InTheShed Grows Inside & Out: Jump In Any Time

[InTheShed]

Thanks! So would an additive like Massive, 1-2-3 be beneficial with a little more N and K? I get the extra P isn't needed.

If you want to go that route you might be better off sticking with the 5-3-4 veg and adding the 1-2-3. In theory you would be around 6-5-7 (who really knows with slow-dissolving nutes). That's high on the P, but the N and K look better than the 4-6-8 you would get adding massive to Bloom.

 

[InTheShed]

Thanks! So would an additive like Massive, 1-2-3 be beneficial with a little more N and K? I get the extra P isn't needed.

That said, 4-6-8 isn't terrible if you want to use the Bloom bag. Watch the lowers for N deficiency later in flower though.

 

[Timhomegrow]

That said, 4-6-8 isn't terrible if you want to use the Bloom bag. Watch the lowers for N deficiency later in flower though.

Thanks!!

I'm thinking I may only experiment with 2 of the four plants just in case

If I go with the GFs feed chart with Massive and Terpinator, seems the K is off the charts. It would be 3-5-5Bloom, 1-2-3 Massive and 0-0-4 Terp for a total of 4-7-12. Any downfall for too much K?

My previous grows were MC with no enhancers, just trying to expand my learning

 

[InTheShed]

I'm thinking I may only experiment with 2 of the four plants just in case

Always a safe bet!

If I go with the GFs feed chart with Massive and Terpinator, seems the K is off the charts. It would be 3-5-5Bloom, 1-2-3 Massive and 0-0-4 Terp for a total of 4-7-12. Any downfall for too much K?

There certainly is a downfall to too much K with synthetic nutes, including toxicity and lockouts, but it's really hard to say with a slow-dissolving organic nute. It will certainly be an interesting experiment to go whole hog on two plants and straight GF on the others.

My previous grows were MC with no enhancers, just trying to expand my learning

MC doesn't need any enhancers, at least not on the bloom-booster side. 9-6-17 is plenty high there. The only place I find it falls down is in flower, when you start to see yellowing on the lowers and you add more MC to make up for it. All of a sudden you're getting very high numbers of Ca and K, locking out other nutes. And since MC starts with a high level of Ca, you can't add cal-mag to boost the N without being out of whack there.

That's one of the reasons many of us drifted away from MC after all the excitement in the early days. It just took us some time to figure out what the problem was. But since I have 20lbs of it left I use it as the base nutrient for my mix of 5 different sources.

 

[Timhomegrow]

Thanks Shed! Cal/mag deficiency was my problem with MC too, but I wasn't being strong and fast e iugh with it in early veg and could never catch up

 

[BakedARea]

All caught up!

That said, 4-6-8 isn't terrible if you want to use the Bloom bag. Watch the lowers for N deficiency later in flower though.

I was thinking of doing a 50/50 mix of the GF veg and bloom for some flowering plants. Not sure I will but I had good luck feeding just bloom.

It will certainly be an interesting experiment to go whole hog on two plants and straight GF on the others.

I'd certainly be interested to see those results. So many variables to consider if the enhancements actually help.

 

[InTheShed]

Thanks Shed! Cal/mag deficiency was my problem with MC too, but I wasn't being strong and fast e iugh with it in early veg and could never catch up

Yeah the whole thing with MC in veg was that if you saw any deficiency at all it was time to bump the g/gallon. It is hard to catch up with almost any nutes though, which is why I started feeding my latest two plants the equivalent of 4.5g/gallon as soon as I moved them from solo cups to 1 gallon pots. I'd rather have them a bit too green for a few days than chasing yellow for the rest of veg!

I was thinking of doing a 50/50 mix of the GF veg and bloom for some flowering plants. Not sure I will but I had good luck feeding just bloom.

Why not! And then consider going "advanced" obviously.

So many variables to consider if the enhancements actually help.

IKR? Testing the variables is time (and space) consuming. I am trying to find the time to do actual drought/no drought testing this year but I might not be able to. If not, maybe I'll dedicate all three grows next year to side-by-side clone experiments of some things I'd like to test. I really don't need to fill jars for a while...

