Growing Without Bloom Nutes By Farside05

What are the numbers for your Faux-Tekt®? Are they exactly the same as Pro-Tekt (0-0-3, 3% K2O, 7.8% Si)?
 
Here is an excerpt of "Hydroponics; A Practical Guide for the Soilless Grower" that I have on PDF.


Ammonium versus Nitrate
Click to expand...
Experience has shown that the percentage of NH4+ ions in the nutrient solution
should not exceed 50% of the total N concentration; the best ion ratio is 75%
NO3– to 25% NH4+. If NH4+ is the major source of N in the nutrient solution,
NH4+ toxicity can result. However, some NH4+ may be desirable, as experiments
have shown that the presence of NH4+ in the nutrient solution stimulates the
uptake of NO3–. It has been shown that as little as 5% of the total N in solution
as NH4+ in a flowing nutrient solution system is sufficient. A higher percentage
will be needed for aerated standing nutrient solution systems, in which up to
25% of the total N should be NH4+ in order to obtain the same stimulating
effect on NO3– uptake. Variations of these suggested percentages may be
required, depending on plant species, stage of plant growth, nutrient solution
flow rate, and other factors.
Click to expand...
If NH4+ ion is the major N source in the nutrient solution, its effect on
tomato plant growth, for example, can be significant depending on the
level of light intensity. At low light intensity, there is no significant effect,
while at high light intensity plant growth is reduced by as much as onethird;
the symptoms are leaf-roll, wilting, and interveinal chlorosis of the
older leaves.
Click to expand...
Another factor that needs to be considered when selecting the proper ion
ratio of NH4+ to NO3– in the nutrient solution is plant species. Fruiting plants,
such as tomato and pepper, are particularly sensitive to NH4+ nutrition. When
NH4+ is present in the nutrient solution during flower and fruit initiation, fruit
yields are lowered, and a physiological disorder in the fruits, called blossomend-
rot (BER), is very likely to occur. Therefore, NH4+ may be included in the
nutrient solution during the early vegetative growth period but should then
be excluded from flower initiation to the end of the growth cycle.
Click to expand...

I can't recall exactly where I read to not go above 10% of N as NH4, but HERE is where I tried it and wasn't happy with the results except for early to mid veg. I keep it at around 7% now to assist with PH management, but generally I had way better results when keeping the feeds mostly nitrate rich.
 
Skybound said:
I can't recall exactly where I read to not go above 10% of N as NH4, but HERE is where I tried it and wasn't happy with the results except for early to mid veg. I keep it at around 7% now to assist with PH management, but generally I had way better results when keeping the feeds mostly nitrate rich.
Click to expand...

What are the ppm's of your starting water?
 
Skybound said:
less than 10, maybe 4 or 6 I think? I use RO/DI.
Click to expand...

That's a significant difference from my 150-180 tap. The Dr Argo series of articles would suggest almost all Nitrate Nitrogen in your situation (under 50ppm, 6%).
 
This is what I get for 5mg Jack's, 1g Epsom salts (entered at 10% Mg and 13% S), and 5g Pro-Tekt. Note: ignore the Gross Error column as I had to put something in to get it to generate numbers I could change to 5 , 1 , 5. Also note that NPK are listed in NKP order in this software for some odd reason. Also also note that NH4+ is at the bottom:
Capture.PNG



Disclaimer: I may be wrong as I'm just starting out with this software. Skybound and MrS are much better!
 
InTheShed said:
This is what I get for 5mg Jack's, 1g Epsom salts (entered at 10% Mg and 13% S), and 5g Pro-Tekt. Note: ignore the Gross Error column as I had to put something in to get it to generate numbers I could change to 5 , 1 , 5. Also note that NPK are listed in NKP order in this software for some odd reason. Also also note that NH4+ is at the bottom:
Capture.PNG



Disclaimer: I may be wrong as I'm just starting out with this software. Skybound and MrS are much better!
Click to expand...
The Si # seems about 2x what I'd have calculated. Might be where the dry weight vs liquid thing comes in. Try .74g of powder that's 32% K2O and 52.8% SiO2.
 
