What's new
  • Please note members who been with us for more than 10 years have been upgraded to "Veteran" status and will receive exclusive benefits. If you wish to find out more about this or support IcMag and get same benefits, check this thread here.
  • Important notice: ICMag's T.O.U. has been updated. Please review it here. For your convenience, it is also available in the main forum menu, under 'Quick Links"!

calcium in tissue analysis

reghatesschwag

New member
I see alot of talk about getting Ca to 85% base saturation to maximise uptake. How high do I want the Ca to get in plant tissue analysis though?


I see some people talk about 8-10%? Is this the number I am shooting for in all crops? herb, peppers, tomatoes etc. If not than what is?



Reg
 

Charles Dankens

Well-known member
I see alot of talk about getting Ca to 85% base saturation to maximise uptake. How high do I want the Ca to get in plant tissue analysis though?


I see some people talk about 8-10%? Is this the number I am shooting for in all crops? herb, peppers, tomatoes etc. If not than what is?



Reg

https://www.growingproduce.com/fruits/foliar-calcium-in-blueberries-silver-bullet-or-snake-oil/

This reference is to blueberries but plant tissue analysis in cannabis can be misleading.

Growers often apply foliar calcium even when soil and tissue analyses indicate levels are sufficient. This is because sufficiency in soil and leaf tissues does not necessarily indicate that fruit calcium levels are sufficient for a given blueberry cultivar and/or production setting.
 

slownickel

Active member
ICMag Donor
Veteran
We normally see 6 to 10% in the leaves when running 85% Ca+

Has a lot to do with the rest of the feeds, dry downs and getting enough micros in and at the right proportion.

Glad to hear you are "hearing alot about 85% Ca"!!
 

bsgospel

Bat Macumba
Was it Spectrum who will run cannabis analysis if labeled basil or something?

I'm having a hell of a time cloning and I am speculating it goes back to discussions about having enough calcium to ride out any efforts to senesce before rooting or seeing a surge in Ca before cambium begins to create new xylem/phloem/root mass.
 

slownickel

Active member
ICMag Donor
Veteran
Was it Spectrum who will run cannabis analysis if labeled basil or something?

I'm having a hell of a time cloning and I am speculating it goes back to discussions about having enough calcium to ride out any efforts to senesce before rooting or seeing a surge in Ca before cambium begins to create new xylem/phloem/root mass.

Logan. Dry til crispy yet green. Grind the sample in your hands,take out the majority of the vein and send them half a baggy. Call in comfrey. haha

Spectrum is where we do the soil and media analysis.
 

BongFu

Member
We normally see 6 to 10% in the leaves when running 85% Ca+

Has a lot to do with the rest of the feeds, dry downs and getting enough micros in and at the right proportion.

Glad to hear you are "hearing alot about 85% Ca"!!

Interesting. Have you got any cannabis tissue analysis results to demonstrate this inline to other nutrients also?
 

reghatesschwag

New member
We normally see 6 to 10% in the leaves when running 85% Ca+

Has a lot to do with the rest of the feeds, dry downs and getting enough micros in and at the right proportion.

Glad to hear you are "hearing alot about 85% Ca"!!


thank you for replying slownickel. what number do you like to see phosphorus at in the leaves?


it has been my experience with various vegetables that getting P into the .6 - .8 % range can induce a iron deficiency - this is with 2-3% calcium levels. does getting calcium higher like you suggest help to tie up some of the P so it doesn't then tie up the iron?


Reg
 

BongFu

Member
thank you for replying slownickel. what number do you like to see phosphorus at in the leaves?


it has been my experience with various vegetables that getting P into the .6 - .8 % range can induce a iron deficiency - this is with 2-3% calcium levels. does getting calcium higher like you suggest help to tie up some of the P so it doesn't then tie up the iron?


Reg


Why would you want to "tie up" P with excess Ca when simply by reducing P and running other nutrients within optimal ranges and ratios you don't encounter locking up Fe. Sufficiency range for P is 0.31 - 0.44%. By the way, re nutrients, more does not equate to more yield. Nutrients are not plant food - plants produce their own food via light energy and photosynthesis (sugars and carbohydrates). It's not as if by force feeding (overfeeding) a plant nutrients you make it fatter. 6 to 10% Ca in the leaf tissue is ridiculous although as an immobile nutrient you do see it buildup quite high in many cases towards the end of flower. This though has no bearing on yield - in fact it only serves to lock out predominantly K. As a tip go read up some information on tissue analysis and crop nutrition on university sites and perhaps avoid taking onboard info from someone on a forum who clearly has limited understanding of the subject.
 
