EC run off question...

[Justinsane]

High all good peeps!

I am fairly new to working with an EC meter and i have a question about it.

Right now i have 2 panama and 2 orient express in flower and they are doing great!

Im working with canna coco line up and right now they are getting an EC of 1.5 (my water is 0.5) and the run off is from 0.9 to 1.2 on the girls.

So i give 1.5 and get 0.9, what does that mean? Does it mean the girls is eating more than i give her and i shall up my feeding till i get the same EC run off as what i put in?

Or shall i just keep doing what i am doing and just read my plants?

Justin

 

[stoned40yrs]

First rule of ec club is never measure runoff when your plants are doing great.

 

[Justinsane]

Hehe, "first rule of ec club"...thats just great man.

I started out by measue my run off but then i stopped just because i took me so much extra time to do it and to write every damn number down. But today i took both ph and ec of my run off again. Ph is spot on but my ec was lower then what i put in so i just started to think about it. But i will not think about that anymore now then.

Cheers bro

 

[stoned40yrs]

If your ec was the same in and out then what would be the purpose of the nutes you add? They have to absorb some of them
The hardest part for all the Mad scientist/ Botanist/ Chemists that we all are is not to change something when the plant looks great.
Plants looking great means don't do anything different that what you are doing right now. Add nothing/ take away nothing/ keep you urges under control. The plant will tell you when to do something different.

 

[Asslover]

As long as your plants are happy/healthy then i wouldn't bother checking the ec. Guys have literally gone crazy from the ec thing in coco. Seriously. Been using coco for years and have never checked ec.

 

[theother]

First rule of ec club is never measure runoff when your plants are doing great.

Nailed it!

 

[Justinsane]

Cheers guys, really helpful!

 

[Snow Crash]

The disinformation train has arrived...

EC information is always valuable. It may not be important to a good dialed grow but it can certainly indicate a problem before it's a problem. I mean, the plants might look healthy up top but the coco down below could be over fed. It may take a few days to see that in the leaf tissue, and by then the damage is done. But, keep good track of your runoff and you can see the pattern before it's a problem.

Some people prefer to react. I've always believed an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure and felt that knowing is half the battle. It's a little extra work, it's not totally necessary for a good garden, but for some it does help and knowing how to interpret what you are seeing is very important.

A lower EC in your runoff indicates that the cation bank (pre-charge) of the coco is unfulfilled. The media is retaining elements from the solution to meet the Cation requirement of the coco. If the reading is low, but not as low with each feeding, then that indicates you are feeding enough food for the plant and the media to build its charge.

 

[medicalmj]

The disinformation train has arrived...

EC information is always valuable. It may not be important to a good dialed grow but it can certainly indicate a problem before it's a problem. I mean, the plants might look healthy up top but the coco down below could be over fed. It may take a few days to see that in the leaf tissue, and by then the damage is done. But, keep good track of your runoff and you can see the pattern before it's a problem.

Some people prefer to react. I've always believed an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure and felt that knowing is half the battle. It's a little extra work, it's not totally necessary for a good garden, but for some it does help and knowing how to interpret what you are seeing is very important.

A lower EC in your runoff indicates that the cation bank (pre-charge) of the coco is unfulfilled. The media is retaining elements from the solution to meet the Cation requirement of the coco. If the reading is low, but not as low with each feeding, then that indicates you are feeding enough food for the plant and the media to build its charge.

Sorry to hijack with my question but it fits in.

Snow crash,

So I used to run about 1.6 EC 5.8-6.0 pH with 10-15% run off and after about a month the EC would be around 2.2-2.4 and pH around 5.0-5.2. Then I'd flush with 6.2 pH with Ca/Mg until around 1.0 EC.

This time I decided to limit runoff and run 1.2 EC and 5.8-6.0 pH. Note, I did charge the canna coco with about a 1.6 EC to start. And after a month gave them .8 EC 5.8-6.0 for about three days with limited runiff and then back to 1.2 EC. I haven't bothered to check runoff.

I will say the plants are doing great. Do you think I could just precharge with the 1.6 or so and then run low EC around 1.0 and not have much if any runoff and never flush? This would save time, money and nutes.

 

[cannacultural]

I'll throw in my thoughts from experience thus far. I found running a higher feed (1.6EC max) regularly lead to high EC build up (watering usually every 2 days). Now I'm feeding a lower EC more regularly (.8-1.4EC), daily. I've also reduced my feeding volume, usually with minimal runoff. This week have been feeding 1.6, 1.1, 1.4,.65,.9,1.0 every 2 days this week and plants are loving it. On the last 1.0EC feed, I gave them a larger amount for 10% run off, each were within 1.3-1.5EC run off range. Pretty happy with that in 3gal pots 1 week out from flower.

 

[ElusiveQuark]

When I started w coco it seemed every time I checked runoff it would be high enough to throw me into crisis mode. I now find that lower EC (never over 1) combined with Drip Clean at .8 mls/gallon keeps my plants happy and me sane. I can't imagine not checking runoff at least once a week.

