I feel such a failure

[f-e]

That Mulder chart is some serious work. I have seen it before but mistakenly thought it a messy antagonistics chart. It's a revelation.

It dawned upon me today, that I need to run one plant in the used coco. It's been washed a lot now, but if I cure this problem I will know if the coco change was the difference.

Got the RO thing working. 100 gallon unit, actually does about 25 with my water pressure. I might need two, but I'm seeing someone at the weekend that can get my water looked at. It really shouldn't cause this, even if it's not great.

That canna feed breakdown is really unexpected. That low K, being pushed by that high Ca. My Ca isn't that high even with 1ml per Liter of calmag. Which in grow seems to be causing some red stems and stalk, I suspect is P from my feeds low 20ppm.

So many things to balance. It's no wonder the suppliers offer so many different bottles. I have always stuck with one, and found plants that like it. Knowing it would be a lot to learn.

 

[jackspratt61]

I read that as coco breaks down bicarbonates are released. In peat too. Bicarbonates tie up ca mostly.

 

[f-e]

I think the bicarbonates must be around long enough to become useful as the canna feed is surely making use of that K. Even with full PK it's just 180ppm we give them. The coco looks to be providing ~75 or more. I pulled K out my feed for 3 or 4 days then got a runoff sample to look at, so we might get a decent idea of that next week. Also the sodium levels, but I still don't actually know how much sodium is good or bad.

Today the runoff went over 2.0 which was kind of odd as they only had a weak feed. The first of the 4 fertigations washes out the overnight feed which was 2.0 yesterday. I do find it's overnight when the damage is done. That's something I need to smoke one over.

 

[CannaRed]

Finally made it through the thread. Great read.
HAve you been to Cocoforcannabis? There's some good info there, though nothing as deep as this thread. Basically his approach is to fertigate to 20% run off on every watering event up to 4 to 6 times a day. They say to always keep the EC consistent, they over water to 20percent run off and this basically is flush on every event. They say if runoff ppm is 300 points higher than input then I'm not watering enough and as frequently as needed.
It's a good site for my transition to coco. They use gh flora series but alter it by adding calmag and lowering the others to satisfy the cocos cec. They use the as example but explain how to use whatever brand.

I've been using H3ad's modified lucas formula and I see similar issues on lower leaves, slowly climbing up.

​​​​​​

 

[f-e]

Thanks CannaRed. It's a long thread to wade through.
I did see that site and was influenced by their talk of more frequent fertigations. They go against canna's idea of 50-70% water loss, where I have been at. However my runoff has been up to 50% and rarely do I get below 30% so I'm flushing quite a bit and not shifting the EC down. Half strength tanks put through were traditionally the norm, so I may need to reduce EC along with raised cal&mag and lower K. While increasing frequency. That's a whole load of change. Oddly I have picked up floranova and seen a lower dose with extra cal&mag looks alright. I must read their site further as we certainly have some parallels going on. I'm actually a bit concerned the nova is gloop that's going to be a tank problem, perhaps settling in my lines. I need to jar some up. I have days left before I make up that first tank. I think I may start a new thread at that time, to get a clean break and keep the read manageable.

The promise of a decent smoke has Mr Lab coming to see me tonight. I was going to see him but I managed to convey my need and he has needs to I have to see whats running out of this coco. I can't set a tank not knowing the K and looking at the salts in general. I have a sample from the new coco to, but he can't measure down to the levels at the tap. It will be a little rough. How rough, I'm yet to see. Fcuking buzzing though

 

[f-e]

Picking the Cocoforcannabis site apart. They get about 25ppm Ca from calmag and 80ppm from a half dose of the micro. They do start higher and finish lower, but that's in range for 80% of their crop. Canna coco is 100ppm and floranova about the same 105ppm. The calmag they use is GH and says not for use with Nova as it's already there. Me.. I get 50 from my base and usually 35 from my calmag. But have been what looked like pouring it in, and still my total kept below 110ppm. However, I have my tap 60ppm to add, and using Nitric to convert at least half of it. I'm never far from these other bottle options. I don't see any spotting, though not all studies found spotting to be the result of low Ca and do sound a little familiar in the stunting of top growth, light colour in what does grow and the thinner leaf base Report: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/9/20/4432/htm

I also run everything else higher, which will mean I should have a bit more Ca not a bit less.

My previous run I did the first two weeks at 130ppm+tap but reduced it just a week before the problems start date. My best runs, when I first built this, I ran just 75-85ppm.

