What's new
  • Happy Birthday ICMag! Been 20 years since Gypsy Nirvana created the forum! We are celebrating with a 4/20 Giveaway and by launching a new Patreon tier called "420club". You can read more 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

R

reghatesschwag

New member
the science the science the experts the experts


do you know how many times ive seen the experts be completely wrong about things in my lifetime. that doesnt make them bad people. alot of times they were just trusting the experts before them.


my cousin art farmed in the dakotas in the 70s. high clay soils. lots of potassium. the fellas at the universities told everyone that potassium was in excess and certainly not needed. yet him and his friends all had yield increases when they added it. turns out base percentage wise the potassium was pretty low. the universities didnt believe in base saturation back then. alot still dont. neil kinsey wrote about it in his book.



now i dont know if getting my soil to 85% calcium saturation will increase my tissue calcium but i dont know it wont either. i plan to find out. i listen to slownickel because steve solomon respects him and i loved all of solomons books. plus it makes sense that increasing the base calcium will increase the tissue calcium.



one more story about experts and i will stop rambling. i hate cucumbers but my niece loves them so i learned how to grow them. tried this new variety that the local extension expert said yielded poorly but tasted great. i got triple the yield he said was possible and had .8 % phosphorus in the tissues all season long. experts said that was too high too. she loved them though. they stopped selling that variety due to poor demand. cant even remember what it was called. maybe it was a fluke? maybe the cucumbers didnt care what the experts thought.



i was watching this crime show the other day and some fire expert testified this guy started a fire. turns out the expert was using outdated research. neither he nor the prosecutor cared. guy got convicted but finally got out of jail on appeal. the expert still testifies to this day with the outdated research.


im not saying that all experts are wrong and to ignore them. some of them do brilliant work. but me personally i like to find out for myself.
 
B

BongFu

Member
reghatesschwag said:
the science the science the experts the experts


do you know how many times ive seen the experts be completely wrong about things in my lifetime. that doesnt make them bad people. alot of times they were just trusting the experts before them.


my cousin art farmed in the dakotas in the 70s. high clay soils. lots of potassium. the fellas at the universities told everyone that potassium was in excess and certainly not needed. yet him and his friends all had yield increases when they added it. turns out base percentage wise the potassium was pretty low. the universities didnt believe in base saturation back then. alot still dont. neil kinsey wrote about it in his book.



now i dont know if getting my soil to 85% calcium saturation will increase my tissue calcium but i dont know it wont either. i plan to find out. i listen to slownickel because steve solomon respects him and i loved all of solomons books. plus it makes sense that increasing the base calcium will increase the tissue calcium.



one more story about experts and i will stop rambling. i hate cucumbers but my niece loves them so i learned how to grow them. tried this new variety that the local extension expert said yielded poorly but tasted great. i got triple the yield he said was possible and had .8 % phosphorus in the tissues all season long. experts said that was too high too. she loved them though. they stopped selling that variety due to poor demand. cant even remember what it was called. maybe it was a fluke? maybe the cucumbers didnt care what the experts thought.



i was watching this crime show the other day and some fire expert testified this guy started a fire. turns out the expert was using outdated research. neither he nor the prosecutor cared. guy got convicted but finally got out of jail on appeal. the expert still testifies to this day with the outdated research.


im not saying that all experts are wrong and to ignore them. some of them do brilliant work. but me personally i like to find out for myself.
Click to expand...

Yeah you can't argue with that sort of logic other than to say without science we have mumbo jumbo and flat planets. But totally, sometimes trial and error is a good way to learn for yourself. The disconnect here is that you titled the thread with tissue analysis meaning chemistry and scientific analysis but then it headed towards dirt farming and organics and as time passed chemistry and science was thrown out the door.