Here is how the program shows the Faux-Tekt® (where it changes the Si and K):
Capture2.PNG


And here is the final using the new numbers:
Capture.PNG



Standard disclaimer applies...
 
InTheShed said:
Here is how the program shows the Faux-Tekt® (where it changes the Si and K):
Capture2.PNG


And here is the final using the new numbers:
Capture.PNG



Standard disclaimer applies...
Click to expand...
That's closer to the 50ppm from Si I expected. Note how the Ca to Mg is about equal. I venture to say that they are expecting the remaining Ca to come from that 150ppm tap to bring the Ca to Mg ratio more in line. My water company gets it's water from a Limestone aquifer before processing it.
 
Let's hope so!
 
Whole thing should make for an interesting comparison. I can take 2 of the Big Cheese Autos that are closest in size and compare results between Jacks and Mega Crop. I know they're not clones which would be the best way to do it, but it should give some basic idea.
 
True! You are pretty damn consistent with your autos I must say. :)
 
InTheShed said:
True! You are pretty damn consistent with your autos I must say. :)
Click to expand...

The scenario would be: Something closer to AN tissue samples (5-1-5) vs What AN's ratios really are if you use all 7 bottles (1-1-3). MC + PT is close to that 1-1-3 number.
 
All I know is that MrS using his mix to get to 5-1-5 (and a 4:winkyface:1 K/Ca/Mg ratio) and you using your tweaks for 2-1-3 (and 3:1 K to N) both grow some gorgeous plants!
 
InTheShed said:
All I know is that MrS using his mix to get to 5-1-5 (and a 4:winkyface:1 K/Ca/Mg ratio) and you using your tweaks for 2-1-3 (and 3:1 K to N) both grow some gorgeous plants!
Click to expand...
Really I think it all comes down to having at least the required minimum ppm's available of certain key elements to keep the plant in the luxury zone After that, the rest is waste, which explains build up. Of course the ratios have to be within certain parameters so one element doesn't lock out another. At least I find that a reasonable explanation for how multiple approaches can attain the same success.
 
I just learned last week that Hydro Buddy isn't great at reverse engineering liquids and I was DEAD WRONG about saying that after the Liquid box was checked and Density calculated that HB would interpret my inputting ml into the grams field would perform the correct math. Daniel Fernandez corrected me in the other site about that. To reverse engineer liquids, we need to divide each element by the Density before inputting the percentage into the custom substance window, than after it's saved, we are multiply out ml dose by that density to input the resulting number into the Grams field. The process IMO is so maniacally retarded that I refuse to go through that to see what's inside a liquid line. I PMed Daniel and asked that he create the function to be able to reverse engineer the liquids without having to do all the weird in and out math. As of now he's designing an Anroid app which will help a lot of folks, but I hope he does make the Rev Eng liquid function in 1.9.

Another stomp on the nads about rev eng liquids is that these manufacturers are legally allowed to lie on their Guaranteed Analyses. And to accurately rev eng a liquid line, a lab analysis must be done on the entire line to really know what is what. They increase and decrease numbers to hide their recipe as well as lie about what substances are used to make their secret formula. That's probably why I ran into so many brick walls when trying to rev eng the Brix Soil.

HERE is the Oregon Database of all of the liquid and solid lines that have been analyzed thus far. I guess whenever someone pays a lab to do this work on a new line, the results are shared out and the Oregon DB is updated. Download only the PDFs with the years in the title names, and ignore the ones that say Micro as that is what Microbes not Micronutrients. To search, open each one at a time in Acrobat or Reader and click Ctrl/F to open the Search function, then type the nutrient brand you want to search. Of the hundreds recorded, I recognized maybe a dozen name brands of things growers have used.
 
Great info SB! Bookmarked so I can go through the PDFs at work :).