Calcium alone isn't going to change much. I have found my way to the ballpark it seems. Still not playing ball though.

It's nice to see a spread of results and pick through them.


Edit: It raises the question of how much next time. 120+tap, Or 150 if RO ? (tap is 60)

 

[f-e]

Oh dear. Oh dear oh dear. As I started taking it out, I found the missing piece in the canopy. I had already formulated a story, and it seems too much N is my problem. Leading to excessive Mg use, which I have provided by the spoon full. Which demands more N... vicious circle.

I think my coco reuse has led to an extra N requirement while the microlife got stuck into the old roots. A situation that would fade. This last run I had a N regime sussed, but actually did the smallest of repots at day 1 using new coco. An unusual move. I also chucked a lot at this crop, like 18ml of calmag at times when 10ml would be the norm the last few, and 5ml or less before then. I have in effect been increasing N and perhaps this time needed less anyway.

I have been on this trail a while. Looking at some of the really high looking examples like 250ppm but seeing the Ca (a suppressant) is still ahead. So while 250ppm is high, or the college 200, the general balance of feed didn't get N ahead of the big players. Now, back to my grow. N has been just that bit more prominent than most examples. Never ahead, but closer to the K-Ca-Mg set than is typical. The Ca in that set is also at the disadvantage of been moved about by LED's. Further tipping the scale towards excess N.

This is all just talk though. Look what I found quite a bit of hiding in the canopy. We saw above, we saw below. Somehow I missed this, and while I do see it mildly sometimes, I got a pic of the very worst (by far) which is from the back plants that burnt the most



I really don't want to own up to this. I'm just gonna post then hide.

 

[f-e]

It looks like I might of been heavy handed with the Epsom salts. I knew they should only make up a fairly low portion of the Mg. That this was to keep the sulphur levels down. I didn't realise excess sulphur causes salt signs. I was looking for lockout as the consequence. It burns tips leading to die back. I was getting burnt tips I couldn't figure out. They might be connected.

Too much N, too much Epsom Salts. No drink in the night, so before lights on was the longest lull at high EC. The damage came at night. At a time RH could get below 50%. I don't like night feeds but have set one and got a big humidifier.


Nothings proven yet, but we have covered some ground. Thanks lads.

 

[f-e]

There is more..
It's always Mg I see deficient. To much food of too little. Stripes. It's why I have been heavy with the Epsom.
New grow, move the plants in and within hours the tops look small, the new leaves distorted and the stripes coming. I see it every time. Nothing has changed and it's instant. The RH is lower and lighting more intense. No other difference. 50% not 65% and 450ppfd not 300. Many times I have shown tops unwilling to open and people think it nothing. Looking at the Mg pics in the Joe Fresh collection it's there. No talk of it, but it's there. However there is talk of Mg being easily washed away and it causing premature aging. Small woody fruits. While it's been said LED grows need more Mg and little else (well one site says so)

I have already changed my runoff arrangement anyway. I have been alone in my old method I think. The duration was about 25 minutes but was done as 5 mins, wait 15, then 4 mins, which was just about all runoff. This cleared out a lot more salt that just 9 minutes in one go. Now I'm thinking.. which salts exactly? I have stopped the pause and started to try for that 20% not the 50% I had today. Though the problem came before I watered at all.

So much going on... I need more Mg but without the Sulphur. So I can reach beyond 45ppm (50-70 seems reasonable for my plants, and what I read agrees)

 

[f-e]

Around week 6, for a few days, they had no K at all from me. Or N. Just 0-40-0-180-50
The results of my run-off after those days with no additional N or K are in. My tap may provide 20ppm K but a full report on that is a while away.

N 130ppm + 5ppm Ammonia N
P 15ppm
K 95ppm
Ca 160
Mg 40
Sodium 90ppm
Chloride 180pm
Sulphate as SO4 175ppm
Boron 0.1ppm
Copper 0.3ppm
Manganese 0.1ppm
Zinc 0.5ppm
Iron 2ppm

The big news there is perfectly good N, when they hadn't had any N for days, feeding with about 40% runoff
Over half the P wasn't coming back out
The K was 20 at the tap, but 90 came out. That might be 70ppm from accumilation, like the N, or the coco degrading as per the book. Edit: My mono P isn't. It's got a form of potassium in there. Unavailable perhaps, but will of made the count.
Ca&Mg maintenance doesn't look terrible, to me.
Sodium isn't wanted, but another runoff sample from very new coco getting grow feed came back about the same. My tap should be 10pm
Chloride in irrigation water should be below 50ppm. High levels cause necrosis at the margins. The control sample (new coco) was about the same. Tap varies and while they claim 100 max, my nose knows it's gone up over the last 6 months. A lot.
The rest is unremarkable. It seems my Iron inputs were good, put beside the new coco result.




