- Thread starter
- #24,821
I'm going to leave the answer to that question to @Mr. Sauga, but as I recall he tries to get close to a 5-1-5 ratio throughout the grow.
I know right?
Pics in a minute or two...
InTheShed Grows Inside & Out: Jump In Any Time
Pics in a minute or two...
- Thread starter
- #24,822
Friday update! Here they are on day 40/42 (L-R: Tin Can Kush 1-2-3, Red Dragon, Candida):
They're looking happy this morning after yesterday's feeding. Seeing the yellowing on the lower leaves made me decide to bump up the nutes to a 4g/gallon MC equivalent.
[Nute mixing nerd warning!]
With the help of my HydroBuddy Buddy (MrS!), I used all three bottles from our sponsor Blue Planet Nutrients Elite-3 line that I won as MOTY. Here is how the mix went for a gallon:
Blue Planet Grow: 6.9g
Blue Planet Micro: 5g
Blue Planet Bloom: 2.5g
Plus 50ppm of Stout MSA (silica) that they will get with every feeding going forward.
In parts per million, that gave me an NPK of 100-22-123, with Ca at 66, Mg at 19, and Sulfur at 22. Which is about 5-1-6 and a K:Ca:Mg ratio of about 2
0.3 
.
And here are the plants individually...
Tin Can Kush 1, day 42:
Tin Can Kush 2, day 42 (on GeoFlora Veg):
Tin Can Kush 3, day 40:
Red Dragon, day 42:
Candida, leading the pack in growth on day 40:
The leaves are perkier than they have been and I think they will stop pulling nitrogen from the lowers now.
That's what I've got this morning! I hope the week went well for you, and I'm looking forward to my kids signing up me and my wife for vaccines starting at midnight on April 1st. Two laptops and kids that stay up all night anyway...perfect combination for success.
Stay safe all!
They're looking happy this morning after yesterday's feeding. Seeing the yellowing on the lower leaves made me decide to bump up the nutes to a 4g/gallon MC equivalent.
[Nute mixing nerd warning!]
With the help of my HydroBuddy Buddy (MrS!), I used all three bottles from our sponsor Blue Planet Nutrients Elite-3 line that I won as MOTY. Here is how the mix went for a gallon:
Blue Planet Grow: 6.9g
Blue Planet Micro: 5g
Blue Planet Bloom: 2.5g
Plus 50ppm of Stout MSA (silica) that they will get with every feeding going forward.
In parts per million, that gave me an NPK of 100-22-123, with Ca at 66, Mg at 19, and Sulfur at 22. Which is about 5-1-6 and a K:Ca:Mg ratio of about 2
0.3 .And here are the plants individually...
Tin Can Kush 1, day 42:
Tin Can Kush 2, day 42 (on GeoFlora Veg):
Tin Can Kush 3, day 40:
Red Dragon, day 42:
Candida, leading the pack in growth on day 40:
The leaves are perkier than they have been and I think they will stop pulling nitrogen from the lowers now.
That's what I've got this morning! I hope the week went well for you, and I'm looking forward to my kids signing up me and my wife for vaccines starting at midnight on April 1st
. Two laptops and kids that stay up all night anyway...perfect combination for success.Stay safe all!
The NPK ratio I try for is around 5-1-5. The parts are based on PPM levels in the nutrients. If I have 10 PPM of N then I shoot for 1 or 2 PPM of P.
Hi MrS! Based on the above, do you have a loose nutrient recipe for what you think would achieve that ratio? You've been hydro buddying for several of us lately. Maybe in a future journal? 
Maybe sooner than you thinkMaybe in a future journal?
. Will do!
If you are wanting to combine existing nutrient products and see their resulting ppm/elemental breakdown, you can use the Elemental Calculator tab of MY SPREADSHEETS. Quite a bit easier to use than Hydrobuddy. You may need to download a copy of it locally before you can make edits. If you don't have Excel it should also open in Google Sheets which is freeware.
- Thread starter
- #24,827
Thanks farside!
