Arnold.
Active member
You want some? Brought home some North-East Indian seeds from the Lepcha villages around Kalimpong. They almost flower half a year
Great post! A lot of folks seem to do the 18/6 + 12/12 with equatorials
-
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"!
The Lounge : Growers Round Table Discussion Thread
- Thread starter growingcrazy
- Start date
You want some? Brought home some North-East Indian seeds from the Lepcha villages around Kalimpong. They almost flower half a year
Great post! A lot of folks seem to do the 18/6 + 12/12 with equatorials
growingcrazy
Well-known member
What did you come with on your soil mix Arnold?
I do 15 on for veg from sprout... 11.5 on in flower for WLD and 10.5 for NLD.
LED do you have a soil mix of choice for these long flowering sativas that you can breakdown for us?
I do 15 on for veg from sprout... 11.5 on in flower for WLD and 10.5 for NLD.
LED do you have a soil mix of choice for these long flowering sativas that you can breakdown for us?
Arnold.
Active member
I did not yet have time to calculate the needed input of fertilizers. Busy time atm, that will change in a week. I'll post what I come up with.
I did make your feed mixes. Thanks a lot for that detailed information!
Also have some field soil samples of guerilla patches that I have to bend over on. Good thing I got them tested. One of them lacks a lot of K, the other one lots of P.
I did make your feed mixes. Thanks a lot for that detailed information!
Also have some field soil samples of guerilla patches that I have to bend over on. Good thing I got them tested. One of them lacks a lot of K, the other one lots of P.
Last edited:
Double the P, double the Cu, bring Si to around 30. Run it.
Such small text.
Running O-haze x Haze 19 and Reunion Haze from Mystic... I like trippy hazes.
Thanks for the reply GC. That's kinda what I was thinking. Over the years I've always amended by feel and reading the plant with fairly good success. I've only been doing soil tests for the last 3 years and still figuring out the ratios the plants prefer. I'll really go over the numbers tonight and figure out a plan.
I got the individual micros like Cu Zn and Mn in a cheated form last year and applied them a little at a time every couple waterings or so. I don't know if it's good to just dump a lot of Cu in my soil right now to raise the levels as it could take a toll on my beneficial micros. How would you raise the Cu?
Does anyone here have a solid understanding of Dr Reams biological theory of ionization? Can I manipulate growth energies vs flowering energies in light weight, fed all the time media’s?
Tissue testing is sure as fuck pushing me in his direction. I get in heavy soil I need to balance the energies...but can I manipulate them to my advantage in light media?
Random pic, just cause
Tissue testing is sure as fuck pushing me in his direction. I get in heavy soil I need to balance the energies...but can I manipulate them to my advantage in light media?
Random pic, just cause
Basically if you accept his premise that no3, Ca and k are the main veg energies and that nh4 (or now amino chelates N) and phosphate are the flowering energies the rest comes down to Mulder’s chart
In soil you find the balance of those and turn it loose. But in light media can I cheat just a bit or will I cause a hormone imbalance?
More testing.
In soil you find the balance of those and turn it loose. But in light media can I cheat just a bit or will I cause a hormone imbalance?
More testing.
paradoxlost
Member
Energies is synonymous with science hasn't figured it all out yet, so forget everything you've learned in school or through experimentation and believe this totally outlandish, unprovable theory I have of the universe and everything.
I'm so over it
Actually science figured it out and just never realized how to use it.
Ammonia is a cation, nitrate is an anion. Cations compete with cations, anions compete with anions.
If we use nitrate, we know the plant can pick up 4 Ca to 2 K. If we use ammonia, the plant can only pick up 2 Ca for 2 K. That is energies at work. Don't get caught up in the semantics.
What Reams realized was that these simple ideas, put into practice in the field, can change things amazingly.
I have been able to turn flowering in melons, blueberries, and strawberries,off and then on when I want to. Just by switching between nitrates and ammonia.
Reams was a real simple guy and spoke in ways that often most folk didn't understand. Often he said something in a way that was poorly interpreted.
If you run Reams optimum numbers for Ca, K, Mg, Na and H, you will see that his numbers come identical to Tiedjens. 85% Ca. Coincidence? No, Reams knew Tiedjens and supposedly they were good friends.
Reams twist on things really depended a lot on where he was farming. He was in sand in Florida. That swayed his thinking a bit.
There are many things that science has a hard time with. Imagine a cell phone a 100 years ago. haha.
Water dousing is another good example. Seen folks poo poo dousing over and over again, yet it works and works well. Scientific proof? Good luck!
