bobthegrower
Member
She's a calmag hog, anything less than 5ml/gal shows.
Dropping half the Canna A for flowering
- Thread starter bobthegrower
- Start date
Not trying to troll you but this is how I would work it out and to me my figures make more sense
...First work out the amount of P by weight.
(2 * (Atomic weight))/(Molecular weight) = amount (g P/g)
Then calculate the percentage of element in to bottle.
(total %)*(proportion of element)
And then we can work out the total PPM. So here we go ...
Molecular weight of P2O5 = 141.944522 g/mol
Atomic weight of phosphorus = 30.97 g/mole
Molecular weight of K2O = 94.196 g/mol
Atomic weight of potassium = 30.09 g/mole
proportion of P in P2O5 = (2 * (30.97 g/mole))/(141.94 g/mol) = 0.4364 (g P/g P2O5)
proportion of K in K2O = (2 * (30.09g/mole))/(94.196 g/mol) = 0.6389 (g P/g K2O)
% P in 13% P2O5 = (13% P2O5)*(0.4364 g P/g P2O5) = 5.67% P in 13% P2O5
% K in 14% K2O = (14% K2O*( 0.6389 g P/g K2O) = 9.78% K in 14% K2O
1% = 10,000 ppm
Lets calculate the total elemental PPM of P/K in canna pk 13/14
ppm P in 13% P2O5 = (5.67%) * (10000 ppm/1 %) = 56,700 ppm
ppm K in 14% K2O = (9.78%) * (10000 ppm/1 %) = 97,800 ppm
Soo ... the elemental ppm of P/K in canna P/K 13/14 @ 1ml per litre would be
P = 56,700ppm / 1000 = 56.7 ppm @ 1ml per litre
K = 97,800ppm / 1000 = 97.8 ppm @ 1ml per litre
1 gal = 3.5ltr round about
so in gal
P = 198.45 ppm @ 3.5ml per gal
K = 342.3ppm @ 3.5ml per gal
Cannazym contains P2O5 @ 1.7% & K2O @ 0.8% and traces of sulphur
% P in 1.7% P2O5 = (1.7%P2O5)*(0.4364 g P/g P2O5) = 0.74% P in 1.7% P2O5
% K in 0.8% K2O = (0.8% K2O*( 0.6389 g P/g K2O) = 0.51% K in 0.8% K2O
1% = 10,000 ppm
Lets calculate the total PPM of cannazym
ppm P in 1.7% P2O5 = (0.74%) * (10000 ppm/1 %) = 7400 ppm
ppm K in 0.8% K2O = (0.51%) * (10000 ppm/1 %) = 5100 ppm
Soo ... ppm of canna cannazym @ 1ml per litre would be
P = 7400ppm / 1000 = 7.4 ppm @ 1ml per litre
K = 5100ppm / 1000 = 5.1 ppm @ 1ml per litre
1 gal = 3.5ltr round about
so in gal
P = 25.9 ppm @ 3.5ml per gal
K = 17.85 ppm @ 3.5ml per gal
So total elemental P/K at maximum dilution rate for PK 13/14.
1.5ml - 1ltr =
P = (56.7 ppm * 1.5) = 85.05 ppm per litre of water
K = ( 97.8 ppm * 1.5) = 146.7 ppm per litre of water
Gallon
85.05ppm p/l * 3.78 = 321.49ppm per gallon
146.7ppm p/l * 3.78 = 554.53ppm per gallon
And the total amount of elemental P/K at maximum dilution rate of cannazym.
2.5ml - 1ltr =
P = (7.4ppm*2.5) = 18.5ppm per litre of water
K = (5.1ppm*2.5) = 12.75ppm per litre of water
gallon
18.5ppm * 3.78 = 69.93ppm per gallon
12.75ppm * 3.78 = 48.19ppm per gallon
Massive difference between my calculations and yours. I think my math is correct ?
Again if you look at my figures it would explain why P/K makes a noticeable difference and cannazym doesn't.
Attachments
Last edited:
Your numbers are not correct and you make many leaps and conversions. We also have different bottles of PK 13/14.
