Slownickel lounge, pull up a chair. CEC interpretation - Page 414 - Cannabis Botany and Advanced Growing Science - International Cannagraphic Magazine Forums

growingcrazy · 03-12-2018, 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EasyGoing

This is something this thread needs to explore. I always error on the side of Slown Being right, however I have now tried a handful of tests without getting high S readings, yet it has proved to be impossible. I believe the answer might be, we actually have that high of S levels in the soil.

My last test, I didn't add gypsum for 1 month before harvest, and watered heavy from there out. This was my dep beds, and it was HOT. So lots of water since that last gypsum feed. Then before I took new soil samples, I tilled the bed heavy, and irrigated heavy. I still ended up with redonk S levels.

The S is real. I take samples being very systematic. No way I am pulling a handful of gypsum from each core sample. Not happenin...

Quote:

Originally Posted by EasyGoing

That company really has some useless employees huh? Lazy, entitled pieces of crap. I love the meter, but wow they were pieces of work.

Sad isn't it? They must have the market cornered somewhere.

led05 · 03-12-2018, 11:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EasyGoing

This is something this thread needs to explore. I always error on the side of Slown Being right, however I have now tried a handful of tests without getting high S readings, yet it has proved to be impossible. I believe the answer might be, we actually have that high of S levels in the soil.

My last test, I didn't add gypsum for 1 month before harvest, and watered heavy from there out. This was my dep beds, and it was HOT. So lots of water since that last gypsum feed. Then before I took new soil samples, I tilled the bed heavy, and irrigated heavy. I still ended up with redonk S levels.

Gypsum has only one real danger and it seems everyone is starting to find it out... It's very, very hard to get too much Ca, S.... not so much ... S is used as the Acid balance in a lot of things, it adds up

Balance Beam

growingcrazy · 03-13-2018, 04:02 AM

On paper, I would have thought big problems with 9000ppm of S. Same with 11 ppm of B.

In practice, working rather well.

slownickel · 03-13-2018, 07:11 AM

Herman,

Here are your base distributions. You have plenty of K, even if that Ca number is real or not...
K% Mg% Ca % Na %
7.4% 5.7% 85.9% 1.1%

led05 · 03-13-2018, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by growingcrazy

On paper, I would have thought big problems with 9000ppm of S. Same with 11 ppm of B.

In practice, working rather well.

B can go pretty high but a very fine line when crossed, S biggest issue in my experience is pushing out / blocking others and acidity - proper balanced S helps greatly in your N cycling... Perhaps you had so much S it affected your N numbers ...?

I'm not saying by any means you had a problem grow. I just know from experience too much S effects N, specifically NO3, it also effects Mo, P, Cl and micro life... If you had a shit ton of S (which I'm sure many do based on Gypsum usage rates I see, air pollution too but not an issue where you are), it's going to block N some, perhaps causing you to throw more on than needed creating an excess of other forms of N, mainly NH4...?

IME

growingcrazy · 03-13-2018, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slownickel

Herman,

Here are your base distributions. You have plenty of K, even if that Ca number is real or not...
K% Mg% Ca % Na %
7.4% 5.7% 85.9% 1.1%

Can you explain the math on this?

I can't get those numbers unless I nearly half his Mg and double his K.

If those are real, my math has been way off. I would like to learn the reasoning...

reppin2c · 03-13-2018, 04:59 PM

Led-Thou shalt not speak ill of gypsum

paradoxlost · 03-13-2018, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by growingcrazy

Can you explain the math on this?

I can't get those numbers unless I nearly half his Mg and double his K.

If those are real, my math has been way off. I would like to learn the reasoning...

Yea, I think slow mistyped the Mg and K numbers when he made that reply. But also I am getting only .9% for Na, but I always bring numbers out to 3 decimal places.

I got the same Ca % though, so I'm pretty sure I recalculated the CEC correctly.

growingcrazy · 03-13-2018, 05:11 PM

He likes to use straight up PPM to calculate when he has a problem.

Otherwise it is by MEQ like every time we do this.

EasyGoing · 03-14-2018, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by growingcrazy

The S is real. I take samples being very systematic. No way I am pulling a handful of gypsum from each core sample. Not happenin...

I tend to stick with what SlowN says, until absolute proof. However I am very systematic as well. Lost on this one.

Anybody know how long S take to cycle?

03-13-2018, 04:02 AM	#4133
growingcrazy Member Join Date: May 2014 Location: Michigans sunset coast Posts: 771	On paper, I would have thought big problems with 9000ppm of S. Same with 11 ppm of B. In practice, working rather well.
	5 members found this post helpful.

03-13-2018, 07:11 AM	#4134
slownickel IC Mag Supporter Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 2,149	Herman, Here are your base distributions. You have plenty of K, even if that Ca number is real or not... K% Mg% Ca % Na % 7.4% 5.7% 85.9% 1.1% __________________ OH IF A MAN TRIED TO TAKE HIS TIME ON EARTH AND PROVE WHAT A MAN IS WORTH I WONDER WHAT WOULD HAPPEN TO THIS WORLD -Harry Forster Chapins' Tombstone
	4 members found this post helpful.

03-13-2018, 04:59 PM	#4137
reppin2c Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: deep in Notellem CO Posts: 421	Led-Thou shalt not speak ill of gypsum
	5 members found this post helpful.

03-13-2018, 05:11 PM	#4139
growingcrazy Member Join Date: May 2014 Location: Michigans sunset coast Posts: 771	He likes to use straight up PPM to calculate when he has a problem. Otherwise it is by MEQ like every time we do this.