What's new

Parts Per Million for Dummies (US) using TSP/Gallon Teaspoon

I Care

Active member
If you have a blend that you wish to calculate your Macro and Micronutrient PPM using teaspoons, the conversion is described in this post.

My desire for this thread is that the firstpage contains a reply about the other ratios that affect the raw calculations I have done here. The multiplications necessary to determine the actual available nutrients for those that are not reflected by raw numbers provided by the manufacturer.

I like everybody here, but I want this first page to be the true wealth of converting any food, for anybody who uses any product anywhere in the world as water soluble nutrients. After the boring stuff is out of the way, the next pages would be great for fun and laughs.

An elemental nutrient at 10% added at 1tsp/Gal comes out to 129ppm per gallon.

The calculations for teaspoons are as follows.
(X): represents the elemental nutrient

X = 10.0 Then 1.0 x 129 = 129ppm per Gallon

Now let’s move to an example of a micro nutrient represented by Y
Y = 0.05 Then 0 .005 x 129 = 6.45ppm per Gallon

Now here is an example of a water soluble nutrient thy can be bought at Home Depot.
NPK 12 - 5 - 7 Vigoro All Season All Purpose on hardware store shelves in the US.

N = 12 1.2 x 129 = 154.8 ppm / N
P = 5 .5 x 129 = 64.5 ppm / P
K = 7 .7 x 129 = 38.7

You will continue with the same reduction

The elemental analasys time .1 multiplied by 129 equals the ppm per gallon.


Here is an example of some micros
Ca = 1 .1 x 129 = 12.9 ppm / Ca
S = .4 .04 x 129 = 5.1 ppm / S
Mg= .2 .02 x 129 = 2.58 ppm/ Mg
Zn= .01 .001x129= .129 ppm/ Zn


Someone please reply with the clarification for further reduction of these numbers based on available P and K and whatever else. I know there is more to this, determining the actual PPMs that is available from water soluble nutrient percentages listed on the packaging.

Thanks, hope we can create something beneficial.

Props to David O’Connor, the guy on the Scottish throne, for sharing this informantion
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    4.3 MB · Views: 26

Creeperpark

Active member
Mentor
If you have a blend that you wish to calculate your Macro and Micronutrient PPM using teaspoons, the conversion is described in this post.

My desire for this thread is that the firstpage contains a reply about the other ratios that affect the raw calculations I have done here. The multiplications necessary to determine the actual available nutrients for those that are not reflected by raw numbers provided by the manufacturer.

I like everybody here, but I want this first page to be the true wealth of converting any food, for anybody who uses any product anywhere in the world as water soluble nutrients. After the boring stuff is out of the way, the next pages would be great for fun and laughs.

An elemental nutrient at 10% added at 1tsp/Gal comes out to 129ppm per gallon.

The calculations for teaspoons are as follows.
(X): represents the elemental nutrient

X = 10.0 Then 1.0 x 129 = 129ppm per Gallon

Now let’s move to an example of a micro nutrient represented by Y
Y = 0.05 Then 0 .005 x 129 = 6.45ppm per Gallon

Now here is an example of a water soluble nutrient thy can be bought at Home Depot.
NPK 12 - 5 - 7 Vigoro All Season All Purpose on hardware store shelves in the US.

N = 12 1.2 x 129 = 154.8 ppm / N
P = 5 .5 x 129 = 64.5 ppm / P
K = 7 .7 x 129 = 38.7

You will continue with the same reduction

The elemental analasys time .1 multiplied by 129 equals the ppm per gallon.


Here is an example of some micros
Ca = 1 .1 x 129 = 12.9 ppm / Ca
S = .4 .04 x 129 = 5.1 ppm / S
Mg= .2 .02 x 129 = 2.58 ppm/ Mg
Zn= .01 .001x129= .129 ppm/ Zn


Someone please reply with the clarification for further reduction of these numbers based on available P and K and whatever else. I know there is more to this, determining the actual PPMs that is available from water soluble nutrient percentages listed on the packaging.

Thanks, hope we can create something beneficial.

Props to David O’Connor, the guy on the Scottish throne, for sharing this informantion
Thanks for adding your input on nutrients friend. I just use a TDS meter to calculate my parts per million. When using a complete fertilizer the manufacturing scientists have already mixed the ratios for the perfect ppm blend.
 