Here's how it breaks down:
A liter of solution is 1000ml and contains 10% of an element.
Let's just assume, for the sake of discussion, that 1ml=1g
1ml of that 10% solution contains about 0.1g or 100mg of P2O5.
If 1ml of that solution is added to 999ml of water the element would be at a concentration of 100mg/L.
PPM=mg/L
Since P2O5 is only 43.7% Phosphorus then the actual ppm of that element when in use at 1ml per Liter is 43.7ppm.
It's really not too difficult. Convert % to mg per ml, multiply by ml used, and divide by the number of liters.
The Stoichiometry is:
_10 |1000mg| 1ml | 43.7
100 | 1 ml | 1L | 100 = 43.7 mg/L
For 1ml per gallon:
((10/100)*(1000mg/1ml)*1ml/3.78L)*(43.7/100)= 11.56 mg/L
We can get a little fancy here with our orders of operation.
10*10/3.78*ml used*0.437
Doing the 10/3.78 first is where my constant comes from: 2.645
And that's how I got to... %*2.645*ml used*conversion= approximate ppms for gallons
Here's how it breaks down:
A liter of solution is 1000ml and contains 10% of an element.
Let's just assume, for the sake of discussion, that 1ml=1g
1ml of that 10% solution contains about 0.1g or 100mg of P2O5.
If 1ml of that solution is added to 999ml of water the element would be at a concentration of 100mg/L.
PPM=mg/L
Since P2O5 is only 43.7% Phosphorus then the actual ppm of that element when in use at 1ml per Liter is 43.7ppm.
It's really not too difficult. Convert % to mg per ml, multiply by ml used, and divide by the number of liters.
The Stoichiometry is:
_10 |1000mg| 1ml | 43.7
100 | 1 ml | 1L | 100 = 43.7 mg/L
For 1ml per gallon:
((10/100)*(1000mg/1ml)*1ml/3.78L)*(43.7/100)= 11.56 mg/L
We can get a little fancy here with our orders of operation.
10*10/3.78*ml used*0.437
Doing the 10/3.78 first is where my constant comes from: 2.645
And that's how I got to... %*2.645*ml used*conversion= approximate ppms for gallons
Attachments
I think that the US canna is not the same as Europe ?
(2 * (30.97 g/mole))/(141.94 g/mol) = 0.4364 (g P/g P2O5) is 43.64% P ?
Also if you have a look at your original post You state the following for cannazym ...
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
That wouldn't match the 0-2-1 ratio ? but using my calculations.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
matches the 0-2-1 ratio. And we are not far off each others figures to tell you the truth.
I can also demonstrate my figures are sound this way
We agree that [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]2 * (30.97 g/mole))/(141.94 g/mol) = 0.4364 (g P/g P2O5) is 43.64% P yes ? So P2O5 has 43.7% elemental P
So that adds up
P @ 13% * (43.7 * 100) = 56810ppm
same as or pretty close to
[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]ppm P in 13% P2O5 = (5.67%) * (10000 ppm/1 %) = 56,700 ppm [/FONT]
http://www.ehow.com/how_8383132_calculate-npk-ppm-ratios.html
Also we can check this equation with a online calculator.
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]% P in 13% P2O5 = (13% P2O5)*(0.4364 g P/g P2O5) = 5.67% P in 13% P2O5
http://www.manicbotanix.com/calculators/ppm-in-solution-calc.php
Online conversion calculator on the right.
[/FONT]
Adds up too ? All my equations add up to the correct figures. The rest is just the conversion to the dilution rates. I've made a mistake calculating the K though I'll fix it later this evening.
Last edited:
Cannazym 0-2-1 @ the recommended use of 9.5ml/gallon
"P" (43.7% Phosphorus)
2/100*1000mg/1ml*9.5ml/3.78L*43.7/100 = 21.97mg/L
"K" (83% Potassium)
1/100*1000mg/1ml*9.5ml/3.78L*83/100 = 20.86mg/L
I was a little off because I had my percentages a little jumbled (44% versus 43% and 83% versus 84%). Please understand the level of accuracy you are reaching for is not possible. You cannot use the minimum guaranteed analysis from a label and make the claim that, without a doubt, it has exactly XX.XXXppm of an element. Inevitably, there will always be more in the solution than we calculate which is why I round up.