 

[Timhomegrow]

It must be so hard to test. I'm going to test the Massive and Terp on the "best" two plants. The other two, which aren't as perfect will be straight GF. I'll cover it in my journal

 

[InTheShed]

It must be so hard to test. I'm going to test the Massive and Terp on the "best" two plants. The other two, which aren't as perfect will be straight GF. I'll cover it in my journal

I'll go watch! I suggest testing one of each to make it a better comparison. Can it turn a less perfect plant "advanced," or will it make one of the best plants not as good?

 

[Timhomegrow]

I'll go watch! I suggest testing one of each to make it a better comparison. Can it turn a less perfect plant "advanced," or will it make one of the best plants not as good?

I thiught about that. One of the Godfather OGs has some sort of magic, iron, potassium deficiency but seems to be correcting. Maybe I'll do the "bad" OG and the good GSC

 

[farside05]

Not sure who to attribute the quote below to since it came from another thread. Post is located HERE

"Thanks Tim! I did look that up when I read your post, and if they are saying that it can use 0-0-4 in veg and then an additional 1-2-3 in flower, it's telling me something. I mean, like why would anyone use plain old product when you can enhance it with added nutes? Who doesn't want "enhanced" harvests?"

Ah, one of the deadly sins rears its ugly head again, greed. Of course as growers we all want bigger better harvests. Marketing departments also know this. They come up with all kinds of slick names for their products making you believe that you need to purchase X. But does adding X really help? Let's review:

Liebig's law of the minimum, often simply called Liebig's law or the law of the minimum, is a principle developed in agricultural science by Carl Sprengel (1840) and later popularized by Justus von Liebig. It states that growth is dictated not by total resources available, but by the scarcest resource (limiting factor).

As an example, say your feed already had sufficient P & K. Does adding even more P & K via a supplement, aka an "enhancer", have a benefit? According to Liebig, no! Growth is not dictated by total resources available. The only supplement that would have a benefit is one that would provide more of the scarcest/limiting resource, whatever that may be. Notice that this has been known since 1840, yet here we are, 182 years later, still making the same mistakes and spending money on unnecessary things.

Moral of the story. Get a good balanced plant nutrition product that contains adequate amounts of all the essentials and forget the boosters/additives/supplements.

I'll get off my soap box now.

 

[BakedARea]

Moral of the story. Get a good balanced plant nutrition product that contains adequate amounts of all the essentials and forget the boosters/additives/supplements.

I'll get off my soap box now.

Amen to all of it! I appreciate you chiming in Farside. Nothing wrong with your soap box BTW! I know many have a hard time going against the tendency of the marketing campaigns. I certainly do! But every time I switch to my 'bloom' feed, you and Shed always coming crawling into my thought process and give me a slap across the back of the head.

 

[farside05]

Amen to all of it! I appreciate you chiming in Farside. Nothing wrong with your soap box BTW! I know many have a hard time going against the tendency of the marketing campaigns. I certainly do! But every time I switch to my 'bloom' feed, you and Shed always coming crawling into my thought process and give me a slap across the back of the head.

I did it once as a side by side. Bloom feed vs a steady diet along the lines of 5-2-6. I didn't see any difference other than I had to buy 2 more products. Those other two products eventually got thrown away before the bottles were finished.

 

[InTheShed]

Not sure who to attribute the quote below to since it came from another thread.

That would have been a conversation between me and Tim in a sponsored thread, so I moved it here. Seemed inappropriate to talk about the possible downsides of a sponsor's product in a sponsored thread. I try to respect our sponsors and keep their actual names out of Google searches when we're talking about things they could do better.

Liebig's law of the minimum, often simply called Liebig's law or the law of the minimum, is a principle developed in agricultural science by Carl Sprengel (1840) and later popularized by Justus von Liebig. It states that growth is dictated not by total resources available, but by the scarcest resource (limiting factor).

for tossing in the science!

give me a slap across the back of the head.

I think of it more like a zetz.

I did it once as a side by side. Bloom feed vs a steady diet along the lines of 5-2-6. I didn't see any difference other than I had to buy 2 more products. Those other two products eventually got thrown away before the bottles were finished.