BTW 0.8% P for cucumber isn't bad at all. The upper end of the sufficiency range is 0.7% in early flower so 0.8% is a good number as fruit are developing - no issues there whatsoever. I don't know who your expert was but ........ see Haifa sufficiency ranges for cucumber https://www.haifa-group.com/cucumber-0/crop-guide-nutrients-cucumber
 
Last edited:
B

BongFu

Member
reghatesschwag said:
BongFu said:
Yeah you can't argue with that sort of logic



nevermind


by the way when i grew those cucumbers 40 some years ago the literature said .8 was excessive. funny how things can change over time
Click to expand...

Isn't science an amazing thing? It may have taken 40 years but there you go:)

Your previous analogies/examples are interesting in that you raise a point that science can get it wrong. I agree. Take for example the various responses to Covid.

The US didn't follow the scientific advice and got smashed with among the highest transmission and fatality rates in the world.

Countries that did follow the scientific advice fared far better and those that locked down hard and locked down early, enforced mandatory mask wearing and social distancing in some cases even eradicated the disease with almost no fatalities.

This is where things get interesting. Sweden who did have an expert leading their response went another way and suffered the highest fatality rate in their region. Now they are being smashed again by a second wave and they are enforcing social distancing, mask wearing etc. So yes sometimes an expert gets it wrong but in most cases the experts get it right. If people fail to listen to the experts they do so at their own peril. But just because there is one expert who is an imbecile (and that clown in Sweden really is an imbecile because in fact he didn't follow the science) don't assume science is flawed. It is more people are flawed and in time because of the scientific meta narrative in just about all instances science gets it right.

Good chatting.
Click to expand...
 
S

slownickel

Active member
ICMag Donor
Veteran
BongFu said:
No I think it's because any fool can get on a forum and con gullible growers. End of day the knowledgeable go elsewhere leaving the clowns to overrun the circus.
Click to expand...

So, you realized what you did then? Understanding is step one. Congratulations.

The numbers you are quoting by the way were done in hydroponics conditions with a run of the mill hydroponic formula on hemp in North Carolina. Great study, good data but the interpretation dramatically wanting.

Thanks to your harping, I downloaded the data from that NC study. Some amazing stuff in there, lot of it went right by them. You should read it.

Those numbers by the way, that you and your buddy provided, if your read the title, are sufficiency recommendations. These showed how low is acceptable and then look at the toxicity point and take their best shot on it, somewhat substantiated by data on hemp somewhere else. Be clear here, neither of the data sets were addressing Cannabis with THC in it. Read the study.

If you read up on Albrecht and Tiedjens on base distributions, which it seems you didn't or don't understand the initial question, the initial question was about 85% Ca and foliar analysis. The reason is that those that those have bothered to read real science or want to understand how to read a soil analysis, to understand what drives highest yields and most importantly nutrient density/quality need to understand this most critical of concepts. As demonstrated by their data and most calculations of their data, there is a 660% Variance in THC depending on what the plant was sitting in. Your data was for hydro. Conversation is about 85% Ca. Don't go away mad. Just calm down.

Did you go read the Slownickel lounge? 800K hits I believe. Closed it down for a number of reasons (including dealing with too many wannabees).

I would add that we have learned oodles since then.

Seems like if you can't google it, your knowledge base or that of your buddy would fall apart.

I won't judge, all depends where one is standing.

FYI high foliar Ca and P, is what drove highest THC levels in this Fed study.

So influential was the soil, the guys at the University had the Feds convinced that they could tell the officials where weed comes from by analyzing the elemental content of the weed! Silly idea, but they did inadvertently give us some amazing insights if one understands how to read scientific literature and mine their data, reading between the lines if you will.

Find "Cannabinoid Profile and Elemental Uptake of Cannabis sativa L. as influenced by soil characteristics". C.B. Coffman, W.A. Gentner 1974 in google.

Report back after you look at some real science, not some terrible grad student article in hydroponics done on hemp. This study was done on real cannabis (THC)

For those that would like a copy, msg me.
 
Last edited:
B

BongFu

Member
slownickel said:
So, you realized what you did then? Understanding is step one. Congratulations.

The numbers you are quoting by the way were done in hydroponics conditions with a run of the mill hydroponic formula on hemp in North Carolina. Great study, good data but the interpretation dramatically wanting.