I'm not sure why you're going through all this trouble to calculate weights from mols. All that work is done and I think that's where you're having problems.
Here's a much more reliable link on how to calculate fertilizer levels.
With regards to using more of one bottle vs another of any 2 part nutrient, the answer I'd give is just make your own feeds up to whatever numbers you feel are best. If the way the two halves are split doesn't make it easy, buy something that does. Basic tomato food is great and just as concentrated as canna.
There is no scientific proof that any set formula is the "one" for cannabis and it's all about trialing and finding out what works best in your own opinion. It's extremely easy to adjust or add to a feed, and it's not true that canna A needs to be combined with B in equal amounts for them to work in synergy because they're basic plant foods made from basic raw minerals and anyone who tells you anything else is reciting what the sales reps want you to believe.
There is no different, secret form of potassium or phosphate known to man other than that which all plant food companies already use and there are no secret energies floating around in these overpriced bottles of watered down shit you pay through your nose for. Like your girl telling you she needs the same brand shampoo and conditioner because they work together in synergy based on pro vitamin complexes... it's marketing bullshit plain and simple.
Plants like cannabis take in nutrients within a broad range and as long as you're within a set range as far as the salt content of the water is concerned, the plant will do the rest.
To take a basic one part feed of 5/5/5 for example, and add some potassium phosphate to bump up the PK levels and reduce nitrogen, is a basic adjustment which doesn't even require meticulous planning or rigorous calculating, like adding bonemeal to a garden, it's about adjusting to a rough figure, but having a clear idea of what elements are in there in the greater amounts.
And with regards to cannazym, there are many enzyme products on the market which are much more concentrated than the watered down zym garbage you get from canna etc, and to adjust your phosphorus or potassium levels during flower, even with food grade minerals is extremely cheap.
Anyone who uses cannazym, honestly, is running a bottle of water with token gestures in the form of bits and bobs of this and that, which can all be sourced very easily elsewhere. Enzyme products that are tens of times more concentrated than cannacrap are available everywhere, and food grade potassium and phosphorus is also very cheap. On a dialed grow, you should never notice a gain from using cannazym. It's a waste-of-money product for people who are sold gimmicks.
I've used almost every nutrient out there, and right now, I'm using chempak high nitrogen feed for veg, and some tomato food for flower.
And do my buds look any less pretty than they did on the expensive shit?
If they did, I'd pay the extra. Believe me.
My advice to the OP, make your numbers up using whatever you want mate. It's a myth promoted by nutrient companies to people who don't understand basic plant nutrition, that branded bottles need to be used in conjunction with one another.
The "cloud" is a result of the raise in alkalinity from adding the silicon and will appear even in plain tap water.
It's a basic hydro practice to put your silicon into your water then ph to a more neutral range, before adding your nutes.
Next time you add silicon, bring your ph down to around 5 beforehand, then add your silicon. You won't see the cloud because the ph should never go above 7.5. Very basic stuff which I'd have thought the canna rep would have been well aware of.
Don't listen to half of what they tell you. This is the same company who suggest adding PK once, at one point in flower... and never again. Which seems counter intuitive to say the least. Their dutch counterparts Hesi suggest running it from the onset of flower and increasing it throughout bloom.
If the "science" was really that strong, two major companies wouldn't be so wildly polarised on a fundamental aspect of feeding. Or on whether K is really required in twice the amount of P.
What we know is to reduce nitrogen and increase P&K by ratio in flowering. By how much and how you do it is up to you.
There is no scientific proof that any set formula is the "one" for cannabis and it's all about trialing and finding out what works best in your own opinion. It's extremely easy to adjust or add to a feed, and it's not true that canna A needs to be combined with B in equal amounts for them to work in synergy because they're basic plant foods made from basic raw minerals and anyone who tells you anything else is reciting what the sales reps want you to believe.