Over time, if you are observant, you will see bits and pieces of Reams and others, make a lot of sense provided one is ready for the message.
Y’all can’t walk into a grow room and just from the feel of the energy tell sick or healthy?
Mass is energy. Every element has a unique mass, therefore a unique energy. Combine 13, 16 or 60 elements in a certain way and you created a specific energy.
As an example if plants are giving off energy corresponding to a certain infrared frequency then insects recognize those plants as lunch. Adjust the feed to eliminate that infrared and the insects go away
Or let me try a different approach...I can recognize skeptical energy even through the internet
Take K. I have enough data to see that a cannabis plant wants (% wise anyways) more K in veg than in flower. If you hold K steady an entire grow you will see a K def through stretch and then it will start to go away and end in an excess
Whether you wanna call it an energy or not...K is important for both veg and flower, but more so in veg.
Or take nitrate vs phosphate. They compete for uptake. As long as you can quickly convert nitrate to protein (chlorophyll) you can get away with highish nitrate in veg. But in flower if nitrate is blocking phosphate, say holding tissue P under a 1/2%, the plant will not finish properly. You get fluffy buds, foxtails, lower yield and lower thc
Which fascinatingly for me lines up with what Reams was saying in a way I could never make heads or tails of
And brings me to the end of me story
Mass is energy. Every element has a unique mass, therefore a unique energy. Combine 13, 16 or 60 elements in a certain way and you created a specific energy.
As an example if plants are giving off energy corresponding to a certain infrared frequency then insects recognize those plants as lunch. Adjust the feed to eliminate that infrared and the insects go away
Or let me try a different approach...I can recognize skeptical energy even through the internet
Take K. I have enough data to see that a cannabis plant wants (% wise anyways) more K in veg than in flower. If you hold K steady an entire grow you will see a K def through stretch and then it will start to go away and end in an excess
Whether you wanna call it an energy or not...K is important for both veg and flower, but more so in veg.
Or take nitrate vs phosphate. They compete for uptake. As long as you can quickly convert nitrate to protein (chlorophyll) you can get away with highish nitrate in veg. But in flower if nitrate is blocking phosphate, say holding tissue P under a 1/2%, the plant will not finish properly. You get fluffy buds, foxtails, lower yield and lower thc
Which fascinatingly for me lines up with what Reams was saying in a way I could never make heads or tails of
And brings me to the end of me story
paradoxlost
Member
In that explanation than ammonium energy is equivalent to a potassium energy. When people speak of energies they would say ammonium energy is different than potassium energy. They're not talking about valencies. When I hear people talking about energies they're definitely not talking about valencies.
paradoxlost
Member
Yes every atom has a different amount of energy contained within it''s atomic strucutre. That affects it's atomic structure, which affects it's atomic radius, which affects it's mechanical behavior in solution. For instance, calcium has a small ionic radius compared to most cations in soil. That is why it can knock off potassium, etc so easily. Not because of its energy. Same with hydrogen. It's size allows it to compete for bonding sites more readily than any other atom. The positive charges exist on opposite sides of the atom, meaning they don't act in tandem. There is a whole electron cloud between it keeping them far away with actually bonding energy between the positive charges.
All I'm saying when. I hear sone talking about the energies I assume you have no physics or organic chemistry background
M
moose eater
I should have my sol test and tests from 3 different sources of EWC today, or within a couple days, as far as crude numbers (with no immediate write-up of recommendations). The recommendations will take another week perhaps.
I can't scan & upload images with my extremely crippled slow connection, but I can transcribe the reports by hand, entering (typing) each value per line.
-----------------------------------
Appreciating this discussion.
I have no (or limited) chem, physics, or formal soil science background. I have 50 years of farming experience, starting as a youngster. Everything I -thought- I'd learned, came from books, and observations. Some of that is now shown or claimed to be suspect.
I can't scan & upload images with my extremely crippled slow connection, but I can transcribe the reports by hand, entering (typing) each value per line.
-----------------------------------
Appreciating this discussion.
I have no (or limited) chem, physics, or formal soil science background. I have 50 years of farming experience, starting as a youngster. Everything I -thought- I'd learned, came from books, and observations. Some of that is now shown or claimed to be suspect.
paradoxlost
Member
Haha I highly respect your grows and inrepetitions and was assuming you werent coming up with the energies terminology by yourself. Just clarifying someone else's interpretation. But I'm more talking about a couple biodynamic farmers I've encounter recently. Like of course biodynamics will get you results, but it's not because of mystical energies.
paradoxlost
Member
Also on another note, if you ever encounter someone telling you drywall is the same as minewd gypsum, I'm here to tell you drywall won't move calcium numbers.