In other news, the new coco gets 165ppm K in feed and 20 from the tap (perhaps) and produces 230ppm at the tap, in grow. A gain of 45ppm with low/reasonable runoff volume. I wouldn't expect vegging plants to eat flowering levels of K though, so it should be gaining that, or more. They let out 155ppm Ca and 60ppm Mg so the coco shouldn't really of been absorbing that K.

I'm happy I did that 0-40-0 feeding. It's just what I hoped for.

 

[f-e]

I forgot, I used trace mix to. Just to drop the N and K. It contained 0.6ppm of Manganese, but only 0.1 came out. Boron we see 0.1 of the 0.3 I fed with. Most of the others compare well to the Trace or the new cocos result.
That makes Manganese and Boron interesting for other reasons. Manganese tends to show late in flower. When the plant's finished bulking and is just frosting over. I suggest it's going in the frosting.
Boron's... Oh I fell to sleep

 

[f-e]

This is good. The FAO list sodium and chloride toxicity as the same signs. Except sodium starts at the edges and works inward. The much less documented chloride starts at the tips then up the edges. However it's the number one toxicity found with tap water. Looking at agricultural plant tables, the most tolerant of plant's listed can live with 40ppm. Not 180. However 15ppm of sodium is high. Both are an issue. Chloride is made when Chlorine gets with a metal. So the 180ppm we see is probably a product of chlorine gas water treatment.

Is anyone really good at chemistry? It looks like Chloride will bond 1:1 with Sodium. Or 2:1 with Calcium and Magnesium. My tap is expected to have 10ppm Sodium, 10ppm Magnesium and 60ppm Calcium. So I can only bring in 150ppm if it was carried along with all the sodium calcium and magnesium. Which have other things to do. I have to presume chlorine gas comes in to the tank, to which I add greater quantities of the metals the chloride can join with. Thus I am making the chloride myself. Inorganic soluble salts with my Calcium and Magnesium that the plant will take in.

From a botany point of view, I wonder if that's all well and good until the plants starts wanting to relocate the Mg (the early signs) and this ruins the leaf with the same timing each grow.

 

[bsgospel]

My take (and I only read the first couple pages and this last one) is that your Na and micros are too high; I also do not recommend adding Mg to fix the problem, it fixes symptoms but does not address the real problem.

Are your micros chelated? MnNa2, for instance, does that also have EDTA in it? Most products are chelated but if you have some pure stuff without something to chelate it, your Mn will be much too high. At 13% Mn, I don't care to add more than .01 or .015 ppm. At .3 ppm, Mn is toxic. Your B is right where it needs to be.

Front load Ca and P during veg, extra Mg will get in the way of that- then use a PK or MKP boost sparingly. I think yours is an issue of K balance when all is said and done and your Ca, Mg, Na, and micros are trading places in allowing it to reach its full potential at the right times. Get the extra Mg and Na out of the way to let the K do its thing. If you need to do a Ca foliar, try using different sources such as Calcium Chloride (200ppm) or Gypsum (150 ppm) or CalPhos (100 ppm) or CalciNit (100-200 ppm.)

I think I also saw you post that your tank was ph to 6.7 before feeds? (IIRC). Bring that down for coco with citric acid to 5.7-6.3

Let me know if those are things that interest you or I'm way off base. Or if those were already covered in the rest of the thread. Hope it works out for you.

 

[mojave green]

Switch your medium to another type.

 

[f-e]

Thanks lads, although running away isn't on the cards
My base feed was fully chelated. I'm unsure of all the amendments. Mg was just Epsom, but I did have a little humic in there. I couldn't reduce Mg below what bottles tend to give. My base didn't list Mg numerically so was lacking. I had to load up to reach normal levels. My feed was traditionally poor in that respect and LEDs raise the Mg demand. It couldn't be ignored.

I have now started again.

I have found a 'phenomenon' of interest. I have seen it many times and given it excuses, but now I'm wondering.
I have been at 4 feeds a days. Mornin, noon, evening and in the night. 25% runoff. EC1.3 in and 1.3-1.4 out. Then one afternoon 17% runoff at EC1.7 then that evening no runoff. Then the numbers catch my attention. The night gets a long runoff at 1.6 then the morning a long one at 1.7 which should of come down a bit. Afternoon 1.6 and evening 1.7 which is way higher than they were fed, and a lot more coming out than a single watering that didn't reach waste should leave. I actually added some more feed an hour after that non-runoff event just to stop the EC peaking.
The next day I set at 1.4 and get 1.5 again.