 

[stoned40yrs]

When I started w coco it seemed every time I checked runoff it would be high enough to throw me into crisis mode. I now find that lower EC (never over 1) combined with Drip Clean at .8 mls/gallon keeps my plants happy and me sane. I can't imagine not checking runoff at least once a week.

You're wasting your time once a week

 

[Snow Crash]

Sorry to hijack with my question but it fits in.

Snow crash,

So I used to run about 1.6 EC 5.8-6.0 pH with 10-15% run off and after about a month the EC would be around 2.2-2.4 and pH around 5.0-5.2. Then I'd flush with 6.2 pH with Ca/Mg until around 1.0 EC.

This time I decided to limit runoff and run 1.2 EC and 5.8-6.0 pH. Note, I did charge the canna coco with about a 1.6 EC to start. And after a month gave them .8 EC 5.8-6.0 for about three days with limited runiff and then back to 1.2 EC. I haven't bothered to check runoff.

I will say the plants are doing great. Do you think I could just precharge with the 1.6 or so and then run low EC around 1.0 and not have much if any runoff and never flush? This would save time, money and nutes.

I have experienced similar, if not the same, results in my own garden. I prefer to run between a 1.0 and 1.6ec in flowering, with regular low EC (<0.8) feedings. Somewhere around 1.2ec to 1.4ec seems to be the sweet spot for plants in not the most perfect environments. Once the temperature, humidity, PAR, and CO2 are dialed in that's when the higher EC feedings are useful.

Different grower, different room, different water, different nutrients, different supplements, different coco, different containers, different bulbs, different air circulation, different genetics... I mean, it is a wonder we have any consensus at all on what to use from space to space. Just goes to show how incredibly tolerant these plants can be.

 

[stoned40yrs]

I have experienced similar, if not the same, results in my own garden. I prefer to run between a 1.0 and 1.6ec in flowering, with regular low EC (<0.8) feedings. Somewhere around 1.2ec to 1.4ec seems to be the sweet spot for plants in not the most perfect environments. Once the temperature, humidity, PAR, and CO2 are dialed in that's when the higher EC feedings are useful.

Different grower, different room, different water, different nutrients, different supplements, different coco, different containers, different bulbs, different air circulation, different genetics... I mean, it is a wonder we have any consensus at all on what to use from space to space. Just goes to show how incredibly tolerant these plants can be.

Sounds good but in the case of running k.i.s.s. maxibloom I don't see no way of me mixing 7 gr/gal of that stuff in anything and having a ec of 1.4 I'm glad my plants in veg are taking 1.7ec and liking it. I'm not going to alter the base nute formula just because of what the ec meter says unless my plants agree with the meter. They say "Keep it up".

 

[papaduc]

EC information is always valuable. It may not be important to a good dialed grow but it can certainly indicate a problem before it's a problem.

It can also indicate a problem where there isn't one, and that's the biggest issue with using it to judge your subsequent feed strength.

There are a few instances where it can be helpful, and where I use it myself. But there are a lot of times when it can be misleading.

The run off which comes from the bottom of a container of a substrate like coco, which has been fed chemical/processed nutrients over time, doesn't give you an accurate means by which to judge what to put into your next feed.

Even within the pot itself, different layers will have different readings and the readings themselves are no indication of plant available nutrients; just the electrical conductivity of the water.

The EC of your run off can be well over 2.0, but you can still see paling if you feed plain water based on it. That wouldn't be possible if the readings were an accurate measure of the feed strength of the substrate.

There's no substitute for the appearance of the plants in my experience and there's no better way to dial in a grow than by being able to read them.

I argued with one guy not long ago who swore to it's accuracy. So I went to see his diary and his plants had clear tip burn. I asked how it was possible if the run off allowed him to be exact with his feeds. He had a few excuses, but no answers.

If a grower decides to put in 1.8ec of feed and what comes out is 1.8, he can use the run off argument to say great, no build up. Truth is, 1.8 in itself might be enough to fry his plants. Run off figures can't help with that.

Likewise, he could be on 1.0ec, and the run off could be 1.2 or 1.4.. and he might think there's a buildup, even though his plants look fine; so he flushes, and his plants go pale. Again, run off can't help with that and in fact in that case can be what misleads him into flushing when there was no need.

To this day I've never spoken to anyone online who can actually show me evidence of how they use run off figures to keep things better dialed in than someone who just reads their plants.

I'm not saying they can't be used as part of a grow, but that they're no substitute for good simple methods and can be pretty much forgotten about as long as you're sticking to the basic rule of not over feeding in the first place.

 

[cannacultural]

@ papaduc

I agree with you here. I'm still sussing out the whole coco scene, so as a newbie, I've been checking run-off on my first run. It was handy at first to guide me, but have found it to be misleading. I've always relied on reading plants (with agricultural work), rather than stats and numbers. The other day I was doing my standard feed (mentioned earlier here), and decided to check run off for the hell of it. One pot spiked from previous run off of 1.3 to 2.8, one day apart. The next day, it was reading back at 1.2 after a 25% strength feed of 1 litre in a 3 gal pot. Plants are looking 100%, if not maybe a little hungry.