Thanks to your harping, I downloaded the data from that NC study. Some amazing stuff in there, lot of it went right by them. You should read it.

Those numbers by the way, that you and your buddy provided, if your read the title, are sufficiency recommendations. These showed how low is acceptable and then look at the toxicity point and take their best shot on it, somewhat substantiated by data on hemp somewhere else. Be clear here, neither of the data sets were addressing Cannabis with THC in it. Read the study.

If you read up on Albrecht and Tiedjens on base distributions, which it seems you didn't or don't understand the initial question, the initial question was about 85% Ca and foliar analysis. The reason is that those that those have bothered to read real science or want to understand how to read a soil analysis, to understand what drives highest yields and most importantly nutrient density/quality need to understand this most critical of concepts.

Did you go read the Slownickel lounge? 800K hits I believe. Closed it down for a number of reasons (including dealing with too many wannabees) and we have learned oodles since then.

Seems like if you can't google it, your knowledge base or that of your buddy would fall apart.

I won't judge.

FYI high foliar Ca and P, is what drove highest THC levels in this study.

So influential were the influence of the soil, that the guys at the University had the Feds convinced that they could tell the officials where weed comes from by analyzing the elemental analysis of the weed. Silly idea, but they did inadvertently give us some amazing insights if one understands how to read scientific literature and mine their data.

Find "Cannabinoid Profile and Elemental Uptake of Cannabis sativa L. as influenced by soil characteristics". C.B. Coffman, W.A. Gentner 1975 in google.

Report back after you look at some real science, not some terrible grad student article in hydroponics done on hemp. This study was done on real cannabis (THC)

For those that would like a copy, msg me.
Click to expand...

You went to all that energy to state the obvious. Read the article on Manic Botanix. Glow covers all of that.

And yes I've been working with tissue analysis seriously since about the early 90s. Ag crops. I've been working with hemp and high THC cannabis for about 7 years now. We've learnt a thing or two along the way such as low calcium during flower produces better swelling (higher inflorescence weight) but dilutes THC on a weight % basis. However, the current sufficiency ranges that have been stated for Ca are about ideal.


Awesome, we finally have a citation. That was like pulling teeth. Let me now disseminate the data and see what I can find. Jesus though 1975. There's been huge leaps forward since then.
The current sufficiency ranges by the way are extremely good for maximising yields and cannabinoid percentages. You should try them sometime rather than relying on a study that used dinosaur shit as manure.

Oh and your ignorance as to how they develop sufficiency ranges is showing but don't worry very few who ever read this thread will see that.
 
S

slownickel

Active member
ICMag Donor
Veteran
BongFu said:
You went to all that energy to state the obvious. Read the article on Manic Botanix. Glow covers all of that.

And yes I've been working with tissue analysis seriously since about the early 90s. Ag crops. I've been working with hemp and high THC cannabis for about 7 years now. We've learnt a thing or two along the way such as low calcium during flower produces better swelling (higher inflorescence weight) but dilutes THC on a weight % basis. However, the sufficiency ranges that have been stated for Ca are about ideal.


Awesome, we finally have a citation. That was like pulling teeth. Let me now disseminate the data and see what I can find. Jesus though 1975. There's been huge leaps forward since then.
The current sufficiency ranges by the way are extremely good for maximising yields and cannabinoid percentages. You should try them sometime rather than relying on a study that used dinosaur shit as manure.
Click to expand...

Disseminate?

Studying hemp?

Got news for you. Most of the best information is the old information.


Yep, high Ca going into flower is a boo boo. Won't stack that way.

Again, we are talking about starting points.

And those hemp sufficiency numbers are way off sunshine.

Go find that hemp study from north carolina, look where they added nutrients and then took leaf analysis when they saw something go wrong. B went wrong over 600ppm's! And there were no negative consequences according to the grad student at those "toxic" B levels.

Little clues like that one there are exactly that. Went buzzing right over their heads. Again, hydro and hemp.

