G
Guest
I'm using the free sample still and will continue to do so but no way I'd pay that much for it.
-
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"!
Mammoth P Microbes
- Thread starter LifeLess
- Start date
well i gave it a try.
the pluses are.. less stretch going from grow to bud.
thicker stems i did not need to stake plants.
plants stayed greener thru bud cycle.
i would say yes i got more buds from it.
the minuses are. the buds were not as tight.
made buds a odd shape kind of flatter vs round.
was a lot more shade leafs to trim off.
had some bud rot on a few top buds.
guess that's about it. if i use again i would
use last 2 weeks of grow and the first 2-3 weeks of bloom.
it does stop as much stretch during that time.
for a leafy type bud like blockhead. i think it would work well.
well hope this helps.. would i buy it.. i do not know yet.
i will try it differently next round and see. if i have enough left.
Lrus007
the pluses are.. less stretch going from grow to bud.
thicker stems i did not need to stake plants.
plants stayed greener thru bud cycle.
i would say yes i got more buds from it.
the minuses are. the buds were not as tight.
made buds a odd shape kind of flatter vs round.
was a lot more shade leafs to trim off.
had some bud rot on a few top buds.
guess that's about it. if i use again i would
use last 2 weeks of grow and the first 2-3 weeks of bloom.
it does stop as much stretch during that time.
for a leafy type bud like blockhead. i think it would work well.
well hope this helps.. would i buy it.. i do not know yet.
i will try it differently next round and see. if i have enough left.
Lrus007
I used the free sample. Roots looked really nice and plants did well. But...since running out I haven't noticed any decline in plant health or yield. For $8.23 , I'll definitely give the no-name version a shot. Prolly like most brand/non-brand product comparisons, the only difference will be the packaging.
PSB actually DON'T solubilise phosphate per se but solubilise metals such as iron bound to insoluble phosphate
. Most PSB do this by secreting small organic acids such as citric or gluconic acid. In addition to metal chelation, the drop in pH increases solubility of most phosphate salts (it's the same effect which turns rock phosphate into soluble superphosphates).PSB actually DON'T solubilise phosphate per se but solubilise metals such as iron bound to insoluble phosphate
Hmm, in addition to producing organic acids (which does as you described)--it has been my understanding Solubilizing Bateria (SB) can also accelerate the dissolution of insoluble minerals by producing enzymes, which also effects the mineral's ions and chemical structure. Particularly the handful of SB's that solubilize silica in addition to phosphate & potassium. Also, SB's have been known to control many plant pathogenic fungi as well--a very nice bonus.
I guess not all SB's are the same--I recall reading a while back there are over 100 different varieties of SB's.
True, SB's are very unique and even different isolates from the same species can be dramatically different with some being useful, others useless, and the third even counter-productive. The only thing in common they seem to have is the high and constant amount of secreted total organic acids which correlate well with solubilising power and plant growth in an agricultural setting. Enzymes they produce are especially valuable in solubilising organically bound elements (i.e. humic substances); in humus rich soils, between 1/2 and 2/3 if not more of the phosphate is bound to insoluble organic matter. In addition to that, secreted plant growth promoting substances and hormones and natural surfactants have a huge influence on usefulness for agriculture.
Adding non-pathogenic microbes always works to prevent pathogens from growing and works with humans too. If you have diarrhoea you might take some pills with yeast or lactic acid bacteria to alleviate the symptoms and speed up the healing process.
Me personally, I don't see much use for SB in a DTW soil free setup or in pure hydroculture (e.g. DWC, aeroponics); there's no bound P and the P which is bound/precipitated doesn't really matter (sure, you'd have to clean the pipes more often but that's about it).
IMHO, phosphate fertilisation and now PSB took a wrong turn: Back in the days, water soluble P ferts were the big thing in agriculture because P was the one limiting nutrient not easily available from manure and the like. They gave plant growing and monoculture a big boost. Unlike mineral P fertilisers, PSB are a great thing for poor countries and in sustainable agriculture because many soils are rich in P but it is tightly bound and hence poorly plant available. So, why add P and risk eutrophic rivers and lakes if you could just "free" the P which is already there? Anyway... the P story became hype and lead to the myth of P as flower booster everyone at the garden centre (and meanwhile at the hydro store too) will tell you. On the other hand, if you ask a farmer or look at the science they will tell you that P has to be applied pre-sowing or as pop-up or starter fertiliser but the latest during early vegetative growth to have an impact on harvest.