I Care

Active member
Another basic calculation of todays watering
2tsp 2-4-4 General Organics BioThrive Bloom
1tsp 1-0-5 grandmas molasses

2 4 4
2 4 4
1 0 5
5 8 13

.5 x129= 64.5ppm/N
.8 x129= 102.3ppm/P
1.3x129= 167.7ppm/K

.2 x 129 = 25.8ppm/S
.1 x 129 = 12.9ppm/Mg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gry

Ca++

Active member
1g of 10% strength, in 10L, is 10ppm.
1g of 2.9% strength in 10L, is 2.9ppm
1g of 35% in 10L, is 35ppm

A liter is a 10th of 10L, so we get a result 10x stronger
1g of 10% in 1L is 100ppm
1g of 2.9% in 1L is 29ppm
1g of 35% in 1L is 350ppm

Often we are using fluids, and don't want to weigh them. 1g of water is 1ml. So we can almost say it's the same. With 1ml of 10% in 10L giving us 10ppm, just as 1g did. However, most feed bottles actually give the weight and volume. You often see 1L weighing 1050g which means a 5% error using fluid volume for ppm calcs, instead of using actual weight.

It's metric, and in metric, it's mental arithmetic. No calculator needed. If you start getting the calc out to tap in how many spoons you used, it's a lot of thought, to get a result as accurate as loading a teaspoon.

It's just there for you, if you work in metric. I'm not sure why anyone would make it a math challenge. Just to keep their gallon alive.
 

I Care

Active member
Now a ML dropper that would be great if you don’t like getting your hands covered in smelly organics. The plastic blow molded ones since they’re the most consistent. Don’t know how much quality control is done on printed droppers, or the shot glass in my case.

As for gallons, those Arizona tea jugs worked awesome. But I’m no longer fan consuming all of that corn syrup with my lack of moderation. Have a HD jug in a day or two at most but also all the sickys or all that corn. Just a rinsed water jug is really easy for me this round.

With this adding a decimal and counting each added nutrient as 1tsp instead of breaking it down into each individual mL has been really helpful in the process of determining rough accurate nutrient ppm levels.

The tsp has become as easy as moving the decimal point left and multiplying by 129. Whether I do 7tsp of different food or 2tsp, I add it all up and treat those added numbers as if it’s one tsp.

It’s the only way I could find to work smarter without the need for more capital funding. Probe should be in if I ever decide to go to the mailbox, but this really is working for me and my recycling.

This thread is “for dummies” after all.

What is the further reduction? like .42 for available P and .8 for available K? I read it somewhere and wasn’t high at the time, info didn’t totally stick.
 

Ca++

Active member
Are you talking oxide to elemental?
I see them move a bit, but use 0.43 and 0.83 myself. It's near enough the same though.
The post-it note has fell off my monitor, or I would list a few more.
 

I Care

Active member
Irie, that’s it there. When trying to keep water from becoming too hard, I wonder if I should be doing what I’m doing or should I be doing it with the oxide to elemental conversion to stay below the threshold. Or which one is the probe going to read, the oxide or elemental?



Unrelated. Hard water here so the heaviest I have gone is 650 total calculated this way. Will be interetsing to go back to that same concentration with the meter to see if I went over the 1600ppm threshold.
 

Ca++

Active member
When we talk PPM, it's the elemental value. The part the plant is interested in.

Be careful checking your work with a ppm meter. These meters are conductivity meters, masquerading as something they are not. Money can't buy a ppm meter.

Say you have some 10% Ca solution, and you stick a ml in a L to get 100ppm. We are ignoring 90% of what we just put in. Will the meter see this? Well yes, but how much it see's, is dependent on how conductive the stuff is. Stuff that's not listed, if it's not plant food. Lets say it measures nothing, to keep things simple. Then we just have the elemental portions to measure. Another problem exists, that not all elements have the same conductivity. 100ppm of one could measure as 70ppm, while 100ppm of another could measure 130ppm. In reality, non will measure the same, as they have different conductivity. The ppm meter can't see what element you are measuring to account for the individual conductivity of that element. What the ppm meter does, is compare to a calibration solution, which should be as salty as your complete feed, ideally. This is where it really falls apart, and 50% inaccuracies are seen between results using these standards. With some calibrations made against sodium chloride, and others against more realistic salt solutions. This is where we see the common x500 or x700 multipliers being used by meters from different regions. Though there are others.
In simple terms, the EC is what we measure, and PPM is a big fat liar. Don't trust it to check your work.

