Check out this on -NPK ratios- Canadian University study

[Tomatoesonly]

Frontiers | Optimisation of Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Potassium for Soilless Production of Cannabis sativa in the Flowering Stage Using Response Surface Analysis

Following legalisation, cannabis has quickly become an important horticultural crop in Canada and increasingly so in other parts of the world. However, due t...

www.frontiersin.org

I have no background in statistics so alot of this was technically over my head. But they do some conclusions that are very interesting. Also a (mg L-1) is a ppm.. correct?
I don't know what to think about it. Lots of info, and some of it is exactly opposite of what I thought was fact. In particular the amount of N they ran during flowering. I always heard you'd grow nothing but fluff garbage bud with that much nitrogen.

 

[Legalcdn]

Some good articles on the site. Guelph University is the best agriculture school in the country.

They are doing lots of research.

 

[Douglas.Curtis]

Yes, fluffier. The study states in the first part how cannabinoid yields were lower, while inflorescence (flower) was greatly increased.

I also noticed they allowed only a small pH drift, which is a major factor in full nutrient absorption. You can use a lot less nutes and get a cleaner/healthier plant with bare minimum nute availability.

 

[Hiddenjems]

I wish we’d get some studies with yield only measured as grade a flower. Who cares if your flower weight doubled but it’s all trash?

 

[Ca++]

The lower weight doesn't amount to much anyway, and is generally best chucked away or processed. Otherwise you spend half your time trimming the 10% of the crop you don't want. 10% that makes the rest look bad.
This was a very good study. I usually rip papers apart, but this is good. What's lacking is how well they really did though. That headline figure that people shout about. The measured spacing doesn't match the photos, so there is little to go on, except the annoying per plant figure. It fairly safe to say 600-900g per meter though. Which with 570umol, makes them able to grow well. Many studies do so badly the figures are useless, so it's nice to see some decent growers doing this.

I'm happy to see hydro results in line with outdoor results, and my own thoughts regarding K's usefulness. The Mg:Ca ratio is more where I like it at about 100:50 not 100:30 like a lot of calmag bottles. The P offers no surprises, but the N might take some growing ability to make work. Below 160ppm being detrimental, is not the figures most manufacturers are aiming at. With 100ppm being more typical.

At 3 weeks into flower, I just started mixing grow with my bloom again. I have steered them towards bloom with lower N, while pumping them with some P for strong frames and my notion of blooming. Now they need to make some big green buds. I need my N back. I don't care about K except for it's existence. I do need to keep my P up above grow feed levels though. I do like a very detailed report, that agrees with me

 

[Creeperpark]

The lower weight doesn't amount to much anyway, and is generally best chucked away or processed. Otherwise you spend half your time trimming the 10% of the crop you don't want. 10% that makes the rest look bad.
This was a very good study. I usually rip papers apart, but this is good. What's lacking is how well they really did though. That headline figure that people shout about. The measured spacing doesn't match the photos, so there is little to go on, except the annoying per plant figure. It fairly safe to say 600-900g per meter though. Which with 570umol, makes them able to grow well. Many studies do so badly the figures are useless, so it's nice to see some decent growers doing this.

I'm happy to see hydro results in line with outdoor results, and my own thoughts regarding K's usefulness. The Mg:Ca ratio is more where I like it at about 100:50 not 100:30 like a lot of calmag bottles. The P offers no surprises, but the N might take some growing ability to make work. Below 160ppm being detrimental, is not the figures most manufacturers are aiming at. With 100ppm being more typical.

At 3 weeks into flower, I just started mixing grow with my bloom again. I have steered them towards bloom with lower N, while pumping them with some P for strong frames and my notion of blooming. Now they need to make some big green buds. I need my N back. I don't care about K except for it's existence. I do need to keep my P up above grow feed levels though. I do like a very detailed report, that agrees with me

Let's see them, friend. It's hard to picture what you are talking about.

 

[hambre]

Let's see them, friend. It's hard to picture what you are talking about.