Last edited:

BongFu

Member

Where are the tissue samples being taken from and at which weeks? Certainly I've seen Ca this high in older tissue. And what is the point that you see in loading Ca so high in the tissue? Also what ppm of each nutrient are you running to achieve these results? There is very little point posting tissue results without talking fertilization practices that led to these results. I'll attach a side by side water/nutrient analysis with tissue showing upper end or even excess of micros at 0.715% P. So in fact I am a little surprised that the poster has put low Fe down to P and I expect something else may be the problem. But I am extremely perplexed by why you consider insane amounts of Ca optimal when experts have defined sufficiency ranges while you seem to consider these ranges incorrect re Ca.
 

Attachments

  • PK-water-tissue-analysis-side-side.jpg
    PK-water-tissue-analysis-side-side.jpg
    43.5 KB · Views: 88
Last edited:

reghatesschwag

New member
i was trying to help someone increase P in their produce due to them needing more p in their diet. the high p appeared to be inducing fe deficiencies (top leaves going from all yellow to all white).


are those symptoms indicative of another deficiency?



i was curious if calcium came across the p first (producing calcium phosphate which would still be bioavailable to the eater) would that prevent the fe from tying up with the phosphate.


pretty sure the fe ppm was over 100 so it had nothing to do with low iron just an induced deficiency from high p


Reg
 

slownickel

Active member
ICMag Donor
Veteran
i was trying to help someone increase P in their produce due to them needing more p in their diet. the high p appeared to be inducing fe deficiencies (top leaves going from all yellow to all white).


are those symptoms indicative of another deficiency?



i was curious if calcium came across the p first (producing calcium phosphate which would still be bioavailable to the eater) would that prevent the fe from tying up with the phosphate.


pretty sure the fe ppm was over 100 so it had nothing to do with low iron just an induced deficiency from high p


Reg

Boron will cause the same issue. Fe deficiency is very clear. green veins and interveinal chlorosis.

Realize that you need to be applying all the micros, down to Co, Ni, Mo, Cu, B, Mn etc. Most woowoo juice ratios are stupid off.
 

slownickel

Active member
ICMag Donor
Veteran
Where are the tissue samples being taken from and at which weeks? Certainly I've seen Ca this high in older tissue. And what is the point that you see in loading Ca so high in the tissue? Also what ppm of each nutrient are you running to achieve these results? There is very little point posting tissue results without talking fertilization practices that led to these results. I'll attach a side by side water/nutrient analysis with tissue showing upper end or even excess of micros at 0.715% P. So in fact I am a little surprised that the poster has put low Fe down to P and I expect something else may be the problem. But I am extremely perplexed by why you consider insane amounts of Ca optimal when experts have defined sufficiency ranges while you seem to consider these ranges incorrect re Ca.

Oh!

Which experts are your referring to? This should be good.
 

slownickel

Active member
ICMag Donor
Veteran
Why would you want to "tie up" P with excess Ca when simply by reducing P and running other nutrients within optimal ranges and ratios you don't encounter locking up Fe. Sufficiency range for P is 0.31 - 0.44%. By the way, re nutrients, more does not equate to more yield. Nutrients are not plant food - plants produce their own food via light energy and photosynthesis (sugars and carbohydrates). It's not as if by force feeding (overfeeding) a plant nutrients you make it fatter. 6 to 10% Ca in the leaf tissue is ridiculous although as an immobile nutrient you do see it buildup quite high in many cases towards the end of flower. This though has no bearing on yield - in fact it only serves to lock out predominantly K. As a tip go read up some information on tissue analysis and crop nutrition on university sites and perhaps avoid taking onboard info from someone on a forum who clearly has limited understanding of the subject.

I see a battle coming. Love it.
 

reghatesschwag

New member
Boron will cause the same issue. Fe deficiency is very clear. green veins and interveinal chlorosis.

Realize that you need to be applying all the micros, down to Co, Ni, Mo, Cu, B, Mn etc. Most woowoo juice ratios are stupid off.


interesting, thanks. maybe i misread the entire situation. is there a level of phosphorus that you consider to be too high? i saw you had levels over 1% in those above samples. is that possible in vegetables too?


Reg
 
Top