The myth, of the high P myth?

[Avenger]

scientific wild ass guess

 

[DonkDBZ]

Day 19 for me 1.9EC

P is at round 50-55

Bubba Kush


Plat OG


I think super lemon haze

 

[spurr]

I forgot all about GrowGreen ...

If anyone remembers GrowGreen, she grew great buds and was/is a very educated and smart grower. Her fairly well known and fairly widely tested synthetic-hydro fertilizer formula has ~45 ppm P.

She used/uses 15 ml/gal Pure Blend Pro Bloom with 5 ml/gal CalMag Plus. The PBPBloom has organic sources of P, IIRC, if so, that means more P may become available over time affecting the claim of 45 ppm P:

(this data is from a post by Lucas)
N 161
P 45
K 214
Ca 45

 

[desertsquirrel]

That profile is a bit high in N for 15pbp+5cal-mag (should be around 120). most of the pics below are with 8-10 ml cal-mag and 15-18ml pbp. i love the profile.

btw i keep my p between 45 and 55....

 

[Overthinker]

Ca 45 ??? Was this a successful formula?

 

[Dave Coulier]

Ca 45 ??? Was this a successful formula?

Are you worried that it is on the low end Overthinker? I ask because I am currently flowering 13 ladies that are being only fed 26 ppm Ca, and my plants are doing greater now than ever before.

My previous mix was 68 ppm, and my soil test results came back with quite excessive levels of Ca, and Mag. My immediately available Ca levels were nearly 3.7 times normal levels. They told me to stop using Cal/Mag, which I have done, and my plants are healthier now than before.

Although, I have yet to have my water tested. Ill get around to that at some point.

Is anyone else getting soil samples taken after harvest? Id love to see how other peoples results compare to the nutrient profiles they are using. Ill share too if anyone is interested.

 

[desertsquirrel]

most soil and water sources already contain high levels of Ca. This is why Ca is considered a secondary macronutrient even though it is the 2ed or 3ed most used element by plants. Ca profiles for soil and Ca profiles for hydro/soilless are drastically different. 20-40 range for soil as your saying and 80-120 range for hydro/soilless.

 

[Dave Coulier]

Are you using dolomite lime to buffer your soil? Or has the soil been buffered with dolomite lime prior to you purchasing it?

I often make up my own mixes, and I do add some D. Lime, but I typically use low amounts. Usually 1-2 teaspoon/gallon, and pH typically ranges 5.8-6.5.

When Ive used ready to go media such as Fafards, I dont add any extra lime to it.

I dont believe the excessive Ca, and Mg came from my use of D. Lime. Problems always started in flowering around day 28-35 after a month or so of veg. Problems always came about later, after using the Cal/Mag for awhile, rather than having problems develop shortly after planting in the soil.

Of course, until I get more testing done, I wont know for certain if it was one or multiple variables that were causing me problems before.

 

[YosemiteSam]

Nice looking bud desertsquirrel...very nice.

Do you have the N-P-K-Ca-Mg numbers on your mix?

 

[desertsquirrel]

True, so you are using buffered soil and mains water then? That is what I was attempting to establish. In which case you must factor in the various sources of Ca into your nute profile - so Ca NO3 + Ca in soil as a result of lime + Ca in water. And technically, no Ca profiles for soil and hydro aren't that different when you factor in Ca sources outside of the fertilizer regime. "Calcium is king" in soil.

mullray i like your work so im not here to argue with you, however in my experience though the elemental availability in the media is implicitly factored when making a profile, its explicitly excluded in the profile because the nutrient profile numbers are based on the elemental supplementation only.

I do agree that the total profiles are similar, i just don't agree that nutrient profiles and total availability of media/supplementation are synonymous.

 

[desertsquirrel]

Nice looking bud desertsquirrel...very nice.

Do you have the N-P-K-Ca-Mg numbers on your mix?

Thanks alot sam that means alot coming from you. You and a few others are the reason i post/read here... here is my profile for those tables...

Botanicare Pure Blend Pro Bloom Hydro (2-3-5)
@15mL/Gal
N 91.5
P 60
K 189
Mg 22.5
Ca 45

Botanicare Cal Mag Plus (2-0-0) @7mL/Gal
N 37.8
P0
K0
Mg 22.4
Ca 60.2

Magnesium Sulfate:

1g/gal=

Mg: 26 ppm
S: 34 ppm

So


N: 130
p: 60
k: 190
ca: 105
mg:50
s: ? (50ish)

I also use floralicous plus, protek and i flushed these for 3 weeks with 0 ppm hospital grade water.

 

[Hammerhead]

what do you all consider high P?? I use PBP with Canna 13/14 ad I have massive flowers. I have been using PBP for years. I just started the Canna 13/14 and its has mad a big improvement in bud size for me.

