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:

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?

[Japanfreakier]

Cool find. From what I understand the bark is the plants excrement so those numbers shouldn't matter.

lol. you wrote, "excrement".

[ShroomDr]

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]

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).

Originally Posted by ShroomDr

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

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...

https://www.maximumyield.com/article_...=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]

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!

[maryanne3087]

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

[!!!]

Originally Posted by maryanne3087

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?

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.

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.