He doesn`t know what he is talking about, don`t worry. Cannabis is just like another plant, if the genetic is good, parameters are good, everything will be good.
Tomatoes, cucumbers, whatever, all plants. What is interesting is that a lot of people discuss if some fertilizer is good, some is bad, but a lot of people mix a lot of crap that the plant doesn`t even need. And probably 90% of people here talks about pH but knows nothing about it. Or CaMag, my God, so 2003...

I hope it helps a little.

Edit: I added the study two times. Sorry.

 

[hambre]

Sorry, and I quote:
"A challenge in developing fertilizer recommendations is that the number of combinations of
nutrient concentrations that can be empirically tested is limited due to logistical and statistical
considerations. As a result, most nutrient studies have a limited range of nutrient compositions
that can overlook potential nutrient interactions across a broad range of nutrient compositions.
Studies on cannabis response to nutrients so far have either investigated different concentrations
of one nutrient while holding the others constant (Saloner et al., 2019; Saloner and Bernstein,
2020, 2021; Shiponi and Bernstein, 2021), or provided different concentrations of NPK in a set
ratio (Caplan et al., 2017b, 2017a; Bernstein et al., 2019). Neither of these approaches can
evaluate nutrient interactions, which could have substantial impacts on the recommendations of
optimum application rates."

That is why I laugh at fertilizer companies charging you crazy amounts of money, when scientists are still trying to figure it out.

 

[Ca++]

Let's see them, friend. It's hard to picture what you are talking about.

You can't really see crop steering, as it's not a response to what you see happening. It's getting ahead of the curve, to get things happening sooner.

Looking at N, some have interpreted high levels as slowing the flowering response. Others that low N triggers flowering like being root bound or exhausting the soil. The reasons are still perhaps unknown, but what we see is a quicker transition with lower N. Many of us played with the timing of grow to bloom feed change over, and while we can do it at around 2 weeks to keep nice looking plants, it's better to change sooner. You will see lower leaves show N signs, but flowering comes about sooner. Once in bloom, you can add back some of that N, because at week 4 there is a lot of green growth. Making low N yet high P&K a bit of a nonsense. High K might be simply pointless, and a burning risk. High P in bloom, like high Ca, is a bit late. Most of each is taken earlier, and by later bloom are getting towards pointless.

For a long time, I grew on flower with N-acid, and flowered on grow with P acid. With my water, and that feed brand, I got an NPK very close to Canna grow and bloom. Yet using the other bottle and choosing the right acid. Some feeds are really quite wild in their approach, but there is some strong middle ground, where quite a few are the same. Canna and Plagron Terra is almost inseparable. Even in them both giving Ca so low, they don't even list it.

I notice in the study references, a low N study did find K effecting yield. It surprises me. I think they are also looking at that other study curiously. I have also been greening up plants to the point of dark green pools on the leaves, using Ca not N. There seems to be more than one way of doing this, rather than a single perfect recipe. It's nice this study has explained enough of the surrounding circumstances to actually study their study.


Hambre. I'm sure there are lots of things you don't understand, but it doesn't make them wrong.

 

[Creeperpark]

You can't really see crop steering, as it's not a response to what you see happening. It's getting ahead of the curve, to get things happening sooner.

Looking at N, some have interpreted high levels as slowing the flowering response. Others that low N triggers flowering like being root bound or exhausting the soil. The reasons are still perhaps unknown, but what we see is a quicker transition with lower N. Many of us played with the timing of grow to bloom feed change over, and while we can do it at around 2 weeks to keep nice looking plants, it's better to change sooner. You will see lower leaves show N signs, but flowering comes about sooner. Once in bloom, you can add back some of that N, because at week 4 there is a lot of green growth. Making low N yet high P&K a bit of a nonsense. High K might be simply pointless, and a burning risk. High P in bloom, like high Ca, is a bit late. Most of each is taken earlier, and by later bloom are getting towards pointless.

For a long time, I grew on flower with N-acid, and flowered on grow with P acid. With my water, and that feed brand, I got an NPK very close to Canna grow and bloom. Yet using the other bottle and choosing the right acid. Some feeds are really quite wild in their approach, but there is some strong middle ground, where quite a few are the same. Canna and Plagron Terra is almost inseparable. Even in them both giving Ca so low, they don't even list it.