I think we got ppm meters from the aquatics shops. Long before we could easily get an EC meter, without offering up a kidney. They just kind of stuck with us, like the gallon. It's not research level measurement. And while some might just scream osmocote, every time they hear a loud noise, it's actually nice to read them research papers, while speaking the same language. So ppm is known when you weigh in the elemental quantities yourself. Tank salt concentrations are seen with a conductivity measurement. Then the papers are much easier to read. That is doing it properly, you could say.
 

I Care

Active member
I did order https://www.aliexpress.us/item/3256805768910800.html?gatewayAdapt=glo2usa

It says it’s down at the mailbox
This fool never ordered batteries though

Going to run with the 129 multiplier I cracked the code on for now. My real worry with this is that i am missing something and could be under feeding but also causing toxicity from all the other stuff in these bottles.

There’s something more to the osmocote approach, having a fail safe for your base nutrients with a back up of water soluble nutrients does actually make a lot of sense. I think it’s much more of a Hakuna Matata approach. Probably get to take long holidays with nothing but clean water and a way to keep it flowing.
 

I Care

Active member
Oh nuggets.

Add everything together I got about 950.

501
501
244
244
244
105
105
105

21-12-29

21 = 2.1 x 129 = 270.9ppm/N
12 = 1.2x 129 = 154.8ppm/P
29 = 2.9x 129 = 372.4ppm/K

It’s the same thing for me afterward looking at macros
One nutrient contains 1% Sulfur and three parts of that nutrient is listed above.

So I do the micros like this
S (sulfur 3pts 1%)
1 1 1 = 3 = .3 x 129 = 38.7ppm/S

Ca (Calcium 2pts 5%)
5 5 = 10 = 1.0 x129 = 129ppm/Ca

Mg
.5 .5 .5 = 1.5 = .15x129=19.35ppm/Mg

Once again
Your percentage % x (0.1) x 129 = ppm

My trick to this, do not concern yourself with 8 teaspoons, concern yourself with those teaspoons as if they are one.

I will follow up on this with a meter in the near future.
 

Ca++

Active member
I don't really follow that, but you probably don't have 244 you have 223 if you want to talk ppm. Though ppm is getting pretty exacting, so you would look what the numbers really are, rather than rounding them off, as the bottle does. For instance, that 2N could be 1.5N rounded appropriately. Making your results 25% off. If they don't give more exact figures on the bottle, then they are talking minimums. Which makes any value they give a bit worthless. Some feeds just claim to contain tiny tiny amounts, because they have to admit to something. Others tell you what you want to hear. Labeling is very controlled, with pages and pages of legal guidelines, that amount to nothing useful.

If you wanted to do ppm in metric, like it is, I could look over your figures. I would need weights and volumes though, to do it properly.
 

I Care

Active member
Those are NPKs, I think you know that.
So going with that .43 and. 83 you mentioned earlier you’re saying to go with the 223?

I think I’m getting this as right as I can get it, minus all the exacting variables. I should have shared the video that gives the formula

 

Ca++

Active member
Those are NPKs, I think you know that.
I started off thinking as you. That a bottle saying it has 4% P, has 4% P. It's a reasonable expectation, and published often. However, it's not true. They list the P as a compound. An oxide. Even if it's not.
We must do math to convert what we are told, to the truth. In the UK, the truth is often stated in brackets, beside the conventional compound measurement. In Ireland, they just tell it how it is. That 4% isn't even 2%, if it were indeed 4%. Yes, the 4% is in fact a lie itself. It's a guaranty of what you will find. Which outside of the UK isn't a guaranty you will find that. It's a guaranty you will find at least that.
Essentially, you can't work out the PPM's from this label. It doesn't tell you what is in the bottle, or a figure you can correct with math. It's just numbers to keep everyone happy. Everyone that has no need to know, that it.
 

I Care

Active member
Thanks, that really kinda explains it, I do love the UK will be going a new route when I get a chance to start a new round. By then, that meter you put me on to, will be working with batteries. Depending on what I haul out of the tent next month, I may try to get someone to buy me another nutrient line, I can’t help but lean to Canna. Definitely going to plant mother GMO C2 with osmocote just to save myself any aggravation and learn how to use a meter on the next round.
 
Top