Was that you kung what ever that I blocked on IG offering agronomic services? That was funny.
 
S

slownickel

Active member
ICMag Donor
Veteran
Canada lab

As can be seen, the Canadians don't agree with those "sufficiency"
HEMP numbers haha, these are their standards for "medicinal" Cannabis (THC).

Look at some of those ranges, P, Ca and Mn are all quite interesting. They aren't doing bad, but when you look at their ratios, blahhhhhh. Yuk.

They also have different ranges for different moments of growth.
 
Last edited:
B

BongFu

Member
slownickel said:
Canada lab

As can be seen, the Canadians don't agree with those "sufficiency"
HEMP numbers haha, these are their standards for "medicinal" Cannabis (THC).

Look at some of those ranges, P, Ca and Mn are all quite interesting. They aren't doing bad, but when you look at their ratios, blahhhhhh. Yuk.

They also have different ranges for different moments of growth.
Click to expand...

Actually the Canadians are developing ranges right now. They are doing research at the Uni of Guelph which hopefully isn't too far off. In fact this thread makes for an interesting time capsule when the research is released. Old research is the best hahahahahah. Fark me.

And again you fail to see tissue nutrients are dynamic. The US sufficiency ranges are developed with 12 week old vegetative hemp plants. The Canadian ranges are for early flower so you expect to see higher nutrients in the tissue with particularly some nutrients - Ca being one of these. The thing is Slow Tickle your 8.5% Ca could actually be correct in late flower for maximising THC production but you failed to cite the study you extrapolated the data from which makes it impossible for another party to look over the paradigms of the study. Now we finally have the citation ......
 
S

slownickel

Active member
ICMag Donor
Veteran
reghatesschwag said:
this study suggests up to 4% calcium in herb. an interesting read


https://www.researchgate.net/public...tion_of_Nutrient_Disorders_of_Cannabis_sativa
Click to expand...

As you can see from the sample posted for rec cannabis, up to 6% is considered "Normal". Obviously 8% is high.

There are distinct cycles the plant goes through, not really a north american concept. Came from S. Africa. Univ of Stellenbosch. They too were super focused on Calcium as most of their crops there had all kinds of physiological (no shelf life) issues from silly folk applying recipes without looking at analysis to see what they are sitting in.

Basically it means looking at root flushes and making sure you have high Ca at that moment and at the same time, not over saturating with K. Most samples I get to see are always silly high with K, Mg and Na. Especially if they use kelp meal. No space to put on more. Hard to maintain Ca high in a soil/medium contrary to what google queens and hempsters will have one think... dig dig.:bashhead::bashhead::bashhead::bashhead:
 
B

BongFu

Member
slownickel said:
As you can see from the sample posted for rec cannabis, up to 6% is considered "Normal". Obviously 8% is high.

There are distinct cycles the plant goes through, not really a north american concept. Came from S. Africa. Univ of Stellenbosch. They too were super focused on Calcium as most of their crops there had all kinds of physiological (no shelf life) issues from silly folk applying recipes without looking at analysis to see what they are sitting in.

Basically it means looking at root flushes and making sure you have high Ca at that moment and at the same time, not over saturating with K. Most samples I get to see are always silly high with K, Mg and Na. Especially if they use kelp meal. No space to put on more. Hard to maintain Ca high in a soil/medium contrary to what google queens and hempsters will have one think... dig dig.:bashhead::bashhead::bashhead::bashhead:
Click to expand...


The research citation - cannabinoid profile and elemental uptake of cannabis sativa l. as influenced by soil characteristics 1975 - is interesting in that the two highest THC levels based on tissue analysis taken at the end of the crop cycle at 45 days (6.4 weeks) were found where leaf tissue Ca is 3.4% (6.592% THC) and 8.5% (7.828% THC) while at 5.6% Ca there is 1.37% THC (the second lowest THC content relative to Ca%) so firstly Ca% alone has bugger all to do with THC% in this study and more to do with the Ca to Mg ratio. Still extrapolating the data but see attached. Actually it's a flawed piece of research for analysing optimum crop nutrition re yields and defining sufficiency ranges but I will get to that soon.*Oh but also it isn't a bad read*and does provide some good insights. Thing is though is you have about a 5% Ca difference in the two tissue analysis with the highest THC.
 