Maybe there's more to the mammoth P microbe brew than just the microbes? The alfalfa extract might contribute as well... according to forum users here, it's something really great.
And a last point: someone mentioned that the product seemed to fail after a few months. Obviously, bacteria in solution especially if not kept at 4°C won't live forever.
Adding non-pathogenic microbes always works to prevent pathogens from growing and works with humans too. If you have diarrhoea you might take some pills with yeast or lactic acid bacteria to alleviate the symptoms and speed up the healing process.
Me personally, I don't see much use for SB in a DTW soil free setup or in pure hydroculture (e.g. DWC, aeroponics); there's no bound P and the P which is bound/precipitated doesn't really matter (sure, you'd have to clean the pipes more often but that's about it).
IMHO, phosphate fertilisation and now PSB took a wrong turn: Back in the days, water soluble P ferts were the big thing in agriculture because P was the one limiting nutrient not easily available from manure and the like. They gave plant growing and monoculture a big boost. Unlike mineral P fertilisers, PSB are a great thing for poor countries and in sustainable agriculture because many soils are rich in P but it is tightly bound and hence poorly plant available. So, why add P and risk eutrophic rivers and lakes if you could just "free" the P which is already there? Anyway... the P story became hype and lead to the myth of P as flower booster everyone at the garden centre (and meanwhile at the hydro store too) will tell you. On the other hand, if you ask a farmer or look at the science they will tell you that P has to be applied pre-sowing or as pop-up or starter fertiliser but the latest during early vegetative growth to have an impact on harvest.
Maybe there's more to the mammoth P microbe brew than just the microbes? The alfalfa extract might contribute as well... according to forum users here, it's something really great.
And a last point: someone mentioned that the product seemed to fail after a few months. Obviously, bacteria in solution especially if not kept at 4°C won't live forever.
I can agree with everything you said there Ornamental, except for PK boosters when it comes to cannabis... Feeding adequate P and K throughout flowering is required to grow a plant to it's full potential (and other elements of course)... And often what's in a media, or taken up by the plant during veg, is not enough. Perhaps for other plants, but not for medicinal cannabis.
My understanding, without writing too much of a book and getting into nutrients, breakdown, and uptake, is that because for instance P (and Ca) get locked up easily in media, this is why more than what would be typically necessary is added, since it is "necessary", since it gets bound up (and also may be leeched away) before the plant can uptake it..
Also.. It really kinda needs some saying that large field soil growing is not quite the same as someone trying to replicate that in any way in a smaller outdoor garden or indoor setup. Lotsa similarities, but still, a lot of the nutrient cycling isn't happening in buckets, lol and well a lot of things aren't happening in buckets, pails, and bins. We are mildly replicating what happens in a field. Obviously you know this too, but for the general discussion sake because I don't think a lot of people do realize that and my personal opinion also is that I could probably find more dissimilarities than similarities.
Early application of P is necessary because the plant needs it early on, but also yes will be translocated later too during flowering - but it's not enough. It's not enough for what we want for cannabis. Maybe for many other plants, like the ones typical farmers and scientists are working with, this is the case, but cannabis not only seems to require high amounts of P (really many of the elements, NPK, Ca, Mg, and so on), but without adding P and K during flowering, as well as Ca and Mg, yields and quality overall will suffer. That being said, K is certainly demanded in higher amounts, but is more easily added.
And, this may not be true for other crops so studied, but cannabis that was not fed ample P (or really many elements) during veg, but fed adequately during flowering, will not only recover, but I imagine are using the P being given, since I have seen they will attain pretty much what the plant should be (ie. running clones). In other words, that conventional wisdom you stated is likely not true for cannabis and especially not in pots indoors.