In terms of liquid vs dry calculations, is it possible to just weigh out the liquid, meaning can I weigh my liquid nutes (and use the grams number from the HB) rather than use liquid measurements? That would account for a liquid that isn't 1ml = 1g like water.

Might not be exact, but might it be good enough for what most of us do?
 
Skybound said:
I just learned last week that Hydro Buddy isn't great at reverse engineering liquids and I was DEAD WRONG about saying that after the Liquid box was checked and Density calculated that HB would interpret my inputting ml into the grams field would perform the correct math. Daniel Fernandez corrected me in the other site about that. To reverse engineer liquids, we need to divide each element by the Density before inputting the percentage into the custom substance window, than after it's saved, we are multiply out ml dose by that density to input the resulting number into the Grams field. The process IMO is so maniacally retarded that I refuse to go through that to see what's inside a liquid line. I PMed Daniel and asked that he create the function to be able to reverse engineer the liquids without having to do all the weird in and out math. As of now he's designing an Anroid app which will help a lot of folks, but I hope he does make the Rev Eng liquid function in 1.9.

Another stomp on the nads about rev eng liquids is that these manufacturers are legally allowed to lie on their Guaranteed Analyses. And to accurately rev eng a liquid line, a lab analysis must be done on the entire line to really know what is what. They increase and decrease numbers to hide their recipe as well as lie about what substances are used to make their secret formula. That's probably why I ran into so many brick walls when trying to rev eng the Brix Soil.

HERE is the Oregon Database of all of the liquid and solid lines that have been analyzed thus far. I guess whenever someone pays a lab to do this work on a new line, the results are shared out and the Oregon DB is updated. Download only the PDFs with the years in the title names, and ignore the ones that say Micro as that is what Microbes not Micronutrients. To search, open each one at a time in Acrobat or Reader and click Ctrl/F to open the Search function, then type the nutrient brand you want to search. Of the hundreds recorded, I recognized maybe a dozen name brands of things growers have used.
Click to expand...

I had seen part of your convos the other day, which is why I dug up the dry numbers when I saw the liquid version was overstating things 2x. The whole not converting things even though the liquid box is checked I thought was totally misleading. It only adds to my reluctance of trying to use Hydrobuddy which I find convoluted in the first place. Not like I'm computer illiterate, I can code a bit. I just stick to my spreadsheets.
 
InTheShed said:
Great info SB! Bookmarked so I can go through the PDFs at work :).

In terms of liquid vs dry calculations, is it possible to just weigh out the liquid, meaning can I weigh my liquid nutes (and use the grams number from the HB) rather than use liquid measurements? That would account for a liquid that isn't 1ml = 1g like water.

Might not be exact, but might it be good enough for what most of us do?
Click to expand...

As I understand it, nute companies mostly add roughly 10% of the liquid weight with dry salt weight, so 100 grams into every liter (give or take), so to maybe figure out the dry weights w/o doing to stupid math with Density you might just weigh the liquid and knowing the density deduct the liquid weight and only factor the salt weight, but that is just too complex for me to really comprehend which is why I hope he adds this function in the 1.9 version he's working on. I mean, what's the point of knowing the Density if it's not used in all of the math? I guess we can load the liquid substances, than target our elements on the front page and will will express the results in ml, but not many people will do the function that way.

Not to mention that the label info is wildly inaccurate, so relying on the label will return skewed results in bother directions to further confuse the math.

I am content with the low EC numbers I run now in hempy buckets of perlite, but mostly nothing I do is from info gathered from liquids, but from a grower on RIU that I queried about all of this in 2018. I used those numbers while I was using croutons and had great results, but then I got the idea of thrying the Faux Brix shit that crashed and burned, and I off ramped from that into Fuax Mix and trying to rev eng Megacrop cuz Farside is just killing it using that stuff. The only problem now is that Greenleaf is lying through their teeth on the label, so the shit that I was making think was Faux Mega was just some random left field mix that Greenleaf wanted sorry saps like me to mix when trying to rev end their special blend.

Well played Greenleaf, well played, ya got me!
 
Back
Top Bottom