I notice in the study references, a low N study did find K effecting yield. It surprises me. I think they are also looking at that other study curiously. I have also been greening up plants to the point of dark green pools on the leaves, using Ca not N. There seems to be more than one way of doing this, rather than a single perfect recipe. It's nice this study has explained enough of the surrounding circumstances to actually study their study.


Hambre. I'm sure there are lots of things you don't understand, but it doesn't make them wrong.

No, I mean your plants. If you show your plants we will see how you grow or how the plants match your words. Otherwise, they are just a bunch of words without pictures. Hows is your garden today Ca++

 

[jackspratt61]

You can't really see crop steering, as it's not a response to what you see happening. It's getting ahead of the curve, to get things happening sooner.

Looking at N, some have interpreted high levels as slowing the flowering response. Others that low N triggers flowering like being root bound or exhausting the soil. The reasons are still perhaps unknown, but what we see is a quicker transition with lower N. Many of us played with the timing of grow to bloom feed change over, and while we can do it at around 2 weeks to keep nice looking plants, it's better to change sooner. You will see lower leaves show N signs, but flowering comes about sooner. Once in bloom, you can add back some of that N, because at week 4 there is a lot of green growth. Making low N yet high P&K a bit of a nonsense. High K might be simply pointless, and a burning risk. High P in bloom, like high Ca, is a bit late. Most of each is taken earlier, and by later bloom are getting towards pointless.

For a long time, I grew on flower with N-acid, and flowered on grow with P acid. With my water, and that feed brand, I got an NPK very close to Canna grow and bloom. Yet using the other bottle and choosing the right acid. Some feeds are really quite wild in their approach, but there is some strong middle ground, where quite a few are the same. Canna and Plagron Terra is almost inseparable. Even in them both giving Ca so low, they don't even list it.

I notice in the study references, a low N study did find K effecting yield. It surprises me. I think they are also looking at that other study curiously. I have also been greening up plants to the point of dark green pools on the leaves, using Ca not N. There seems to be more than one way of doing this, rather than a single perfect recipe. It's nice this study has explained enough of the surrounding circumstances to actually study their study.


Hambre. I'm sure there are lots of things you don't understand, but it doesn't make them wrong.

Yes. Calcium is excellent for sizing flowers when properly balanced. N/K aprox 2:1 & Ca=N+K (in meqs) through stretch,then start bringing up K and lowering Ca and N. Been using urea and ammonia with calcium carbonate and gypsum. The calcium does an excellent job of getting the N/K into the plant properly and the carbonates push P off the soil colloid making it available.

 

[hambre]

You can't really see crop steering, as it's not a response to what you see happening. It's getting ahead of the curve, to get things happening sooner.

Looking at N, some have interpreted high levels as slowing the flowering response. Others that low N triggers flowering like being root bound or exhausting the soil. The reasons are still perhaps unknown, but what we see is a quicker transition with lower N. Many of us played with the timing of grow to bloom feed change over, and while we can do it at around 2 weeks to keep nice looking plants, it's better to change sooner. You will see lower leaves show N signs, but flowering comes about sooner. Once in bloom, you can add back some of that N, because at week 4 there is a lot of green growth. Making low N yet high P&K a bit of a nonsense. High K might be simply pointless, and a burning risk. High P in bloom, like high Ca, is a bit late. Most of each is taken earlier, and by later bloom are getting towards pointless.

For a long time, I grew on flower with N-acid, and flowered on grow with P acid. With my water, and that feed brand, I got an NPK very close to Canna grow and bloom. Yet using the other bottle and choosing the right acid. Some feeds are really quite wild in their approach, but there is some strong middle ground, where quite a few are the same. Canna and Plagron Terra is almost inseparable. Even in them both giving Ca so low, they don't even list it.

I notice in the study references, a low N study did find K effecting yield. It surprises me. I think they are also looking at that other study curiously. I have also been greening up plants to the point of dark green pools on the leaves, using Ca not N. There seems to be more than one way of doing this, rather than a single perfect recipe. It's nice this study has explained enough of the surrounding circumstances to actually study their study.