I think, the coco is taking on things like a sponge, accumulating them in a salty pores like action. This is certainly true as loading the coco for use later is a done thing, even though we have runoff. I'm going to look at victirian reservoirs as a parallel. People used to stir them underground lakes so the corners kept fresh. Water follows the easiest path, straight in and straight out. Them pools needed a stir, or the day they were emptied, you get the stagnant water from the corners if you didn't stir them. Now the coco... I pulled water from the core of the stuff, that would otherwise of stayed there. The fertigation not reaching runoff, means the plant had less moisture, so took more from within the coco. The storage area. I pulled out a load of salt that took a day to shift.

I was on two feeds in 24h before. The increase in runoff EC coincided with the plants filling the system. A few days later the sickness. My water reports found another 30ppm of N in my tap, so the first week of 12/12 I was about 200ppm N. That might work with the rest balanced to match, but it was simply outstanding in my mix. Soluble as it is, that N shows staying power in my run-off tests. I had days of N in my coco at the end. That first week I was giving them 1.4 and getting back 1.2 so the coco seems like it was loading up. Then they start drinking deeper into the pots reserves. The timing is there and an explanation. I run small pots so they were sucking up a good amount of what's available with 2 feeds a day. I have maybe 3 gallons of coco in a meter. It's certainly worth thinking about.

Oddly this grow hasn't had a loading up phase. I saw some in the used coco pots, but have been around 100-75-120-100-45 seeing them want a bit more N in places. Not the used pots though. I'm just 5 days away from when the EC of the runoff would usually rise. I think that might be my cue to lower the Ca&Mg as I increase K. Though I'm not going to increase K. I'm finding how little I can use, if the crop goes well. I was so pissed off with that day of high Runoff, and watching it stop doing it has really opened my eyes to something I have not seen talked about. That water from the core, if that's what it is, won't be something nice to release in one go. Not after saving it up, getting it loaded with the coco sodium and potassium. I do remember in this thread looking at the leaves die, knowing the damage was done before and it's only now I was seeing it die. Finding reasons for the delay.


I'm piecing together quite a few stories I know. I intend to find this problem though. If it comes again, I'm going to pull a plant and get the coco tested. I have been looking up the chemicals needed to properly strip the coco. As I know my runoff testing is only what wanted to leave.


Recently people spoke of a UK cup where a UK lab did testing. A lab in Birmingham. If they are taking green samples, I can get a third party to get a 'hemp' tissue sample to them. I know safe farmers.

 

[FletchF.Fletch]

Nobody as dedicated as you are should consider themselves a failure. I blame the new LEDs. The problem is the proliferation of lights geared towards a "use them until the next model comes out" market. The old HID lights were tried and tested way before growers got a hold of them. These new lights are designed to be replaced by a new model before you can finish a grow. If you're dissatisfied with the results, the company says, " Try our newest version". It is totally backwards. I feel like the Damn lights should be tailored to work for you, not the other way around. What is the point of a light you cannot run at full power?

I have used Hortilux gear from the beginning, and got their UFO looking LEDs after much frustration with the results from Quantum Boards. Now, there is much less LED induced leaf stress using these lamps, and they have 3 newer models with even more UV and Far Red. They have a better tuned spectrum.

In closing, Chin Up Old Top!! Sometimes a Minor Setback makes for a Major Comeback.

 

[Sunshineinabag]

 

[f-e]

Thanks lads.
My phenomena isn't what I thought. My answer to high runoff is lower the feed EC, and that seems to be the cause of the coco unloading.
Three times I have dropped the ec just 0.1 and within a couple of feeds the runoff goes up not down. Only for a day before it also drops. It fits models in my head that give it more weight than the 3 times I specifically watched for it. My records agree. I lower the feed and the coco unloads. There is a weak science explanation involving osmosis. Where my weaker feed has less hold on the water content and the saltier coco can them pull it in further. Giving a deeper wash. It's all a bit unlikely as it means I made a discovery that should of been made long ago. However original thought isn't new to me. I need peer review.

I did get off to a shaky start with this new feed. I didn't think about how gloopy it was. 1.46g per ml and I did my ppm numbers by volume. This made my mix 46% stronger than I thought. To add insult, I lost my way and forgot the Ca&Mg were listed elementally, not as oxides. So converted them and used calmag to put it back again. Doh. I realised at day 7 when I did a full review. Got a run-off sample then sorted my act out.

