5.3 Conclusion
It is therefore concluded that the evidence in favor of the challenging hypothesis is sufficient, and that the evidence that shows the established paradigm inconsistent, incoherent and weak, is strong enough, to question the ruling paradigm. The evidence material is not sufficient to settle the case,
nor provide any final evidence. However, it strongly indicates that the established paradigm is questionable, and that the challenging hypothesis is a valid alternative. Thus it is finally concluded that it is scientifically accurate to seriously question the legitimacy of the ruling paradigm.
Henceforth, research with a complete new approach is requested. Requested research should address two aspects; the validity of the challenging theory, especially regarding optimal nutrient ratios, and the inconsistency of the ruling paradigm. The approach should be to examine the very nutritional needs of the plants per se in steady state at maximum growth.
Been hearin' out you and Felipe - carefully planned a bloom formula (if interested to see, it can be found from my journal page-16) and Phosphorus target ppm was planned to be between 50-80ppm.The 1st page, 2nd post has the supporting information on why high P is not necessary, and why you still need plenty of N. Every grow in this journal has had at least 150ppm of N from adulthood in veg through the end of bloom. Most grows in this journal have ranged from 30-60ppm of P during bloom, this last grow as little as 20ppm of P throughout. The result of 20ppm of P...
As far as pHing nutrient solutions in buffered soil-less mediums. It's not the pH of the solution, but rather the sources of N and the alkalinity of your water that matter most. The source is Bill Argo, PhD of Blackmore Company. He's one of the foremost authorities on plant nutrition and work with universities and soil-less medium companies (ie Michigan State and Premiere aka Pro-Mix). I have his series of articles on my Google Drive if you'd like the links. Pages 1 & 2 of Part 3 covers most of it.
So my latest reservoir patch had 78ppm of P total and that was/is during the peak stretch. And I’m pretty sure that high P values had such a negative impact on stem elongation.
Doing negative DIF testing; equal or higher night time temps than day temp, which should inhibit the stretch. But the results looks like this now
Not satisfied at all.. And can’t figure anything else than excessive P which causes this much stretch.
Going to tweak the formula and cut the P down to ~40ppm and see if that gives me less elongation between each node.
Also wanted to ask @FelipeBlu and @farside05 what you reckon what kind of Ca ppm values you would recommend when N stays between 120-150ppm, K ~250-290?
Current Ca ppm is 110, and stem tissue feels very thin and weak. Could ’excessive’ phosphorus block Ca uptake that much or is 110ppm just generally too low?
VPD is on point and no visible Ca def symptoms on foliage tho.
PS. That plant grown with 20ppm of P looks fantastic!!
- Thread starter
- #2,851
Been hearin' out you and Felipe - carefully planned a bloom formula (if interested to see, it can be found from my journal page-16) and Phosphorus target ppm was planned to be between 50-80ppm.
So my latest reservoir patch had 78ppm of P total and that was/is during the peak stretch. And I’m pretty sure that high P values had such a negative impact on stem elongation.
Doing negative DIF testing; equal or higher night time temps than day temp, which should inhibit the stretch. But the results looks like this now
Not satisfied at all.. And can’t figure anything else than excessive P which causes this much stretch.
Going to tweak the formula and cut the P down to ~40ppm and see if that gives me less elongation between each node.
Also wanted to ask @FelipeBlu and @farside05 what you reckon what kind of Ca ppm values you would recommend when N stays between 120-150ppm, K ~250-290?
Current Ca ppm is 110, and stem tissue feels very thin and weak. Could ’excessive’ phosphorus block Ca uptake that much or is 110ppm just generally too low?
VPD is on point and no visible Ca def symptoms on foliage tho.
PS. That plant grown with 20ppm of P looks fantastic!!
My current mix is back HERE on page 140.
N=152
P=35
K=192
Ca=78
Mg=25
S=33
On the elongation and soft stem front, what are you feeding. Too much Ammoniacal Nitrogen can cause a lot of spacing between nodes. Of course too little light can also do that. Are you feeding any Silica supplements? They help strengthen stem walls.
Micro has 5% N total and 4% nitrates and 1% ammoniacal
Grow has 3% total and 2% nitrate and 1% ammoniacal. And those are my only N sources. Been feeding ~120-150ppm of N total.
Thats also probably one factor.. lower branches getting shaded and some of them gets hella flimsy. Anyway the picture shown above is from the mid which not getting shaded tho.
Yes, having GHE’s Silica powder (old Mineral Magic) and B’cuzz Silic boost (which Ive used for now, because can’t get my GHE dry nute ppm calculations right… Or its confusing shit out of me.
Anyway made a post on my journal wheres the new res mix and lowered the P down to 50ish.
- Thread starter
- #2,853
Do you have a lux meter to know how much light you're providing at the tops? 50-60k lux is ideal for bloom.
If your Silica powder is like the AgSil I use (Potassium Silicate) it only provides 46.7% Silica by weight. Try multiplying by .467 and see if that corrects your numbers.
Heya Farside
I forget what you are doing with the micros. Could you please remind me?
- Thread starter
- #2,855
Heya Farside
I forget what you are doing with the micros. Could you please remind me?
That's actually the lazy/easy part. I buy a bag of Micro Green from Greenway Biotech. You add it to a gallon of distilled water and heat till dissolved. Makes over a gallons worth of solution. I apply it at a rate of 10ml per gallon when feeding full strength. I'm sure it's a bit more expensive in the long term than buying all the individual Micros, but it cuts down on the initial investment one needs to make when jumping into the "mixing your own salts" pool. You can buy everything you need to make your own nutrient line for $120ish when buying the premade micro salt concoction. It would be substantially more if you bought all the individual salts. The Micro Green will be the first thing I'll run out of since the other salts are like $12 for 5lbs. They'll last me years. I don't know that Micro Green is available for shipping overseas. It contains EDTA chelated heavy metals and I think that's a no-no in Europe.
I bought some tomato fertilizer from Greenway a few years back - I remember that I wasn’t happy with the way that the components were mixed - it seemed that every scoop likely had a different composition.
- Thread starter
- #2,857
The 2 products I've used from them (Micro Green and Cal-Mag) are meant to be dissolved into water and fed as a concentrated liquid. It helps with product consistency from dose to dose since there are different grain sizes. The first versions of Mega Crop were very inconsistent like the tomato food you mention. I tried doing concentrated solutions of it but always had precipitates.
Yep - that’s what I ended up doing - after regrinding it in a blender.
This is what Verb is using for silica (GHE Silica - it used to be labeled “Mineral Magic”). Note that the English analysis doesn’t mention the CaO or MgO in the French analysis.
- Thread starter
- #2,860
This is what Verb is using for silica (GHE Silica - it used to be labeled “Mineral Magic”). Note that the English analysis doesn’t mention the CaO or MgO in the French analysis.
So if I understand that convoluted label, it's 43% available Silica by weight?