There is no different, secret form of potassium or phosphate known to man other than that which all plant food companies already use and there are no secret energies floating around in these overpriced bottles of watered down shit you pay through your nose for. Like your girl telling you she needs the same brand shampoo and conditioner because they work together in synergy based on pro vitamin complexes... it's marketing bullshit plain and simple.
Plants like cannabis take in nutrients within a broad range and as long as you're within a set range as far as the salt content of the water is concerned, the plant will do the rest.
To take a basic one part feed of 5/5/5 for example, and add some potassium phosphate to bump up the PK levels and reduce nitrogen, is a basic adjustment which doesn't even require meticulous planning or rigorous calculating, like adding bonemeal to a garden, it's about adjusting to a rough figure, but having a clear idea of what elements are in there in the greater amounts.
And with regards to cannazym, there are many enzyme products on the market which are much more concentrated than the watered down zym garbage you get from canna etc, and to adjust your phosphorus or potassium levels during flower, even with food grade minerals is extremely cheap.
Anyone who uses cannazym, honestly, is running a bottle of water with token gestures in the form of bits and bobs of this and that, which can all be sourced very easily elsewhere. Enzyme products that are tens of times more concentrated than cannacrap are available everywhere, and food grade potassium and phosphorus is also very cheap. On a dialed grow, you should never notice a gain from using cannazym. It's a waste-of-money product for people who are sold gimmicks.
I've used almost every nutrient out there, and right now, I'm using chempak high nitrogen feed for veg, and some tomato food for flower.
And do my buds look any less pretty than they did on the expensive shit?
If they did, I'd pay the extra. Believe me.
My advice to the OP, make your numbers up using whatever you want mate. It's a myth promoted by nutrient companies to people who don't understand basic plant nutrition, that branded bottles need to be used in conjunction with one another.
The "cloud" is a result of the raise in alkalinity from adding the silicon and will appear even in plain tap water.
It's a basic hydro practice to put your silicon into your water then ph to a more neutral range, before adding your nutes.
Next time you add silicon, bring your ph down to around 5 beforehand, then add your silicon. You won't see the cloud because the ph should never go above 7.5. Very basic stuff which I'd have thought the canna rep would have been well aware of.
Don't listen to half of what they tell you. This is the same company who suggest adding PK once, at one point in flower... and never again. Which seems counter intuitive to say the least. Their dutch counterparts Hesi suggest running it from the onset of flower and increasing it throughout bloom.
If the "science" was really that strong, two major companies wouldn't be so wildly polarised on a fundamental aspect of feeding. Or on whether K is really required in twice the amount of P.
What we know is to reduce nitrogen and increase P&K by ratio in flowering. By how much and how you do it is up to you.
Last edited:
bobthegrower
Member
Finally....(And can I get a perm with that?)
Girl's are still happy. And that is all that matters.
Never look at what's up top, it's what's inside the rootball that counts.
Girl's are still happy. And that is all that matters.
Never look at what's up top, it's what's inside the rootball that counts.
Forget the moles I still make it ...
P = (minimum guaranteed analysis*(percentage of element*100))/1000*recommended dose
Cannazym
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]P @ (1.7%*(43.7*100))/1000*9.5 =[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT] 71ppm per gallon
K @ (0.8%*(83*100))/1000*9.5 = 63ppm per gallon
vs
PK 13/14
P @ (13%*(43.7*100))/1000*4.5 = 256ppm per gallon
K @ (14%*(83*100))/1000*4.5 = 523ppm per gallon
And I stand by my statement that this is why you don't see much of an increase in the TDS when adding Cannazym, why they do not promote the fact that Cannazym has these elements and they change the ratios completely & why you do not notice much difference when using cannazym. But we will agree to disagree
Sorry [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]bobthegrower[/FONT] for the hijack. You crack on m8 I stick to my original statement.Snow Crash said:
Canna coco NPK @ normal feeding per litre Coco A+B = 3ml per litre / Cannazym = 2.5ml per litre / PK 13/14 = 1.5ml per litre
N = 150ppm
P = 51ppm
K = 75ppm
+ cannazym
N = 150ppm
P = 70ppm
K = 92ppm
+ PK 13/14 - cannazym
N = 150ppm N = 150ppm
P = 136ppm P = 117ppm
K = 249ppm K = 232ppm
It's more like 16% increase in P and 7% increase in K ? Although I will agree with you and say these are not figures to be ignored but no where near the change as you suggest !! And does not throw the cation balance out no where near enough to even notice a difference in your growth. And to be fair I would say these are more reasonable figures due to the fact Canna also sells this product as safe to use with other brands of nutrients. At these levels the increase won't bother the plant at all and other nutrient brands. And I'm quite sure there's not enough to alter the cation exchange between the plants and water. As for the cation exchange with coco P @ K will not affect this as the ion exchange is with Mg/Ca in the water <> K in coco.