 

[BakedARea]

That would have been a conversation between me and Tim in a sponsored thread, so I moved it here. Seemed inappropriate to talk about the possible downsides of a sponsor's product in a sponsored thread. I try to respect our sponsors and keep their actual names out of Google searches when we're talking about things they could do better.

I think the most powerful thing a business could accept is the truth from their customers and supporters. There are plenty of excellent things from our sponsors. There are also some difficulties that we experience using their products. It is not all negative. It should be seen as an opportunity to improve and focus. At least that's how I would want my business partners to see it. An unrivaled community of growers that are avid and honest reviewers of products. An easy opportunity to invest in the improvement of a brand. A serious no-brainer in my book. But...

Those expectations can lead to so much difficulty with the site's vision and focus on keeping the lights on. Like you said, could look negatively on the site as well.

I appreciate your opinions Shed. I never viewed your thoughts on it as a negative. It's important for a business to know when a product is not working. From dosage measurements to applications and affect. It all matters and should be seen as invaluable.

So here's one for you. You have seen my many up and downs. I have been tagging sponsors even in those situations. Not always. But generally, I will tag sponsors directly. Maybe I shouldn't do that as much. My failures could be seen as a negative on their performance?
Never mind. I'm stoned...I'll go away now...

 

[Jon]

I think the most powerful thing a business could accept is the truth from their customers and supporters. There are plenty of excellent things from our sponsors. There are also some difficulties that we experience using their products. It is not all negative. It should be seen as an opportunity to improve and focus. At least that's how I would want my business partners to see it. An unrivaled community of growers that are avid and honest reviewers of products. An easy opportunity to invest in the improvement of a brand. A serious no-brainer in my book. But...

Those expectations can lead to so much difficulty with the site's vision and focus on keeping the lights on. Like you said, could look negatively on the site as well.

I appreciate your opinions Shed. I never viewed your thoughts on it as a negative. It's important for a business to know when a product is not working. From dosage measurements to applications and affect. It all matters and should be seen as invaluable.

So here's one for you. You have seen my many up and downs. I have been tagging sponsors even in those situations. Not always. But generally, I will tag sponsors directly. Maybe I shouldn't do that as much. My failures could be seen as a negative on their performance?
Never mind. I'm stoned...I'll go away now...

Damn, some fine discussion happens here, eh @BakedARea? Great point by Shed and you as well, and your question illustrates the somewhat fine line that seems to exist in terms of how we mention or don't mention, tag, talk about sponsors. I think "our crew", aka, the people I know, lol, all respect the sponsors as Shed has displayed here. But there are times, as you note, where it's a bit iffy, at least iffy enough to wonder exactly what you just did. I've wondered that myself. I learned a lesson when I first tried a sponsor's nutes and didn't like them in terms of how to respond, and I based it only on how I felt in my being, if that makes sense. My response was to switch to another sponsor's nute, explain it to provide full disclosure, and say why in a respectful manner. Seemed okay at the time. But looking back I'd do it differently, more as Shed sort of indicates. There was no reason for me to go into WHY I didn't like them, regardless of how respectfully I tried to put it. All I did was highlight problems that someone reading might automatically associate with the nutes and get inappropriately turned off to them. See what I mean? So I respect and get your question/points entirely, good stuff.

 

[StoneOtter]

So my friend Shed, I can't wait to sink the Candidas in the ground! I'm almost there! I can see it happen in a few days! They're 48 days old and a foot tall and other than the variagation are kind of perfect in mini forms. Small wonders! Just what the Dr ordered!

 

[GratefulBud]

This is why I like this place.
Disagreements are mostly respectful. I grow in soil - outdoors. Others grow indoors or in a tent, or in coco or hydro. Lots of different ways to grow this stuff. Lots of choices when it comes to nutrients and pest control. What works for me may not work for you.
But we all learn.