 

[YosemiteSam]

DesertSquirrel...when you use the ProTekt is the K from it factored into your numbers? That stuff tends to bring quite a bit of K along with the SiO2.

Also could you tell me again what your media is? Apparently I was not paying attention the first time

I am starting to actually believe Mullray when he says coco may be a little different. Seems to me (although just a guess) that coco does need a little less K and a little more Ca than a truly inert hydro media.

 

[Dave Coulier]

DesertSquirrel...when you use the ProTekt is the K from it factored into your numbers? That stuff tends to bring quite a bit of K along with the SiO2.

Also could you tell me again what your media is? Apparently I was not paying attention the first time

I am starting to actually believe Mullray when he says coco may be a little different. Seems to me (although just a guess) that coco does need a little less K and a little more Ca than a truly inert hydro media.

It wouldnt be a guess Sam. I have a study open that shows Coco Coir had a K content of 2.4%. Now how quickly available it is, I dont know. Im not a coco user, and dont read too much about it.

Although I do have a pdf to share for Coco users.

 

[desertsquirrel]

I dont factor in the K, as i use a very limited amount of protek (.5ish ml/gal) due to our 0 ppm hospital grade water system.

Those pics are from rockwol slabs, however i run all media, would you like to see pics of coco or RDWC on the same profile? i also have them running in different profiles.

I keep about 2-3 commercial sized side by sides in laboratory grade conditions going all the time. Most of them are posted at thc farmer.

 

[Hammerhead]

If you guys want to see pics there are a few thousand im my albums lol. The plants that has been fed the PK13/14 are the MSS X SB BX1. Take a look in there. Im at 44 days one of the plants have cola's the size of my Leg and some the size of my arm.

 

[spurr]

what do you all consider high P?? I use PBP with Canna 13/14 ad I have massive flowers. I have been using PBP for years. I just started the Canna 13/14 and its has mad a big improvement in bud size for me.

Just because I know how much Hammerhead likes me (), IMO 'high' P is > 80 ppm and 'low' P is <30. The boost in yeild you see is mostly due to K, IME/IMO, not P. It's hard to take anything useful from you report if you haven't boosted only K and/or only P.

 

[Hammerhead]

this thread is about High P professor Spurr lol. Did you not read the 40 pages?? I would love to See a discussion with you and grapeman

 

[YosemiteSam]

I dont factor in the K, as i use a very limited amount of protek (.5ish ml/gal) due to our 0 ppm hospital grade water system.

Those pics are from rockwol slabs, however i run all media, would you like to see pics of coco or RDWC on the same profile? i also have them running in different profiles.

I keep about 2-3 commercial sized side by sides in laboratory grade conditions going all the time. Most of them are posted at thc farmer.

You know I use to think the fact that it was coco did not matter one bit. Then I decided to push the K:N ratio from 1.3 to slightly above 2. That caused a K problem or some bad K, Ca, Mg interactions.

Interesting to see desertsquirrel at probably a hair over 1.5. Leaving, of course, that whole range from 1.5 to 2 to explore further.

I am currently playing with K:N of 1.5 through stretch and gonna run it at 1.75 past stretch.

Now I am curious if I could have gotten away with the K:N of 2 in a more inert media.

This fucking rabbit hole is deep....and....complicated.

Hmmmmm.

 

[spurr]

what do you all consider high P?? I use PBP with Canna 13/14 ad I have massive flowers. I have been using PBP for years. I just started the Canna 13/14 and its has mad a big improvement in bud size for me.

Just because I know how much Hammerhead likes me (), IMO 'high' P is > 80 ppm and 'low' P is <30. The boost in yeild you see is mostly due to K, IME/IMO, not P. It's hard to take anything useful from your report if you haven't boosted only K and/or only P.

this thread is about High P professor Spurr lol. Did you not read the 40 pages?? I would love to See a discussion with you and grapeman

Yes I did, and I contributed to most of those 41 pages ...

This thread is about the high P myth, and whether that myth is a myth, i.e., whether the high P myth is false. What that means is this thread is about what is 'high' in terms of ppm for cannabis at various stages, and what effects various levels of P have upon plant growth, yield, trichome density, etc.

This thread at its current stage is showing that there is indeed a myth that cannabis greatly benefits from high P. I and many others have shown why sufficient P is the best route during veg and pre-flowering in terms of internode elation and root growth (as well as ROI). Not only that, but during flowering it has also been shown high P isn't needed, and doesn't offer large benefits as a rule; however, high P could affect THC levels (re the study I posted) and possibly trichome density (re YS posts).

The reason your post about PK 13/14 isn't very helpful is it boosts both P and K; so you don't know it's the P that is giving benefit. Try boosting just K or just P, not both, and see what happens; that will tell you more about the effects of high P than you know can provide.

P.S. Grapeman already tried to make an appearance in this thread, guess you need to read a bit more closely . Grapeman isn't a go-to source of sound info, just look at his claims about phosphites.