Have you ever seen, completed & heard of a controlled experiment to see how much difference Cannazym had on a plant's physiology ? I have all the equipment to test this including a brix meter and I've just started off some peppers to compare a few things like canna coco vs gold label media & Halo harpin spray. I might just pull two to one side to see what the difference is ? Or even a grow off against Hygrozyme ?
Also you still haven't answered my question on how RO water causes carbonates to form ? Are you suggesting that canna in pure H20 reacts with the air to create these ? Or are they formed by something else ?
Last edited:
great tip did this this morning and it was spot on. lowered ph to below five. put in silica followed by micro then bloom and finally calmag and it never clouded. thanks.
Dude, Seriously?
I mean, no one could really think that an increase of 17ppm to 92ppm is a 7% increase. Not with a relatively basic education. I mean, just an estimate, I can say that adding 17 to less than 100 is more than 17%. That's just how percentages work...
92-75=17
17/75= 0.22667
That's about 23%, hombre.
Even with your own numbers you are confused making the simplest of calculations. You'll come around eventually, but you need to drop the way you are trying to calculate this and to start earning some credibility here.
Do I spend my free time, and limited grow space, on "experiments?"
No.
I've seen some side by sides. I don't currently use Cannazym and have had better experiences using Botanicare's Hydroplex at 1/5th the strength for the same price.
...existing CO2 in the water, being a gas, passes through the RO membrane but the alkaline constituents, primarily HCO3 (bicarbonate), are removed as part of the reject water. In the feed water (tap water) the HCO3 neutralizes the acid-causing CO2. In the product water (RO filtered), with HCO3 greatly reduced, the CO2 is free to combine with the H2O to form carbonic acid: CO2 + H2O > H2CO.
Source: Hydrologic Systems
Once you have Carbonic Acid making the jump to Calcium Bicarbonate is not a long reach. There will be many reactive ions available for precipitation from the nutrient program which will lockout elements; preventing them from being as available to the roots.
This isn't to say all of the elements are locked out. Or RO water is bad, or poisonous to plants. Far from it, the system is not ruined, but it's also not being run as intended. I believe people should be aware that, of the two compounds to be concerned about here -Chlorides and Carbonates - the Carbonates can actually dick with your nutrient program. Chlorine itself is an essential element for plant growth and while not totally compatible with organics it certainly isn't the only thing worth knowing about when it comes to filtering the water.
Your using the wrong figures I was quoting the jump including the P/K
And to be fair your one to start spouting off about figures I've seen several different figures from your posts. Not to mention you started this discussion stating that Canna coco cannot be used in different ratios due to voodoo magic that happens when mixed at the correct ratios then quote some bullshit about adding silicon to alkaline water to form precipitate clouds and how carbonic acid is formed in RO to then lock out ya calcium . Snow Crash said:
Sounds convincing !!
Snow Crash said:
Hmmmm .... I think you over thought that one didn't you
Removing the bicarbs may lead to swings in the PH due to plant activity but to form enough carbonic acid to react with the Ca ? I would love to see some proof of this ? Do you know of any research papers or information I can read about the dangers of using RO by forming carbonates that react with calcium ? Lets look at wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_osmosis
Snow Crash said:
Some may be but not me I don't feel the need to earn people respect or please people. Quoting bob marley.
I'm finished with this discussion. We all growing good pot and that's what matters. Not how much credibility you have behind your computer screen
Thank god.