The BloomingNova at 1.75ml per L gives a rather nice 100-87-143-100-50 which looks good beside the 100-100-200 when in coco. The 87P is way higher than the 40% newer research says is adequate. So meets demand and then gives some extra strong branching that LED plants often lack. The K is down, my lab tests show 30ppm gained from the coco, and not what the plants can pull from the coco without me seeing it. So more than 175ppm is available, with this direct harvesting from the coco that I can't measure. Canna coco feed that someone had labbed was 112-40-50- and with their boost at 1ml per L is like 112-100-175 and the Calcium and Magnesium at 100-50 is quite established for coco. I reckon I found a good feed from all my experimentation. With the RO is comes in about 0.9 and the runoff is about 1.2 with just a bit of N deficiency since day 7s catch. I did need a little f-e at day 5 or 6 and it's due again I think. This Nova and my old Ionic offer about 2.6ppm which I used to lift to about 4ppm every week or so. Would you believe, it's what Canna give. I'm slowly falling in line.


By today, I should have progressed through burnt tips, to Mg like lines, and be seeing some die back at the tips that's starting up the edges. It's not happened. I do have some crazy N signs from that first week, on larger branches that took it on but never made it to the light. Then just one plant looking N deficient this weeks, yellowing a lower pair and letting them die back. I like that though. It means that plants not chocked out with N, and it's a pheno of the sensative strain.

I seem to of proven this wasn't the coco and I didn't do an especially decent clean up. Though that UV tank light is the best toy in a while. Just chuck it in, cover the tank as it's germicidal UV, then switch it on for an hour. Smell be gone

My water reports finding another 30ppm N at the tap make it favourite in my toxicity league. With Chloride a strong contender. With high salts in general from the many different bottles I think, as to get a mono you have to load in more stuff. My first signs were always Mg and Fe issues, leading to a lot of Epson salts with high levels of Sulphur as a byproduct. It's a complicated route to ' I over fed them' Trying to bath them in loads of light. I have a pitiful 300w over them now, of 720 available. Making about 650ppfd. Plus another 120w on the floor, making 200ppfd from below. So I'm somewhere there with about 750ppfd. Wondering why they used to peak about 450w. That's perhaps the story right there. Loads of light, loads of food, then no co2 to complete the picture. Leaving plants full of salts.
I have always noticed that the lowest of shades will curl under and get darker with lighting from below. At first I thought rolling for the light, but they would twist for it, not roll. They get a kind of over watered/over N'd look. Just being lit from below. Delaying my diagnosis of high N down there. The plants do like it though. The lower buds were just as bad as the top ones. No bits of fluff, it was all 'something' even with that fail.

That was my all time record low yield. I didn't think it was possible to be so shit. 12.5 of useless. Some of the roses smells divine, but taste like shoes.


Edit: The 3 feeds lights on+one in the night must be better than just 2 feeds, lights on. It's a smaller EC swing. My damage came at night. The longer between feeds, the higher the root EC can climb.
I have fixed a few things.. Mostly EC related.


Edit2: The Nova gives 3.85ppm fe at full dose, but here I'm talking about 45%. Maybe 1.7ppm iron. I gave 1.5ppm more... nice. Greened up where they were getting a little light green, heading towards chalky green I think.

 

[CannaRed]

What kind of UV toy do you have? I'm gathering parts. I'm interested.lol

 

[f-e]

Here you go. It's like a car inspection lamp, that's waterproof.
https://www.amazon.com/UV-UVMART-Sub...86X19QXM&psc=1
I paid about half that from eBay, or could of saved a little more from Ali where $10 can have one delivered.

It's not really a toy though. If you look at this thing, you have damaged yourself. It's quite a dangerous item so needs to stay under your control and never find it's way to a charity shop. People will mistake it for a disco light. It's hard to believe the damage these can do. I floated it centrally, covered the tank and circulated the water, before switching it on. UV will destroy plastics, so it's only for use when you must. Normally they are enclosed and you pump through it's enclosure. This shouldn't really be on the market. It cured my niffy tank though, so $10 well spent.

My tank smell came from seaweed extract. Something got in and liked it. Having knocked it back, Orca seems to work (beneficials) but it had a real foothold before getting the light.

Edit: If your tank is a water butt, It will be UV resistant. Like plastic windows. 'u'pvc meaning UV resistant.