- Thread starter
- #1,641
Bluter's Happy Home For Hilarious Hempsters
- Thread starter bluter
- Start date
I think that's what I had at the time, probably it would have worked better if they had been nourished properly.
- Thread starter
- #1,643
they are looking ok 24hrs after the change
everybody perked up a bit on the new mix, but not a dramatic change. there is some nute tipping which would suggest i'm close on feed levels.
now it's a question of balance and keeping the plant building off what is fed instead of itself. buds on most of them are looking ok today.
cautiously moving ahead. i can pull the mix and re-feed if i see anything going sideways fast. i just hope i'm around in time to catch it.
everybody perked up a bit on the new mix, but not a dramatic change. there is some nute tipping which would suggest i'm close on feed levels.
now it's a question of balance and keeping the plant building off what is fed instead of itself. buds on most of them are looking ok today.
cautiously moving ahead. i can pull the mix and re-feed if i see anything going sideways fast. i just hope i'm around in time to catch it.
After doing some metric to imperial conversions...sorry, my spreadsheet isn't set up for the metric system...
Ppm per gallon of:
N 108
P 61
K 228
Mg 35
Ca 86
S 54
Doesn't look like enough N to me. I'd like to see that around 150-160. P is about 2x what I'd target. The rest seems ok.
Ppm per gallon of:
N 108
P 61
K 228
Mg 35
Ca 86
S 54
Doesn't look like enough N to me. I'd like to see that around 150-160. P is about 2x what I'd target. The rest seems ok.
As I recall even LA said he didn't think back building increased the harvest weight, just the bag appeal of the buds.
I think you're right. He mentioned about the uniformity and bag appeal as you point out, he said it produced denser buds and at one stage when he'd lost some growth on a plant he mentioned by applying back building he was hoping to regain some of what was lost, he certainly achieved wonderful visual uniformity with his colas but on your point it isn't clear whether it goes beyond presentation and increases yield.
Here's a link where he details it, Light Addict's Back Building technique .
- Thread starter
- #1,647
After doing some metric to imperial conversions...sorry, my spreadsheet isn't set up for the metric system...
Ppm per gallon of:
N 108
P 61
K 228
Mg 35
Ca 86
S 54
Doesn't look like enough N to me. I'd like to see that around 150-160. P is about 2x what I'd target. The rest seems ok.
i kind of thought i was in the ballpark. N is not too far off but that P is deceptive. if i'm reading this right i've got a 5-1-17 ratio going at the moment. i would have thought i was too hot in K.
i can probably get closer dropping the BE by .5g, and either increasing the MC by the same or adding another ml of calmag in. it'll probably be easier to balance with the cal-mag, which looks like the most direct answer here. i'm hoping to get a decent mix with the stuff on hand. if i can shave about 100ppm off the final it would help put me where i like as well.
i've downloaded your spreadsheet and will have to spend some time with it. it isn't hard for me to convert back and forth to metric. using it correct is another matter...
- Thread starter
- #1,648
wait i'm reading this wrong .. pulled the wrong numbers lol
So N is 108ish, P is 61ish, and K is 228 ish. Divide by the lowest common denominator which is 61. 108/61 = 1.78, 61/61 = 1, 228/61= 3.74. So your N-P-K is 1.78-1-3.74. Problem with only adding Cal-Mag to increase the N is that you're getting none of the other Micronutrients (other than Iron) that is provided in the base nute (aka Mega Crop). I see that as a common fault, people cutting way back on the base nute and feeding a lot of Cal-Mag instead. You'll get green for a while from the proper amount of N, but then get a bunch of crazy deficiencies from not having enough of the other micros.i kind of thought i was in the ballpark. N is not too far off but that P is deceptive. if i'm reading this right i've got a 5-1-17 ratio going at the moment. i would have thought i was too hot in K.
i can probably get closer dropping the BE by .5g, and either increasing the MC by the same or adding another ml of calmag in. it'll probably be easier to balance with the cal-mag, which looks like the most direct answer here. i'm hoping to get a decent mix with the stuff on hand. if i can shave about 100ppm off the final it would help put me where i like as well.
i've downloaded your spreadsheet and will have to spend some time with it. it isn't hard for me to convert back and forth to metric. using it correct is another matter...
- Thread starter
- #1,650
after playing around with @farside05 's calculator i came up with a new mix at
8L RO
9g MC
1g BE
3ml Cal-Mag
it drops my P by about a third and retains the majority of the K while getting my N count just in to an acceptable level - just.
i don't know where it's gonna take my actual ppm levels, as the total ppm count at my current levels are at 1000ppm, but the calculator estimates it about half. i am assuming the rest is made up in micro-nutes, that are not included in the total count. if it holds true, i shouldn't go up by much, but the increase in MC is probably gonna pile it up.
i was hoping to pull back a touch on my total ppm, but have run hotter before. if i wind up too much above, it may be advisable to add in another 500ml RO to bring it down.
i tried playing around with different amounts but this one got me in to range without too much fiddling, and kept me around the same ppm.