Adding PSB of course will aid with this, perhaps even overcome the need for P boosters entirely (which in fact one person I know of has been able to do with the use of PSBs, ie. by using mammoth).
In fact, I HIGHLY recommend ALWAYS using PSBs, especially for flowering, given what I have seen. Dear God!..
But it is pricey.
I'd also recommend other things too.. Like broad spectrum lighting.
And while I didn't see the lab results, I have it from word of mouth that there at the very least, are no PGRs or other ingredients in Mammoth that would make it something you should not or do not want to use - it is what they are claiming and nothing more, which indeed I questioned. I always question lol.
..
All things being equal when it comes to a discussion on what is going to affect not only yield, but also quality, overall, is light, the amount of it, how much you are giving, and how broad is your spectrum, and what spectra do you peak at... Also UV! Boy UV... LoL anyone who said UV didn't do something.. Boy.. were you lying just to keep the shit from everyone else.... High peaking yellows and reds correlate to yields, that big chunky cola, the blues, UV, and broad spectrum lighting will up your resin production and quality. Take it to the bank! Or don't believe me, grow good pot anyway
My understanding, without writing too much of a book and getting into nutrients, breakdown, and uptake, is that because for instance P (and Ca) get locked up easily in media, this is why more than what would be typically necessary is added, since it is "necessary", since it gets bound up (and also may be leeched away) before the plant can uptake it..
Also.. It really kinda needs some saying that large field soil growing is not quite the same as someone trying to replicate that in any way in a smaller outdoor garden or indoor setup. Lotsa similarities, but still, a lot of the nutrient cycling isn't happening in buckets, lol and well a lot of things aren't happening in buckets, pails, and bins. We are mildly replicating what happens in a field. Obviously you know this too, but for the general discussion sake because I don't think a lot of people do realize that and my personal opinion also is that I could probably find more dissimilarities than similarities.
Early application of P is necessary because the plant needs it early on, but also yes will be translocated later too during flowering - but it's not enough. It's not enough for what we want for cannabis. Maybe for many other plants, like the ones typical farmers and scientists are working with, this is the case, but cannabis not only seems to require high amounts of P (really many of the elements, NPK, Ca, Mg, and so on), but without adding P and K during flowering, as well as Ca and Mg, yields and quality overall will suffer. That being said, K is certainly demanded in higher amounts, but is more easily added.
And, this may not be true for other crops so studied, but cannabis that was not fed ample P (or really many elements) during veg, but fed adequately during flowering, will not only recover, but I imagine are using the P being given, since I have seen they will attain pretty much what the plant should be (ie. running clones). In other words, that conventional wisdom you stated is likely not true for cannabis and especially not in pots indoors.
Adding PSB of course will aid with this, perhaps even overcome the need for P boosters entirely (which in fact one person I know of has been able to do with the use of PSBs, ie. by using mammoth).
In fact, I HIGHLY recommend ALWAYS using PSBs, especially for flowering, given what I have seen. Dear God!..
But it is pricey.
I'd also recommend other things too.. Like broad spectrum lighting.
And while I didn't see the lab results, I have it from word of mouth that there at the very least, are no PGRs or other ingredients in Mammoth that would make it something you should not or do not want to use - it is what they are claiming and nothing more, which indeed I questioned. I always question lol.
..
All things being equal when it comes to a discussion on what is going to affect not only yield, but also quality, overall, is light, the amount of it, how much you are giving, and how broad is your spectrum, and what spectra do you peak at... Also UV! Boy UV... LoL anyone who said UV didn't do something.. Boy.. were you lying just to keep the shit from everyone else.... High peaking yellows and reds correlate to yields, that big chunky cola, the blues, UV, and broad spectrum lighting will up your resin production and quality. Take it to the bank! Or don't believe me, grow good pot anyway
Last edited:
As a side-note, "my" statement is even true for industrial hemp which, at least to me, seems quite similar to drug type cannabis regarding nutrient requirements. The one nutrient hemp craves for is indeed P mostly because it is the one nutrient with the highest rate of soil deprivation as a result of phytoextraction.