 

[Grand Daddy Black]

This is why I like this place.
Disagreements are mostly respectful. I grow in soil - outdoors. Others grow indoors or in a tent, or in coco or hydro. Lots of different ways to grow this stuff. Lots of choices when it comes to nutrients and pest control. What works for me may not work for you.
But we all learn.

Total agreement Grateful!

And yet another benefit, we all get to see such beautiful plants from so many different growers! It's inspirational.

 

[InTheShed]

I think the most powerful thing a business could accept is the truth from their customers and supporters. There are plenty of excellent things from our sponsors. There are also some difficulties that we experience using their products. It is not all negative. It should be seen as an opportunity to improve and focus. At least that's how I would want my business partners to see it. An unrivaled community of growers that are avid and honest reviewers of products. An easy opportunity to invest in the improvement of a brand. A serious no-brainer in my book.

Most manufacturers appreciate feedback when it comes to improving their product, because customers are the best testers. If a grow light manufacturer hears that the dimmer switch isn't helpful because the switch's increment are too large, they can do something about that. And even when the organic top-fed nute sponsor saw that folks were getting deficiencies, they changed their recommendations about frequency and amount.

All that is different from letting a company know that they are using outdated formulas created by previus manufacturers whose goal was to sell product to folks with little scientific knowledge, influenced by bro-science, and desperate for the best possible harvests.

Or when a company does listen and offers suggestions when folks see deficiencies, but then tell you there's an advanced method of using their product that involves purchasing other products they sell. Like MC selling their outrageous bloom boosters and cal-mag...guaranteed to burn your plants and violate Liebig's law of the minimum.

Those expectations can lead to so much difficulty with the site's vision and focus on keeping the lights on. Like you said, could look negatively on the site as well.
I appreciate your opinions Shed. I never viewed your thoughts on it as a negative. It's important for a business to know when a product is not working. From dosage measurements to applications and affect. It all matters and should be seen as invaluable.
So here's one for you. You have seen my many up and downs. I have been tagging sponsors even in those situations. Not always. But generally, I will tag sponsors directly. Maybe I shouldn't do that as much. My failures could be seen as a negative on their performance?

Keeping the lights on here is very important, which is a good reason to stay both vague and specific at the same time.

But tagging sponsors with questions about the best way to use their product gives them a chance to show off their customer service, which we value very highly here.

your question illustrates the somewhat fine line that seems to exist in terms of how we mention or don't mention, tag, talk about sponsors.

I don't tag sponsors unless I'm saying something nice about them. I either don't use their name or abbreviate if I have a complaint they would be unable to do anything about, like reformulating their entire lineup!

I learned a lesson when I first tried a sponsor's nutes and didn't like them in terms of how to respond, and I based it only on how I felt in my being, if that makes sense. My response was to switch to another sponsor's nute, explain it to provide full disclosure, and say why in a respectful manner. Seemed okay at the time. But looking back I'd do it differently, more as Shed sort of indicates. There was no reason for me to go into WHY I didn't like them, regardless of how respectfully I tried to put it. All I did was highlight problems that someone reading might automatically associate with the nutes and get inappropriately turned off to them. See what I mean? So I respect and get your question/points entirely, good stuff.

When I had trouble with GF and nitrogen deficiencies in my test grow, I only said that their product wasn't working for me and pointed out that other folks had better results with it. Since I was sent the product to test, that was as far as I would go. I personally don't use a lot of sponsor's products because of the specific way I grow.

So my friend Shed, I can't wait to sink the Candidas in the ground! I'm almost there! I can see it happen in a few days! They're 48 days old and a foot tall and other than the variagation are kind of perfect in mini forms. Small wonders! Just what the Dr ordered!

though I'm still curious about the continued variegation.

I'm looking forward to getting a mature set of seeds at some point.

This is why I like this place.
Disagreements are mostly respectful. I grow in soil - outdoors. Others grow indoors or in a tent, or in coco or hydro. Lots of different ways to grow this stuff. Lots of choices when it comes to nutrients and pest control. What works for me may not work for you.
But we all learn.

Well said Grateful!

Total agreement Grateful! And yet another benefit, we all get to see such beautiful plants from so many different growers! It's inspirational.

And some shite plants too, like mine in flower!