I just wanted to pop in to say happy Passover to those who celebrate it, and happy Easter to those who will be celebrating that tomorrow.
I just wanted to pop in to say happy Passover to those who celebrate it, and happy Easter to those who will be celebrating that tomorrow.
Happy Easter to you too, Shed!
I'm going to wait till next week to celebrate, though
...kinda' jumping the gun aren't Ya?...Easter up my way is next Sunday... 
...Good Luck with the vaccine app'ts....cheerz...
...h00k...
...
...Good Luck with the vaccine app'ts....cheerz......h00k......
Yes it's best to pace yourself with those Easter eggs Carcass, and not start too early!Happy Easter to you too, Shed!
I'm going to wait till next week to celebrate, though
If I didn’t have grandkids I thought it was tomorrow also . They corrected me immediately. I guess it was because mama already bought the candy to hide .
Garden is looking great InTheShed .
Garden is looking great InTheShed .
- Thread starter
- #24,832
Happy Easter to you too, Shed!
I'm going to wait till next week to celebrate, though
...kinda' jumping the gun aren't Ya?...Easter up my way is next Sunday...
Yes it's best to pace yourself with those Easter eggs Carcass, and not start too early!
Damn! Happy early Easter?
And thanks WH!
BigD13
Well-Known Member
No Easter eggs tomorrow. You can get palms branches.......... but they only come in green.
smokesbetter
Well-Known Member
Damn shed i had to look it up LOL i also was thinking the 4th. And YES the garden is coming along nicely ,, I got mators and peppers going in the house / not like growing pot but it will do for now !
Shedplants never fail to impress and this group is no exception.
- Thread starter
- #24,836
Growing is growing, and it keeps the green thumb happy in the meantime!
Thanks GDB! I find it all pretty unimpressive at this point.
I look forward! They're already impressive.Growing is growing, and it keeps the green thumb happy in the meantime!
Thanks GDB! I find it all pretty unimpressive at this point.
- Thread starter
- #24,838
Greetings of a Sunday all! I wanted to get back to the conversation we were having on organic vs. synthetic nutrients, and ions vs. ions.
Last week, @The Celt posted a response to my "ions are ions" link (and nicely did not generate a debate on which type of growing is better!). He did post a link to newer research than my article from 20 years ago. And Celt's link was an academic research paper that was pretty much beyond my understanding.
Still, I was trying to get my head around this weird coincidence in the different ways plants uptake nutes that allow us to feed them in an entirely different way from their evolutionary development, so I went back to try to read through that article. The first time I was overwhelmed while scrolling through it, and this time I thought I would start with the abstract:
"In this paper, we describe a mechanism for the transfer of nutrients from symbiotic microbes (bacteria and fungi) to host plant roots that we term the ‘rhizophagy cycle.’ In the rhizophagy cycle, microbes alternate between a root intracellular endophytic phase and a free-living soil phase. Microbes acquire soil nutrients in the free-living soil phase; nutrients are extracted through exposure to host-produced reactive oxygen in the intracellular endophytic phase. We conducted experiments on several seed-vectored microbes in several host species. We found that initially the symbiotic microbes grow on the rhizoplane in the exudate zone adjacent the root meristem. Microbes enter root tip meristem cells—locating within the periplasmic spaces between cell wall and plasma membrane. In the periplasmic spaces of root cells, microbes convert to wall-less protoplast forms. As root cells mature, microbes continue to be subjected to reactive oxygen (superoxide) produced by NADPH oxidases (NOX) on the root cell plasma membranes. Reactive oxygen degrades some of the intracellular microbes, also likely inducing electrolyte leakage from microbes—effectively extracting nutrients from microbes. Surviving bacteria in root epidermal cells trigger root hair elongation and as hairs elongate bacteria exit at the hair tips, reforming cell walls and cell shapes as microbes emerge into the rhizosphere where they may obtain additional nutrients. Precisely what nutrients are transferred through rhizophagy or how important this process is for nutrient acquisition is still unknown."