But plants are sometimes funny cause two seemingly quite similar cultivars of one crop species can be very different regarding many aspects of life, requirements for a healthy and vigorous growth, as well as tolerance/resistance to stress and pests.
Sure, the point with pots and indoors being anything but similar to agricultural field conditions is very important. Also, a farmer calculates differently and will rather opt for fertiliser quantities at an economic optimum (somewhere in the upper sufficiency range) whereas a cannabis grower will likely grow in the luxury range.
There's that thread about the P myth and whowasitagain? Spurr? proposed to cut P before the stretch starts if one wanted to keep the plants stockier. My conclusion was that one would have to do that too early and yield would go down given that the plants can't make up for the low P input after the stretch phase.
Lacking proper experience myself, I'm very interested in observations of others. From the theoretical point of view, I'm no big fan of high P feeding after the growth phase but that's just the theory.
But plants are sometimes funny cause two seemingly quite similar cultivars of one crop species can be very different regarding many aspects of life, requirements for a healthy and vigorous growth, as well as tolerance/resistance to stress and pests.
Sure, the point with pots and indoors being anything but similar to agricultural field conditions is very important. Also, a farmer calculates differently and will rather opt for fertiliser quantities at an economic optimum (somewhere in the upper sufficiency range) whereas a cannabis grower will likely grow in the luxury range.
There's that thread about the P myth and whowasitagain? Spurr? proposed to cut P before the stretch starts if one wanted to keep the plants stockier. My conclusion was that one would have to do that too early and yield would go down given that the plants can't make up for the low P input after the stretch phase.
Lacking proper experience myself, I'm very interested in observations of others. From the theoretical point of view, I'm no big fan of high P feeding after the growth phase but that's just the theory.
I had some tissue samples sent in to the University for analysis in veg and flower. The plants take roughly the same nutrients all the way through, with only a slight reduction of calcium in flower. My results mimicked this chart borrowed from Advanced Nutrients.
That's exactly what has been published for hemp. Also, nutrient uptake correlates well with plant size respectively increase in weight.
Still, there's that weird thing with high P only increasing harvest/yield if supplied early... The "why" is nagging at me for quite some time now. Must be some sort of trigger; I can imagine that it's some evolutionary thing because the amount of sensed P during germination in spring is likely a good indication for the overall availability of P during the whole season. Of all minerals, P is the most likely to decrease during the growing season. If there's not enough P in spring, a plant remains small cause it assumes that there won't be enough available for many seeds in fall.
N can successively be obtained through N fixation (bacteria/legumes) throughout the growing season and K and Mg become available once the root system reaches deep enough and Ca is seldom limiting. That's possibly why high P is probably so important early on.
I fully agree with you regarding the need for continuous supply: given the size of cannabis plants makes it highly unlikely that young ones could accumulate enough for a full grow cycle. But I don't think that sinsemilla cannabis requires more P during flowering than seed hemp because seeds have a higher requirement for P than "flowers" (bracts and calyxes). Cannabis does, according to publications and logic, require more during the vegetative phase because of hemp usually having less leaves.
Just some thoughts: How severe the loss of P due to precipitation and sorption is, I do not know. In acid soils, most P is adsorbed to aluminium and iron oxides whereas it precipitates with CaCO3 in calcareous soils. In hydroponics, Al is usually omitted, Fe used at over 10 times smaller quantities than P (and not as Fe(III) oxide but for example as Fe(II) chelate), and carbonates are not existent at a pH below 6 but become bicarbonates which are less prone to scaling. Sure, carbonates might be present in equal quantities to phosphate and calcium is clearly present in excess...
I am doing some unrelated research for a client on crop nutrient profiles and the application of particular elements/nutrition at specific times. From what I see--practically every crop behaves differently than what you describe. To insure maximum potential, the profiles indicate the need to apply a specific fertility, at a specific rate, at strategic specific times.
Curious as to why, in your opinion, cannabis behaves differently--that is, nutrients needs are more constant than dynamic though the all growing phases.
