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"!

Hemp (Cannabis sativa L) tissue nutrient analysis data

C

Carl Carlson

This file (attached) is from the website of the International Fertilizer Industry Association.

It is a summary of data from three older studies...

Some might find this useful.

an excerpt:

mcgmee.jpg

Note the relatively low levels of P. I'm not sure what "total above ground" means. It seems obvious enough, but in the second chart, shouldn't the other three categories add up to it?
 

Attachments

  • hemp.pdf
    117.8 KB · Views: 89
ShroomDr

ShroomDr

CartoonHead
Veteran
The Ritz, 1972 109N 64P 118K is awfully close to
H3ad/Rez GH6+9 = 97N 60P 107K 41Mg 97Ca 1.9Fe.

Notice the lower P levels of the other two studies; none of the three approach 100P.


Are we all over applying P? AN is even trending towards lower P levels.
 
ShroomDr

ShroomDr

CartoonHead
Veteran
I also think these PK booster are in reality soley P boosters (the added K is somewhat negligible), and when running a P level that is constantly high, the effects of the PK booster are diminished.

For instance, if your at 100P and you add a pk boost equating to 30P, you have boosted 30%, but if you were running at 60P, this same 30P is now a 50% boost. Its all about the Δ change. A proper change can make preflowers appear during veg (sexing seedlings).
 
C

Carl Carlson

ShroomDr said:
Are we all over applying P? AN is even trending towards lower P levels.
Click to expand...

Doctor, you haven't seen this article?

I'd be shocked if Biksa isn't talking about cannabis, without writing the word cannabis in this one: I suppose he could be talking orchids or something else, but...

http://www.maximumyield.com/article_sh_db.php?articleID=464&submit=Go

Nutrient Ratios for Modern Crops
by Erik Biksa 2009-08-01

To answer the first part of the question, as indoor growers we are applying too much phosphorous because the recommendations for applications and formulations have been based on outdoor field agriculture practices, which simply don’t apply directly to indoor gardens. In nature the soil is very deep, and roots do not occupy the entire body of soil as they do in containers, beds or systems found with indoor gardens. Phosphorous leeches from the root zone in natural soils quickly, washing away from the contact zone with plant roots, as it drains with water further into the depths of the earth. To ensure a healthy supply of phosphorous, outdoor conventional field agricultural growers do a sort of “over-application” of phosphorous, because it has been determined that much of it will be quickly leeched away from the plant roots; what remains at any given time can be taken up by the crop. From this, we can learn that excessive “P” values in our N-P-Ks are not necessary for indoor growers, where phosphorous maintains a high level of contact within the root zone of plants grown in artificial soils and in containers, beds and systems commonly found with intensive indoor growing environments.​

I'm sure you'll find this part noteworthy:

Three part base nutrient systems have been widely used and accepted through the indoor gardening community, and have been delivering great results for years. Based on modern research conducted on indoor grown high yielding crops, it was determined that using the three part nutrient system actually produced better results when being applied in a 1:1:1 ratio versus the common 3:2:1 ratio, especially when bloom boosters intended for indoor crops were used in conjunction with the three part nutrient system. 2:1 ratios of three part base nutrients were the least effective of all (where the “grow” component was omitted entirely through the bloom phase).

Upon analyzing the nutrient levels and ratios achieved in the nutrient solution for feeding indoor crops in the bloom phase, applying the base nutrients in a 1:1:1 ratio using popular three part nutrient components, the level and ratios much more closely resembled those of the internal nutrient levels and ratios of the plant being grown versus using the three part nutrient components in the common 3:2:1 method.​

I would love to see the details of those tests!
 
toohighmf

toohighmf

Well-known member
Veteran
you and me both carl. I'm gonna call biksa and ask him if he's trying to get to people to buy more grow!
 
M

maryanne3087

Active member
Does 2:1 refer to lucas? or is this 2:1 with 2 parts micro 1 part bloom?

1:1:1 obviously means 1 part of each but in which order?

3:2:1 === grow micro bloom?
2:1 === micro + bloom?
and 1:1:1 === order doesn't matter
 
!!!

!!!

Now in technicolor
Veteran
maryanne3087 said:
Does 2:1 refer to lucas? or is this 2:1 with 2 parts micro 1 part bloom?

1:1:1 obviously means 1 part of each but in which order?
Click to expand...

It's 2 parts bloom, 1 part micro for lucas (see lucasformula.com)

Yes the author is likely talking about Lucas formula.

The order in which you mix nutes 1:1:1 doesn't matter. Just make sure to add each to water while stirring instead of mixing them together.
 
C

Carl Carlson

By the way, GH 1:1:1 three part nutrient ratio @ 5 ml per gallon:

N - P - K - Mg - S - Ca

111 - 33 - 136 - 30 - 15 - 81

That's awfully close to Bredermann's study results (1945) in the first chart above.
 
toohighmf

toohighmf

Well-known member
Veteran
!!! said:
It's 2 parts bloom, 1 part micro for lucas (see lucasformula.com)

Yes the author is likely talking about Lucas formula.