To me, that says that microbes absorb the nutrients in the soil. Those nutrients are released to the roots in response to specific chemical interactions that make the microbe's cell wall break down, allowing the roots to extract those nutrients. The microbe is then released back into the free-living soil and they obtain additional nutrients, beginning the cycle again. It also ends with: "Precisely what nutrients are transferred through rhizophagy or how important this process is for nutrient acquisition is still unknown."
When I went searching for more information, I found a number of articles from respected universities that basically say "an ion is an ion."
[Note: Bold mine in all quotes below.]
This one from Michigan State University (from the same year as Celt's article) states:
"The fundamental process of nutrient absorption by plants is well established. Irrespective of whether nutrients originate from organic or inorganic sources, plants are only capable of absorbing nutrients in certain forms. For example, nitrogen is only absorbed as nitrate (NO3-) ions or ammonium (NH4+) ions and potassium only as K+ ions. Thus, plants do not differentiate between nutrients derived from organic and inorganic fertilizer sources."
And here is a Science Daily summary of the Rutgers University article Celt posted. It boils it down into five paragraphs, including this summary:
"The rhizophagy cycle works like this: Plants cultivate -- essentially farm -- microbes around root tips by secreting sugars, proteins and vitamins, according to White. The microbes grow and then enter root cells at the tips, where cells are dividing and lack hardened walls. The microbes lose their cell walls, become trapped in plant cells, and are hit with reactive oxygen (superoxide). The reactive oxygen breaks down some of the microbe cells, effectively extracting nutrients from them. Surviving microbes spur the formation of root hairs on roots. The microbes leave the hairs at the growing hair tip, where the hair cell wall is soft, and microbes reform their cell walls as they reenter soil. The microbes acquire nutrients in the soil and the process is repeated over and over, according to White, who has been studying the sustainable cycle for seven years."
What the Rutgers' research seems to have discovered is not that plants don't absorb ions in organic grows, but the method by which they absorb them.
So after further reading, I'm going back to my original statement that plants cannot differentiate the source of the nutrient ion. Ions are involved whether the plant gets its nutrition from the microbes or directly from the soil.
I am not saying that there aren't other benefits to an organic grow as I have mentioned, but it still looks like an ion is an ion.
Thanks to Celt for spurring me on to do further reading on this. Everything I take the time to understand makes me that much smarter!
I hope everyone's weekend was warm and sunny.
Last week, @The Celt posted a response to my "ions are ions" link (and nicely did not generate a debate on which type of growing is better!). He did post a link to newer research than my article from 20 years ago. And Celt's link was an academic research paper that was pretty much beyond my understanding.
Still, I was trying to get my head around this weird coincidence in the different ways plants uptake nutes that allow us to feed them in an entirely different way from their evolutionary development, so I went back to try to read through that article. The first time I was overwhelmed while scrolling through it, and this time I thought I would start with the abstract:
"In this paper, we describe a mechanism for the transfer of nutrients from symbiotic microbes (bacteria and fungi) to host plant roots that we term the ‘rhizophagy cycle.’ In the rhizophagy cycle, microbes alternate between a root intracellular endophytic phase and a free-living soil phase. Microbes acquire soil nutrients in the free-living soil phase; nutrients are extracted through exposure to host-produced reactive oxygen in the intracellular endophytic phase. We conducted experiments on several seed-vectored microbes in several host species. We found that initially the symbiotic microbes grow on the rhizoplane in the exudate zone adjacent the root meristem. Microbes enter root tip meristem cells—locating within the periplasmic spaces between cell wall and plasma membrane. In the periplasmic spaces of root cells, microbes convert to wall-less protoplast forms. As root cells mature, microbes continue to be subjected to reactive oxygen (superoxide) produced by NADPH oxidases (NOX) on the root cell plasma membranes. Reactive oxygen degrades some of the intracellular microbes, also likely inducing electrolyte leakage from microbes—effectively extracting nutrients from microbes. Surviving bacteria in root epidermal cells trigger root hair elongation and as hairs elongate bacteria exit at the hair tips, reforming cell walls and cell shapes as microbes emerge into the rhizosphere where they may obtain additional nutrients. Precisely what nutrients are transferred through rhizophagy or how important this process is for nutrient acquisition is still unknown."