I'd say with all aspects of horticulture, information on your plants is very useful if you apply it appropriately. Run-off isn't something I'm religiously checking anymore, and feel better off for it. Though checking every now and then satisfies any other curiosities without interfering too much with my setup.

 

[Snow Crash]

I guess all I can say is it's easy to take things out of context.

Readings are just readings. As I have said in the past, you cannot make a reaction based on a snap shot. The idea here, as it has always been, is to collect data. Checking your runoff and reading the plants are not exclusive to themselves, believe it or not... a grower can do both. And by doing both they have access to more information.

You have some idea about what this information "should" represent Papaduc. Since reading the runoff does not provide you with the accuracy you want in that area you determine it to be useless. I guess what I am espousing here is that this is data, it is a relational tool. It needs to be gathered over time to create a pattern. By relying only on the appearance of the plant you are REACTING. Which means you're late to the party and if you could properly interpret the other signs that led to the current state then it could have been avoided PROACTIVELY.

It is the pattern of many readings that will indicate an issue. Not a handful, but weeks of charted data that is easy to see where the grow is going.

Suppose I am collecting data. I see the pattern of increasing EC levels. 1.1, 1.2, 1.3... 1.9, 2.0, 2.1... And so on. I'm reading the plant and keeping my observations with my EC readings in and out. She looks good now but after a few weeks she's not really adding the flower mass I want. Then a few days pass and she looks a little unhappy. And now she's burned.

So the next grow I'm using the same strain and feeding the same nutrients at the same strength. I see the EC levels creep again in the same pattern. What do I do? Watch the plant burn again over the coming days because runoff data is inaccurate? Freak out and flush out the media? Hell no. I'm going to reduce my feed level maybe 15% and give that a try. Watch the pattern and pay attention to the plants and record the difference from one grow to the next. If I see a dipping EC I can increase the feed strength, or I can watch and see what happens.

It's all about improving from one grow to the next. To think that after a couple of grows that I could claim to be as good at gardening as I ever will be is ridiculous. Collecting the data to provide as large a picture as possible is a good thing. Having the inability to digest and understand the information is a problem for the individual and does not devalue the process of collecting as much as possible.

Additionally, I suggest that a coco grower never flush unless they intend for the plant to go pale (like at the end of the grow). A 1/2 strength rinsing will remove buildup without destroying the ratio of elements retained by the media.

 

[theother]

IME there is something to be said for checking runoff, there is also problems associated with checking runoff.

When I first switched to coco, I was feeding canna per there feed chart, 1.4-1.8 or even 2 ec. What I found is that checking runoff in this situation was misleading. I saw the runoff consistently come out lower and the PH slightly higher, which indicates that the plants where in fact eating a fair bit of the nutrients. They still eventually suffered salt buildup and the whole experience was pretty shitty.

Using 6/9 diluted to around 1.2 ec, I find its not really necessary in my garden to check the runoff EC, as things just seem to move along happily.

I think this is because at the higher EC feeds the plants where eating particular macros and micros out of the solution, the problem was it was in such a high concentration that they eventually suffered buildups that were catastrophic. This buildup was never indicated by the runoff EC, it always looked "good", the plants just sucked.

My take on coco is feed light and feed often (within reason). Check your runoff, its a good thing to do, but don't try some super aggressive feed thinking that your constant monitoring of the runoff EC will somehow save you.

FWIW almost every single thread I see on here about a "deficiency", tends to be IMHO an overfeeding lockout, salt buildup, something along those lines. These plants perform well at a much lower level than most people think.

 

[stoned40yrs]

I guess there is a bigger waste of time than monitoring your runoff incorrectly, writing long posts on it. Stoners start growing some weed and think that makes them a horticulturist. There is a scientific protocol for doing "Pourthru" Testing of ec and ph and it DOES NOT involve testing ec and ph after feeding or testing the runoff from your periodic watering. Maybe you could write letters to the scientists and tell them they are doing it wrong and you know a great scientific way to read runoff from plants.
start here: http://www.pourthruinfo.com/

 

[medicalmj]

I guess there is a bigger waste of time than monitoring your runoff incorrectly, writing long posts on it. Stoners start growing some weed and think that makes them a horticulturist. There is a scientific protocol for doing "Pourthru" Testing of ec and ph and it DOES NOT involve testing ec and ph after feeding or testing the runoff from your periodic watering. Maybe you could write letters to the scientists and tell them they are doing it wrong and you know a great scientific way to read runoff from plants.
start here: http://www.pourthruinfo.com/

Great suggestion, albeit a little blunt on the delivery. Anyway I like this site as well:

http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/hort/floriculture/hils/HIL590.pdf