Attachments

  • Ca-THC.jpg
    Ca-THC.jpg
    67.9 KB · Views: 59
Last edited:
S

slownickel

Active member
ICMag Donor
Veteran
BongFu said:
The research citation - cannabinoid profile and elemental uptake of cannabis sativa l. as influenced by soil characteristics 1975 - is interesting in that the two highest THC levels based on tissue analysis taken at the end of the crop cycle at 45 days (6.4 weeks) were found where leaf tissue Ca is 3.4% (6.592% THC) and 8.5% (7.828% THC) while at 5.6% Ca there is 1.37% THC *the second lowest THC content relative to Ca%) so firstly Ca% alone has bugger all to do with THC% in this study and more to do with the Ca to Mg ratio. Still extrapolating the data but see attached. Actually it's a flawed piece of research for analysing optimum crop nutrition re yields and defining sufficiency ranges but I will get to that soon.*Oh but also it isn't a bad read*and does provide some good insights.
Click to expand...

Do you know what a DRIS model is? Regression analysis? Google it. Look it up for different crops. See if you can get to the bottom of it.

The number 1 by far THC came with the highest foliar Ca and by far, the highest base distribution level of Ca. Look at the statistics junior! Do you know what statistics mean? Highly probable.

Number 2 in THC, came from the highest foliar P by far. If you look at the soil, it was obviously a very light soil. Plant stayed small but had huge quantities of energy.

Not sure what you read, but it was all the same fertilizer program. Earth calling Mr. Google.
 
B

BongFu

Member
slownickel said:
Do you know what a DRIS model is? Regression analysis? Google it. Look it up for different crops. See if you can get to the bottom of it.

The number 1 by far THC came with the highest foliar Ca and by far, the highest base distribution level of Ca. Look at the statistics junior! Do you know what statistics mean? Highly probable.

Number 2 in THC, came from the highest foliar P by far. If you look at the soil, it was obviously a very light soil. Plant stayed small but had huge quantities of energy.

Not sure what you read, but it was all the same fertilizer program. Earth calling Mr. Google.
Click to expand...

Yes very familiar with the DRIS model as is any first year Ag student. The question relates to calcium in tissue analysis. You either did not understand the data you presented as proof of your more than dubious optimum Ca in cannabis tissue or you are misrepresenting the data to further your cause (i.e. arguing against current scientific knowledge). Any clown knows that not only are the nutrient levels important but so too are the ratios between ionic species. One cannot be discussed without talking about the other - albeit when you presented your proof you left out huge chunks of incredibly important data the citation that you refused to cite is now unearthing. But safe to say Slow Nickel if you were running 8.5% Ca in late veg or early flower no matter what the ratios you would be in trouble re cultivating cannabis. Fer christs sake man you have a 5% discrepancy in your argument that only now is being highlighted.
 
B

BongFu

Member
Oh and there are quite a few problems with your proof/study when discussing sufficiency ranges for cannabis but I will point form them so its all nice and easy to understand once I have fully dissected the paper and given it some thought. That said, thank you for finally citing the paper. I am impressed with it in general given the parameters of the study and the fact that the research dates way back to 1975. Its findings however have been taken out of context but that is no reflection on the authors of the study.
 
S

slownickel

Active member
ICMag Donor
Veteran
Wow.

I think you are confusing yourself.

I did the base saturations. The question is about 85% base saturation in the soil.

You are so lost it is silly.

If you read the statistics in that paper, the conclusions are the same as mine, so get real.

My objectives are 6 to 8% Ca in a leaf analysis. Often we see more, upwards of 10, 11 and even 12%

School is over junior. Good luck with your schooling.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Latest posts

Top