To me, that says that microbes absorb the nutrients in the soil. Those nutrients are released to the roots in response to specific chemical interactions that make the microbe's cell wall break down, allowing the roots to extract those nutrients. The microbe is then released back into the free-living soil and they obtain additional nutrients, beginning the cycle again. It also ends with: "Precisely what nutrients are transferred through rhizophagy or how important this process is for nutrient acquisition is still unknown."
When I went searching for more information, I found a number of articles from respected universities that basically say "an ion is an ion."
[Note: Bold mine in all quotes below.]
This one from Michigan State University (from the same year as Celt's article) states:
"The fundamental process of nutrient absorption by plants is well established. Irrespective of whether nutrients originate from organic or inorganic sources, plants are only capable of absorbing nutrients in certain forms. For example, nitrogen is only absorbed as nitrate (NO3-) ions or ammonium (NH4+) ions and potassium only as K+ ions. Thus, plants do not differentiate between nutrients derived from organic and inorganic fertilizer sources."
And here is a Science Daily summary of the Rutgers University article Celt posted. It boils it down into five paragraphs, including this summary:
"The rhizophagy cycle works like this: Plants cultivate -- essentially farm -- microbes around root tips by secreting sugars, proteins and vitamins, according to White. The microbes grow and then enter root cells at the tips, where cells are dividing and lack hardened walls. The microbes lose their cell walls, become trapped in plant cells, and are hit with reactive oxygen (superoxide). The reactive oxygen breaks down some of the microbe cells, effectively extracting nutrients from them. Surviving microbes spur the formation of root hairs on roots. The microbes leave the hairs at the growing hair tip, where the hair cell wall is soft, and microbes reform their cell walls as they reenter soil. The microbes acquire nutrients in the soil and the process is repeated over and over, according to White, who has been studying the sustainable cycle for seven years."
What the Rutgers' research seems to have discovered is not that plants don't absorb ions in organic grows, but the method by which they absorb them.
So after further reading, I'm going back to my original statement that plants cannot differentiate the source of the nutrient ion. Ions are involved whether the plant gets its nutrition from the microbes or directly from the soil.
I am not saying that there aren't other benefits to an organic grow as I have mentioned, but it still looks like an ion is an ion.
Thanks to Celt for spurring me on to do further reading on this. Everything I take the time to understand makes me that much smarter!
I hope everyone's weekend was warm and sunny.
tomato/tomatoe...doesn't really matter how Ya' get Yer' grow on, as long as the end result pleases the grower...personally I prefer organic, because it just fits for me...no math or switching nutes, in search of a holy grail formula...just my thoughts at the moment...cheerz... ...h00k......
...h00k......
That info agrees with the way I always think of the difference.
The plant roots excrete sugars that provide microbes with the energy needed to break down the minerals. Then the microbes dissolve the minerals, and the plant absorbs the microbes.
But the sugars from the roots vary throughout the day, sometimes in a matter of minutes.
So in an organic delivery system, the plant dynamically controls the source of minerals by feeding different classes of microbes.
In a chemical system, the plants get what we decide they need, and just once a day, all day, at best.
I prefer the constantly adjusting system to the rigid defined one.
I've seen stellar results either way, though.
The plant roots excrete sugars that provide microbes with the energy needed to break down the minerals. Then the microbes dissolve the minerals, and the plant absorbs the microbes.
But the sugars from the roots vary throughout the day, sometimes in a matter of minutes.
So in an organic delivery system, the plant dynamically controls the source of minerals by feeding different classes of microbes.
In a chemical system, the plants get what we decide they need, and just once a day, all day, at best.
I prefer the constantly adjusting system to the rigid defined one.
I've seen stellar results either way, though.