Interesting reams was in FL think I need to research him a bit more. Growing in sand is a science in and of itself!
Small addition to what jidoka mentioned above:
In a strict sense, K has nothing to do with flowering but in some plants it is connected to flowers. One of the main reasons for high K demand is tissue expansion and because quite a few ornamentals and veggies have many beautiful flowers and juicy fruits, respectively, the high K demand coincides with flowering. Also, K as a cation needs a counterion i.e. anions of which phosphate often seems like a good choice (one of the reasons PK booster are advertised for flowering). Cannabis, though having many flowers, has no petals and no juicy fruits and hence, it mostly needs K for leaf expansion (aka stretch phase) and a bit for all the calyxes (aka bulking phase).
Regarding nitrate, phosphate etc.: One preference of plants for certain nutrients in certain developmental phases is their ability to store them. Ammonia can not be stored due to high toxicity whereas nitrate can but plants tend to integrate it into proteins because nitrate salts are highly soluble. Chloride on the other hand can not be changed to something else and always remains highly soluble chloride salts. Phosphate can be stored in fairly large quantities not only in the vacuole but nearly everywhere as poorly soluble salts (e.g. phytate). Sulphate is often incorporated into proteins and peptides but many of these are only needed under stress. Without stress, plants have to store it as sulphate salts which are often water soluble. The problem with salts is their denaturating effect on proteins and hence, the majority of the salts needs to be stored in the vacuole if they are soluble or as crystals if they are not. Excessive calcium is often stored as insoluble calcium oxalate crystals with the drawback that such crystals are terminal deposits and can not be mobilised fast enough to serve as storage but only as disposal. Depending on the ions fed, plants use them up or convert them to organic forms (mostly N, S, and P) and subsequently need to balance the thereby created/removed positive or negative charges for example by building/secreting/precipitating/metabolising organic acids (bases i.e. alkaloids are usually not produced/used for that purpose). As a simplified example, calcium is a fine line: an excess removes carbon/photosynthates in the form of calcium oxalate precipitation whilst deficiency does the same through malic and citric acid secretion by roots. Both pathways reduces starch accumulation in leaves and that is as bad for growth and development as it's desirable for burning quality of the final product.
Bottom line is, plant physiology is one of those rabbit holes which gets the deeper the further down you crawl .
In a strict sense, K has nothing to do with flowering but in some plants it is connected to flowers. One of the main reasons for high K demand is tissue expansion and because quite a few ornamentals and veggies have many beautiful flowers and juicy fruits, respectively, the high K demand coincides with flowering. Also, K as a cation needs a counterion i.e. anions of which phosphate often seems like a good choice (one of the reasons PK booster are advertised for flowering). Cannabis, though having many flowers, has no petals and no juicy fruits and hence, it mostly needs K for leaf expansion (aka stretch phase) and a bit for all the calyxes (aka bulking phase).
Regarding nitrate, phosphate etc.: One preference of plants for certain nutrients in certain developmental phases is their ability to store them. Ammonia can not be stored due to high toxicity whereas nitrate can but plants tend to integrate it into proteins because nitrate salts are highly soluble. Chloride on the other hand can not be changed to something else and always remains highly soluble chloride salts. Phosphate can be stored in fairly large quantities not only in the vacuole but nearly everywhere as poorly soluble salts (e.g. phytate). Sulphate is often incorporated into proteins and peptides but many of these are only needed under stress. Without stress, plants have to store it as sulphate salts which are often water soluble. The problem with salts is their denaturating effect on proteins and hence, the majority of the salts needs to be stored in the vacuole if they are soluble or as crystals if they are not. Excessive calcium is often stored as insoluble calcium oxalate crystals with the drawback that such crystals are terminal deposits and can not be mobilised fast enough to serve as storage but only as disposal. Depending on the ions fed, plants use them up or convert them to organic forms (mostly N, S, and P) and subsequently need to balance the thereby created/removed positive or negative charges for example by building/secreting/precipitating/metabolising organic acids (bases i.e. alkaloids are usually not produced/used for that purpose). As a simplified example, calcium is a fine line: an excess removes carbon/photosynthates in the form of calcium oxalate precipitation whilst deficiency does the same through malic and citric acid secretion by roots. Both pathways reduces starch accumulation in leaves and that is as bad for growth and development as it's desirable for burning quality of the final product.
Bottom line is, plant physiology is one of those rabbit holes which gets the deeper the further down you crawl
.