8L RO
9g MC
1g BE
3ml Cal-Mag
it drops my P by about a third and retains the majority of the K while getting my N count just in to an acceptable level - just.
i don't know where it's gonna take my actual ppm levels, as the total ppm count at my current levels are at 1000ppm, but the calculator estimates it about half. i am assuming the rest is made up in micro-nutes, that are not included in the total count. if it holds true, i shouldn't go up by much, but the increase in MC is probably gonna pile it up.
i was hoping to pull back a touch on my total ppm, but have run hotter before. if i wind up too much above, it may be advisable to add in another 500ml RO to bring it down.
i tried playing around with different amounts but this one got me in to range without too much fiddling, and kept me around the same ppm.
What are your elements actually at in your new mix, out of curiosity? In the pic it’s cut off the left of the screen.
Edit- though I can guess which is which now that I look at it more. .
Elemental (actual) ppm will generally always be lower than what the EC meter shows.
- Thread starter
- #1,652
sure here's a pic with the breakdown
i converted from metric to the equivalent measure in one US gal which generated the ppm numbers. at the current levels my actual ppm in 8L RO is 1000, as measured on the 500 scale. i would be slightly hotter in this mix but not sure exactly where.
the numbers were generated after doing the math from
9g MC - 1g BE - 3ml Cal-Mag
edit: i played around with half grams and mls here and there til i came up with this. i tried a few different scenarios.
- Thread starter
- #1,653
by the time i get my N up to the 120ppm mark everything else is running high.
new mix would park my npk ratios at ~ 2.5: 1: 4
new mix would park my npk ratios at ~ 2.5: 1: 4
This is the MegaCrop dilemma.
That looks good. Pretty close to what I am running right now except I have higher magnesium.
But I’m getting the feeling that comparing different grows, with different mediums and different VPD conditions etc. is comparing apples and oranges.
Because I’m growing in peat with dolomite lime and OSF added, I figure it is providing a little bit of calcium and magnesium.
A lot of my deficiency problems in the past were from my calcium level being too high. Once I dropped it down below 100 everything improved amazingly.
But when I dropped my magnesium below 40 I pretty much instantly got signs of magnesium deficiency so I bumped it back up again to 60 now and everything seems happier.
But I’m getting the feeling that comparing different grows, with different mediums and different VPD conditions etc. is comparing apples and oranges.
Because I’m growing in peat with dolomite lime and OSF added, I figure it is providing a little bit of calcium and magnesium.
A lot of my deficiency problems in the past were from my calcium level being too high. Once I dropped it down below 100 everything improved amazingly.
But when I dropped my magnesium below 40 I pretty much instantly got signs of magnesium deficiency so I bumped it back up again to 60 now and everything seems happier.
- Thread starter
- #1,656
i don't think the dilemma is what everyone is assuming it is though. this is where we began on MC and Cal-Mag alone.
my N is where farside recommends but i am running almost as high in P as my first amended mix, and more K than any other mix, with the higest ppm count of all. this is where the plants pushed us on reading the amount of green in the leaves among other things.
i cut back on the N, dropped both P and K modestly, and the plants have started looking better. even though my N levels are below recommended, and further back from the original mix, when they were doing the poorest.
i agree 420%. i'm positive i'd be doing better in promix with the powerplant in particular.. and my vpd has been horrible.. i'm running around 25% rh at 24c.
bottom line is i should be running a cooler mix with less N now and the plants are looking a bit better, which can seem counter intuitive,
Most people seem to like their nitrogen at 150 ppm or higher but mine is down around 100 now and my plants are still very green and happy in the nitrogen department.
Not everyone is running a cal-mag deficiency, so increasing the MC to bump the N can push the P over the edge, not to mention the additional Ca that MC has can start to cause lockouts at higher numbers.
If you are having cal-mag issues then adding it will usually raise the N, which can be a good thing if the lowers are yellowing as well.
- Thread starter
- #1,659
i was just about to add something very similar. the lowers is where i lost most of the fans, but everything was a bit pale throughout.
the lower levels of n p and k may be more in balance. i might not have been facing a lockout, but i suspect the higher levels were interfering with each other.
still not sure if i need to make up ground depending on how N balances out with the rest of my new levels.
The nice thing is that plants in hempy/hydro will tell you pretty quickly if they're happy with the changes or not!