Hambre. I'm sure there are lots of things you don't understand, but it doesn't make them wrong.

Nah, you just guessing things and throwing them here so people think you know what you are talking about. Show the analysis to back up your words and prove me wrong. You make a mess with words and if people don`t understand is because you simply fabricate, specially because there is no way without media and tissue analysis to know what is happening. SO, your position is anecdotical, doesn`t mean anything to the topic. WHat is next? FLush? CalMag? Hahaha... Come on...

 

[jackspratt61]

If more interested in the effects of calcium on sizing fruit and vegetative responses lookup Critical Points of Influence by john kempf on youtube.

 

[Tomatoesonly]

If more interested in the effects of calcium on sizing fruit and vegetative responses lookup Critical Points of Influence by john kempf on youtube.

Nice little name drop nugget in there I didn't know about. Thank you!!

 

[Ca++]

No, I mean your plants. If you show your plants we will see how you grow or how the plants match your words. Otherwise, they are just a bunch of words without pictures. Hows is your garden today Ca++

I could show you today, but the after pics are nothing without the before pics.
If you don't want to believe in crop steering, that is fine. However, I draw your attention to your own use of 12/12 to initiate flowering, and suggest you don't need pics of my crop to believe in steering.

 

[Ca++]

Nah, you just guessing things and throwing them here so people think you know what you are talking about. Show the analysis to back up your words and prove me wrong. You make a mess with words and if people don`t understand is because you simply fabricate, specially because there is no way without media and tissue analysis to know what is happening. SO, your position is anecdotical, doesn`t mean anything to the topic. WHat is next? FLush? CalMag? Hahaha... Come on...

You are wrong. Everybody here judges most aspects of crop success without a lab report.

You are wrong. I have (on occasion) lab analysis done every week, with that moving to every 3 days through transition. I will show you mine, when you show me yours. However it's only anecdotal still, and you don't think for yourself. Or you missed a word, in that story of me making a mess with words. I don't really care which. I think you finish with trying to read the future though. Which demonstrates your ability to look at the evidence and make a decision.

I realise you are blinkered, but I hope other people can see there is actually a topic known as crop steering. It puts an umbrella over all the things that we do to influence a crop. I don't mean support it while it does what it wants to. I mean the things we do to change it's course. It's a virgin topic, and as such nobody is quite sure what fits into the category. Many hope to find nutritionally focused research under this heading. Such as the very late high K boost some hemp feeds have, or the loading of Ca and P in later veg. Many things we do are passed over from other crops, and while we can see they work, are often for reasons we don't understand. It's not long ago we knew when cannabis would flower, but didn't know if it was the day length or night length that did it. Today, our demands for knowledge are much more in depth. However cannabis research has a spotty history. Only now are we seeing papers piling up on the topics we want to see. However, we are still at NPK on the whole. Other elements have toxicology studies, and deficiency studies done in isolation. However, we don't have the Ca studies we really want yet.

I get that we need this. Other people on the thread get it, and have offered links. The people in this study also give a nod to the fact. Even then though, it will be a study of levels at first. With timing coming in the future. Though we have analysis showing when it's taken, and interestingly, when it's not. Which is later in flower, when issues may develop. However.. you missed the window. You have to load up when you can. These are things that are only proven circumstantially, and even when it does become science fact, facts can be changed as we learn more. It's actually anecdotal evidence that enables us to grow. Which most of us were doing before ever seeing a lab report. Thus, if you think you need a lab report to accept something, you are without reason. And we have seen your reasoning.

I'm not actually sure why you are on this thread. You can't spin a discussion off that study. You can't even recognise one. The chances of you joining the dots to other studies are immeasurable. It's as useless to you, as you are being here. By my reasoning, based on this and other encounters with you, you're just trolling.

 

[hambre]

You are wrong. Everybody here judges most aspects of crop success without a lab report.

You are wrong. I have (on occasion) lab analysis done every week, with that moving to every 3 days through transition. I will show you mine, when you show me yours. However it's only anecdotal still, and you don't think for yourself. Or you missed a word, in that story of me making a mess with words. I don't really care which. I think you finish with trying to read the future though. Which demonstrates your ability to look at the evidence and make a decision.