I'm going to certainly ignore your trolling ass in the future.
Really and this is information related to the original OP's or misinformed information because ?
By publicly announcing this says a lot about your personality. Your just like the guy that's going to jump off the bridge for attention. If your going to ignore my trolling ass then as the nike ad says JUST DO IT !!
To be trolling you would mean I would have originally replied to your posts. I haven't not one every time I come across you it's you trying to call me out on what I have said. Who's the troll ?
And most people who have replied have actually disagreed with what you have to say. The OP has also said on a number of occasions that he doesn't agree with you and his plants are fine & to be fair no ones really interested in what you & probably me have to say at this point except you. Read some of the replies other than mine.
Again YOUR advice was wrong originally and your reasons were bollox. Anyone else reading this will also see it and have a chuckle at the elemental voodoo magic that happens with canna coco a & b. And thats enough to put a smile on my face.
D
dutty
i got an email from canna 2 days ago. Ive sent them my system specs (basicly dtw scrog 600w canna coco a+b) and water composition based on a pdf form my water suplier. (these and my problems can be red here https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=286714)
I got an answer i dont rly understand, but maybe it helps you with your problem and brings me some more enlightment.
I wrote in german, and got an answer in broken german which i try to translate for you:
"All you do is good but you grow coco with a run to waste system with 20-30%
That means you drain out potassium from the coco what can be direclty messured in the drain.
If you do this coco a/b isnt the right thing, you should use canna cogr fertilizer.
You will see that you will have to use less pk13/14 then.
That the EC in the drain, in comparison to the nutrient solution, is higher is true too because this is the potassium you flush out of the coco.
The shedule for coco a+b is made for no drain what means that potassium can be absorbed by the plants.
Altough there is a combination possible to use coco with run to waste systems, the chance is high that you grow to wet.
Coco can hold water very good, thats why we use coco without drain.
For your method our recommendation is:
1. Use Cogr Vega and Flores fertilizer
2. Dont use your drain to messure your actual ec value (you should take water out of the substrate directly)
3. Use water to weight (?) f.e. for a 12l pot with 3kg not more than 0,5l per pot
4. The right EC value for the nutrient solution should be near 1,8 mean value, but in the pot can be 2,5-3 what shouldnt be a problem.
Iron is always given in chelats. Ironsulfat remains rust in the water.
Lo/Ro mix 50/50 with an EC 0,3-0,4 is good
Please never use 100%RO water, leads to other problems.
Hope you can solve your problems now.
Good luck"
couldnt read the whole thread, its late, but i wanted to share this with you.
Good night
I got an answer i dont rly understand, but maybe it helps you with your problem and brings me some more enlightment.
I wrote in german, and got an answer in broken german which i try to translate for you:
"All you do is good but you grow coco with a run to waste system with 20-30%
That means you drain out potassium from the coco what can be direclty messured in the drain.
If you do this coco a/b isnt the right thing, you should use canna cogr fertilizer.
You will see that you will have to use less pk13/14 then.
That the EC in the drain, in comparison to the nutrient solution, is higher is true too because this is the potassium you flush out of the coco.
The shedule for coco a+b is made for no drain what means that potassium can be absorbed by the plants.
Altough there is a combination possible to use coco with run to waste systems, the chance is high that you grow to wet.
Coco can hold water very good, thats why we use coco without drain.
For your method our recommendation is:
1. Use Cogr Vega and Flores fertilizer
2. Dont use your drain to messure your actual ec value (you should take water out of the substrate directly)
3. Use water to weight (?) f.e. for a 12l pot with 3kg not more than 0,5l per pot
4. The right EC value for the nutrient solution should be near 1,8 mean value, but in the pot can be 2,5-3 what shouldnt be a problem.
Iron is always given in chelats. Ironsulfat remains rust in the water.
Lo/Ro mix 50/50 with an EC 0,3-0,4 is good
Please never use 100%RO water, leads to other problems.
Hope you can solve your problems now.
Good luck"
couldnt read the whole thread, its late, but i wanted to share this with you.
Good night