I am not referring to the normal "feeding schedules" requirements--as those are dependent on using the manufacturer's nutrient line. What I am referring to are plant/crop nutrition profile requirements during the all stages (vegetative and flower).
Thanks in advance for your help.
LoL Veg formula and some cal mag all the way through flower meow???.. Is this the vegbloom secret HA! Did you just smash the lock and find the new key? LoL meditate on this, I will.
Doc's input is putting now to test pretty much the 2 schools of thought on this subject; limited feeding as required, or luxury feeding, the former, also something I've played with, feeding XYZ at the right time.. The timing is a thing.
With Ornamental post, it seems of course, blending the 2 sciences is what really seems to be the case, feeding adequate nutrition, but also, the spiking and tapering of particular elements at the right times, either during veg or bloom...
Doc's input is putting now to test pretty much the 2 schools of thought on this subject; limited feeding as required, or luxury feeding, the former, also something I've played with, feeding XYZ at the right time.. The timing is a thing.
With Ornamental post, it seems of course, blending the 2 sciences is what really seems to be the case, feeding adequate nutrition, but also, the spiking and tapering of particular elements at the right times, either during veg or bloom...
Sheeesh.... just for the record, I do feel quite stupid right now ;( .
Cause I was thinking way too much too deep too far. The trick with P being best pre-sowing is actually very simple (had to read again through the old books): Agricultural P fertilisers (e.g. broadcast granules or sprinkler fertigation) won't work during the growing period because P sticks so well to soil particles that it only penetrates a few cm deep (depending on sand or loam etc, it can be between 1 and 4 cm). That's not enough to reach the main root system and hence the added P doesn't do anything (at least not until next tilling).
Quite obviously, this restriction doesn't apply to aeroponics, DWC, NFT, and other substrate-free growing techniques.
Apart from that, science & biology (the general kind, not the cannabis specific, which is rather scarce) say that the requirement for most nutrients, especially the micros, is proportional to growth (increase in plant matter) and not the growing phase per se. Sure enough, growth and gain in weight depend on the different developmental phases and hence timing is important but not the way many people think about it (like germination, rooting cuttings, veg, flo, bulking, etc.)... Also, special demands arise during fruit set and seed development. These two things are usually absent in cannabis growing whereas the sinsemilla behaviour is quite unique to cannabis and there are no parallels to be found in other crop species where we could learn from. What I do miss is the parallels to tobacco, the +/- only other crop highly investigated for the sole purpose of getting a good smoke. Like high K and moderate N are good for burning qualities whereas high S (>0.7% dry weight) and high Fe, Mn & Cl are bad. Especially sulphur is something tobacco farmers try hard to keep at a moderate level whereas here on IC, growers are all "Epsom here, Epsom there!".
Bottom line is, we have to keep an open mind and look beyond the rim of our "pothole", so to speak.
Cause I was thinking way too much too deep too far. The trick with P being best pre-sowing is actually very simple (had to read again through the old books): Agricultural P fertilisers (e.g. broadcast granules or sprinkler fertigation) won't work during the growing period because P sticks so well to soil particles that it only penetrates a few cm deep (depending on sand or loam etc, it can be between 1 and 4 cm). That's not enough to reach the main root system and hence the added P doesn't do anything (at least not until next tilling).
Quite obviously, this restriction doesn't apply to aeroponics, DWC, NFT, and other substrate-free growing techniques.
Apart from that, science & biology (the general kind, not the cannabis specific, which is rather scarce) say that the requirement for most nutrients, especially the micros, is proportional to growth (increase in plant matter) and not the growing phase per se. Sure enough, growth and gain in weight depend on the different developmental phases and hence timing is important but not the way many people think about it (like germination, rooting cuttings, veg, flo, bulking, etc.)... Also, special demands arise during fruit set and seed development. These two things are usually absent in cannabis growing whereas the sinsemilla behaviour is quite unique to cannabis and there are no parallels to be found in other crop species where we could learn from. What I do miss is the parallels to tobacco, the +/- only other crop highly investigated for the sole purpose of getting a good smoke. Like high K and moderate N are good for burning qualities whereas high S (>0.7% dry weight) and high Fe, Mn & Cl are bad. Especially sulphur is something tobacco farmers try hard to keep at a moderate level whereas here on IC, growers are all "Epsom here, Epsom there!".