The order in which you mix nutes 1:1:1 doesn't matter. Just make sure to add each to water while stirring instead of mixing them together.
Click to expand...

ALWAYS add MICRO first and mix it well. then mix whatever you want. if your using cal-mg supplements add it to the water before any base to add back the healthy elements to stripped RO water
 
M

maryanne3087

Active member
After reading that Maximum yield article on nutrient ratios by Erik Baska (sp?) I can only wonder what methods they used to assess nutrient uptake/demand in 1945 and 1970. Do you think they grew the hemp hydroponically and then analyzed the solution to see what nutrients were removed by the plants from the solution?
 
C

Carl Carlson

maryanne3087 said:
After reading that Maximum yield article on nutrient ratios by Erik Baska (sp?) I can only wonder what methods they used to assess nutrient uptake/demand in 1945 and 1970. Do you think they grew the hemp hydroponically and then analyzed the solution to see what nutrients were removed by the plants from the solution?
Click to expand...

Surely those hemp plants were grown in soil, in the field, at least for the 1945 study.

I don't think nutrient needs of the plant are going to change based on the substrate they are grown in, although the substrate might have it own cation needs...
 
M

maryanne3087

Active member
Carl Carlson said:
Surely those hemp plants were grown in soil, in the field, at least for the 1945 study.

I don't think nutrient needs of the plant are going to change based on the substrate they are grown in, although the substrate might have it own cation needs...
Click to expand...

The article by Erik on nutrient ratios stated that modern nutrients in many cases have been formulated on old evidence dating back to the 1930s and 1940s done in Soil. He states this is particularly a problem with phosphorus as many nutrient mfg's will recommend high phosphorus feedings because they need additional phosphorus in soil because it's rapidly washed out. He further states that any analysis on nutrient demands will tell you that nitrogen and potassium are needed over phosphorus 5 fold.

I can't personally say if I believe this entirely but it does make sense and would lead me to proceed with caution and question the methods used for determining nutrient demands on hemp done in 1945..
 
M

maryanne3087

Active member
it's interesting that Mg is nearly as demanded as (P)hosphorus.

Those first few bar graphs illustrate the same thing Erik wrote in his Maximum Yield article.
 
ShroomDr

ShroomDr

CartoonHead
Veteran
Note the higher N levels during flower NOT veg with two outta the three strains. The Ca is lower in flower than veg in all three. I wish this data didnt come from a company that makes some flashy claims.

Interesting numbers, AN has dropped there P levels with their new formula, but it appears the Ca is trending up from the old formula.
Advanced Nutrients OLD Sensi Bloom Labels
AN Sensi Bloom A (4.3-0-3.1) (NH4)0.1% (NO3)4.2% Ca1.7% Mo.0008%
4100g/4000mL =1.025g/mL
@10mL/Gal
N 116
P 0
K 70
Mg 0
Ca 46
Fe NOT LISTED
S 0
B NOT LISTED
Cu NOT LISTED
Mn NOT LISTED
Mo 0.22
Zn NOT LISTED
Na NOT LISTED
Derived from: Calcium Nitrate, Potassium Nitrate, Iron DPTA, Iron EDDHA, Iron EDTA, Cobalt EDTA, Copper EDTA, Manganese EDTA, Sodium Molybdate, Zinc EDTA, Nitrogen Chelate, Potassium Chelate, Calcium Chelate, Iron Chelate, Boron Chelate, Cobalt Chelate Copper Chelate, Manganese Chelate, Molybdenum Chelate, Zinc Chelate, Urea. Fulvic Acid, Humic Acid.


AN Sensi Bloom B (1.5-6.1-5.7) (NH4)0.02% (NO3)1.48% Mg1% Mo.0008%
4100g/4000mL =1.025g/mL
@10mL/Gal
N 41
P 72
K 128
Mg 27
S NOT LISTED
Derived from: Mono Potassium Phosphate, Dipotassium Phosphate, Magnesium Phosphate, Monoammonium Phosphate, Potassium Nitrate, Magnesium Nitrate, Magnesium Sulfate, Potassium Sulfate, Nitrogen Chelate, Phosphorous Chelate, Potassium Chelate, Magnesium Chelate, Urea.

==============================================

Advanced Nutrients NEW Sensi Bloom GMA's
AN Sensi Bloom A (2-4-0) Mg0.6% Ca2.1%
1g/1mL =1g/mL
@10mL/Gal
N 53
P 46
K 0
Mg 16
Ca 55
Derived from: Calcium Nitrate, Magnesium Nitrate, Mono Potassium Phosphate.


AN Sensi Bloom B (2-0-4) S1.1%
1g/1mL =1g/mL
@10mL/Gal
N 53
P 0
K 88
Mg NOT LISTED
S 29
Derived from: Mono Potassium Phosphate, Potassium Nitrate, Magnesium Sulfate, Potassium Sulfate, Urea.
Click to expand...

WHERE ARE THE MICROS?
 
C

Carl Carlson

@ maryanne,

that's all true, and I'd love to get my hands on some equipment.
To that end, I'm not even sure where to begin.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Latest posts

Top