I realise you are blinkered, but I hope other people can see there is actually a topic known as crop steering. It puts an umbrella over all the things that we do to influence a crop. I don't mean support it while it does what it wants to. I mean the things we do to change it's course. It's a virgin topic, and as such nobody is quite sure what fits into the category. Many hope to find nutritionally focused research under this heading. Such as the very late high K boost some hemp feeds have, or the loading of Ca and P in later veg. Many things we do are passed over from other crops, and while we can see they work, are often for reasons we don't understand. It's not long ago we knew when cannabis would flower, but didn't know if it was the day length or night length that did it. Today, our demands for knowledge are much more in depth. However cannabis research has a spotty history. Only now are we seeing papers piling up on the topics we want to see. However, we are still at NPK on the whole. Other elements have toxicology studies, and deficiency studies done in isolation. However, we don't have the Ca studies we really want yet.

I get that we need this. Other people on the thread get it, and have offered links. The people in this study also give a nod to the fact. Even then though, it will be a study of levels at first. With timing coming in the future. Though we have analysis showing when it's taken, and interestingly, when it's not. Which is later in flower, when issues may develop. However.. you missed the window. You have to load up when you can. These are things that are only proven circumstantially, and even when it does become science fact, facts can be changed as we learn more. It's actually anecdotal evidence that enables us to grow. Which most of us were doing before ever seeing a lab report. Thus, if you think you need a lab report to accept something, you are without reason. And we have seen your reasoning.

I'm not actually sure why you are on this thread. You can't spin a discussion off that study. You can't even recognise one. The chances of you joining the dots to other studies are immeasurable. It's as useless to you, as you are being here. By my reasoning, based on this and other encounters with you, you're just trolling.

Too many words to say nothing. I hope people realizes so don`t get misguided.

 

[led05]

Everything is over complicated by purpose ($$$), give them a good organic medium with all a plant needs, they’ll find it - focus on proper watering & transpiration especially while young…. Most fail due Ca IME & transpiration

“I'm happy to see hydro results in line with outdoor results, and my own thoughts regarding K's usefulness. The Mg:Ca ratio is more where I like it at about 100:50 not 100:30 like a lot of calmag bottles.”

^^^ something is very off here on your ratios

Ca should DOMINATE Mg in the ratio, at least 10:1 IMO and CalMag has been a fools errand for over 2 decades+ now, using the two together is silly…

Anyone wanna see the proof, I grow many species of plants, pics all @

KISS, people often tripping over the basics for their PhD’s - Forrest BF the trees

PS: manage your bases during the grow, walking up & down Ca & K especially, end loading K is another fools errand but if your gonna do it, use K Sulfate

Peace bros

 

[jackspratt61]

Everything is over complicated by purpose ($$$), give them a good organic medium with all a plant needs, they’ll find it - focus on proper watering & transpiration especially while young…. Most fail due Ca IME & transpiration

“I'm happy to see hydro results in line with outdoor results, and my own thoughts regarding K's usefulness. The Mg:Ca ratio is more where I like it at about 100:50 not 100:30 like a lot of calmag bottles.”

^^^ something is very off here on your ratios

Ca should DOMINATE Mg in the ratio, at least 10:1 IMO and CalMag has been a fools errand for over 2 decades+ now, using the two together is silly…

Anyone wanna see the proof, I grow many species of plants, pics all @

KISS, people often tripping over the basics for their PhD’s - Forrest BF the trees

PS: manage your bases during the grow, walking up & down Ca & K especially, end loading K is another fools errand but if your gonna do it, use K Sulfate

Peace bros

If you front load your mix with a bit of P you can get more aggressive with N,K,Ca. Big gains through stretch and fill in.

 

[Tomatoesonly]

If you front load your mix with a bit of P you can get more aggressive with N,K,Ca. Big gains through stretch and fill in.

How much is considered "front loading"? In PPM's particularly. I use Hydrobuddy to try and setup what I'm feeding, but I'm learning new stuff by the day.