Bottom line is, we have to keep an open mind and look beyond the rim of our "pothole", so to speak.
I think someone better than me coined the phrase "fusion gardening" and it probably applies here.
Not trying to stir shit up, BUT, when one studies commercial crop guides, everyone one I read has a regimen of strategic feeding (be it root, foliar or combination of the two) with specific nutrients at specific times. My style is "mostly organic" in a custom peat grow medium in 5 gallon containers--I can honestly say there is some truth in that. Strategic feeding works.
Now...combine "strategic timing" with a thing called "duration". As in, "what is the duration before a particular organic element becomes "Plant Available" in the grow medium"...and "what is the duration that it remains "Plant Available?" It produces another level of "difficulty".
Some organic inputs decompose 50% or more at 7 days and provide over 60% of it's Plant Available Nitrogen (PAN) at 28 days. Some decompose slower and remove Nitrogen from the grow medium (negative PAN).
With that in mind, if a specific nutrient is "consumed" after a few months (plant uptake, leaching, dissipation, etc) , then "strategic applications" make sense...as opposed to "continuous feeding". Sometimes less is best.
This table might help you see the variation between "decompose" and PAN for organic inputs with low N...but are almost the same for those when N% is greater than 5%.
Source: https://smallfarms.oregonstate.edu/microsites/calculator
See fourth PDF file under "Research Background".
TnTLabs
Active member
could it be, that plant uptake of nutrients and leaf analytic data are not in correlation! Rather, the plant takes what it needs, to store those levels in the leafes, that are required to grow/bloom adequately
My understanding of quote organics un quote (because organics is pretty much caca and has nothing to do with reality, it's a marketing term) is that whatever you are using/adding, you generally have some of that nutrient that is immediately available, and the rest that will be slow released over time as it is acted upon by some vector (time/heat/h2o/microbial activity/plant uptake/etc.). What is fed changes those variables - some fertilizers have more fast release N, or P, some more slow release, and so on.
The element in question generally remains available as long as well, it is available in the form it is available in, until it is leeched away or eaten by microbial activity or binds to something else, again all depending on the element/compound. That IS the problem with organics - microbial activity will eat up all your nutes before your plants, and you have to feed anyway, or the slow release fertilizer is TOO slow release, or doesn't break down quickly enough, or you get a lot of leeching of nutrients in your media, or other issues.
Soil growing is great, but also for the birds. I could talk about it in... Heh a few sentences. Basically your soil you make is just as good as any pre-bagged out there, and they do it better for much cheaper than you ever could. AND you still need to either transplant or add nutes. The only way to get a true longer lasting "no nutes just add water" soil, like very few good super soils on the market (and they do exist) is to "cook" your soil, and properly - which takes time, effort, space, etc.
Without cook your soil and using as is, such as any soil using an LC's #1 mix, or something similar, will last about 3 to maybe 4 weeks worth of nutrients after transplanting and the plant establishes itself, which takes a week or so. After such time you will need to feed or transplant.
Continuous vs timed feeding is just more about preference, and what a plant REALLY needs to optimize it - with timed feeding as you mentioned, well yes it is done in most industries because it does save money, and generally produce a better product. BUT that only works because we've spent lots of time and money in public researching figuring out, and still figuring out, all the in's and outs of every crop that is grown that has economic value.... Except for the most part when this cannabis and other illegal crops, such studies are lacking, and much more for cannabis than even other illicit crops.
It is easier for most growers to simply luxury, continuously feed as this ensures proper nutrition, and no general need to be concerned about timing... If even that timing is really a thing... As in, can you make an already good product, BETTER, even better than otherwise all things being equal produced optimally.
I think yes, you want to do both - you want to feed adequately, but also spike and taper certain elements at certain times, likely to certain amount, and you will obtain a superior product than just feeding continuously, or luxuriously, throughout.
Heh I personally barely flush and people are always like "this is the smoothest shit ever man you must flush it really good!"... So.. Yeah. It always amazing me reality vs what people say and think and want to think reality actually is
The element in question generally remains available as long as well, it is available in the form it is available in, until it is leeched away or eaten by microbial activity or binds to something else, again all depending on the element/compound. That IS the problem with organics - microbial activity will eat up all your nutes before your plants, and you have to feed anyway, or the slow release fertilizer is TOO slow release, or doesn't break down quickly enough, or you get a lot of leeching of nutrients in your media, or other issues.
Soil growing is great, but also for the birds. I could talk about it in... Heh a few sentences. Basically your soil you make is just as good as any pre-bagged out there, and they do it better for much cheaper than you ever could. AND you still need to either transplant or add nutes. The only way to get a true longer lasting "no nutes just add water" soil, like very few good super soils on the market (and they do exist) is to "cook" your soil, and properly - which takes time, effort, space, etc.
Without cook your soil and using as is, such as any soil using an LC's #1 mix, or something similar, will last about 3 to maybe 4 weeks worth of nutrients after transplanting and the plant establishes itself, which takes a week or so. After such time you will need to feed or transplant.
Continuous vs timed feeding is just more about preference, and what a plant REALLY needs to optimize it - with timed feeding as you mentioned, well yes it is done in most industries because it does save money, and generally produce a better product. BUT that only works because we've spent lots of time and money in public researching figuring out, and still figuring out, all the in's and outs of every crop that is grown that has economic value.... Except for the most part when this cannabis and other illegal crops, such studies are lacking, and much more for cannabis than even other illicit crops.
It is easier for most growers to simply luxury, continuously feed as this ensures proper nutrition, and no general need to be concerned about timing... If even that timing is really a thing... As in, can you make an already good product, BETTER, even better than otherwise all things being equal produced optimally.
I think yes, you want to do both - you want to feed adequately, but also spike and taper certain elements at certain times, likely to certain amount, and you will obtain a superior product than just feeding continuously, or luxuriously, throughout.
Heh I personally barely flush and people are always like "this is the smoothest shit ever man you must flush it really good!"... So.. Yeah. It always amazing me reality vs what people say and think and want to think reality actually is
Absolem
Active member
Hey OO
Here's the link for the high P thread.
https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=191007&page=6
I don't think Spurr is suggesting to cut P but rather not jam it before week 2 of flower.
For several years I've been making my own plant nutrients from salts. Mostly from Yara and Hafia. Several years before that I would manipulate bottle ferts with some salts to hit my desired plant nutrition levels. I have found through observation that keeping P at the same level as used in veg through the first two weeks of flower will help reduce the stretch. I do grow in coco coir with some peat and perlite added.
There was one run that stuck out on low P level during flower. I would normally run P during veg at 25 mg/l and up it to 60 mg/l on day 15 of flower then up it again on day 21 to 80 mg/l until week 7 on 9 week strains. During one run I only upped the P level to 40 mg/l at day 15 of flower just to see how much I could affect the stretch. By week five of flower the plants didn't look the right color green so I upped it to 80 mg/l through week six and seven of flower which did help the plants look right again. I found there was no noticeable difference in flower size. However the plant leaves lacked the right green color and the plants barely stretched at all. I was counting on a bit more stretch then I got. After that run I never ran P below 60 mg/l after day 15 of flower.
Last edited:
Sorry, Canna, after your first sentence....I see reason to read the rest of you post.
When someone starts out disqualifying organic style of gardening (without a smidgen of evidence or collaboration)...which happens to be THE oldest styles of growing, then this old fucker has a hard to respect or read any word that follows that insane comment.
Pontificate away if you want--but remember, your knowledge is limited to a very tiny sliver-sized slice of this huge "agriculture pie".
TnTLabs
Active member
further thinking brings me to the conclusion that a plant might be able to choose some nutrients it needs to store over others, but to a certain extent absorbs everything in the soil or in the feed, otherwise you wouldnt see a leaf claw for example due to excessive N uptake...
