Question regarding Ca uptake in early flower and VPD

[ButterflyEffect]

Dont take it personal, I like your enthusiasm.
But you're posting and writing so much, and often all that's left is confusion.

It's about ratios, not ppms.
As ButterflyEffect pointed out.

You need more K under LED, because you need more Ca and have to keep the ratios.
If you look up FloraFlex, FrontRow, Athena, PerfectGrower... they are all feeding way above 300pm. In Veg!



If I look at you're pics - that's definitely not calcium related...
You can keep doing what you're doing, but I'm pretty sure you will get problems soon (purple stems, leaf/tip clawing, etc).

This is more the issue I'm dealing with now. In addition to a too high VPD, I waited too long to transplant out of the solos. I've gotten them to the point of being very healthy with short internodal spacing that I neglected to account for that and let them stay too long. I'm not exactly sure why it's an issue with the small plants in veg because they get to 48" root bound in a 1G and they couldn't be happier.

Looks like Mg but it could also be from whatever negatively affects the root zone in the solo. Maybe the roots got damaged from drying out too much?

 

[f-e]

@Broggemann
What ratios? We don't believe in ratio's here (uk). I have seen some published though. 8:2:1 sometimes. 4:2:1 at others. One has twice the K as Ca and one 4 times the Ca. Then I look at Bills thread where the most people are talking numbers. Many have more Ca than K to do well. I see field tests report no change from 200ppm down to the 20ppm in the ground. When I have spoke with lab techs here, they are blind to these old ways. We just need enough of each, without the total in the group getting too high. Cannabis is one of the better plants at taking what in needs from a wide range of conditions. General agriculture used to be a great guide for us, but with all the money coming in now, cannabis farming is becoming a guide to general agriculture.

Last year 1 in 6 pro growers surveyed were using over 300ppm K at peak flowering. The average was about 160ppm. Again, at peak/late flowering. Many have spoken out about the high K numbers we just don't need. We have K Ca and Mg in that group and want lot's of Ca and a bit more Mg now under LEDs so the K has to come down.

I see nothing to support any ratio, except getting that group total looked after.

 

[f-e]

This is more the issue I'm dealing with now. In addition to a too high VPD, I waited too long to transplant out of the solos. I've gotten them to the point of being very healthy with short internodal spacing that I neglected to account for that and let them stay too long. I'm not exactly sure why it's an issue with the small plants in veg because they get to 48" root bound in a 1G and they couldn't be happier.



Looks like Mg but it could also be from whatever negatively affects the root zone in the solo. Maybe the roots got damaged from drying out too much?

Bottom leaves have fade like N, but the veins remain green. I'm going to say Mg.
Tops a bit small, thin, lighter, twisted, not opening and overall a bit compact with red up the stems. Looks like Ca.
Both likely caused by the low RH. Bag them?

 

[Three Berries]

Won't yellowing of lower leaves because of low Mg respond quickly to some foliar application of Epsom?

The good Dr suggested too that the NPK ratios we should be pivoting around is phosphorus as far as not to get too much and base the rest on it. I missed his Ca discussion.

But Ca is needed for all new growth and I sure got strong stems.

 

[Broggemann]

@Broggemann
What ratios? We don't believe in ratio's here (uk). I have seen some published though. 8:2:1 sometimes. 4:2:1 at others. One has twice the K as Ca and one 4 times the Ca. Then I look at Bills thread where the most people are talking numbers. Many have more Ca than K to do well. I see field tests report no change from 200ppm down to the 20ppm in the ground. When I have spoke with lab techs here, they are blind to these old ways. We just need enough of each, without the total in the group getting too high. Cannabis is one of the better plants at taking what in needs from a wide range of conditions. General agriculture used to be a great guide for us, but with all the money coming in now, cannabis farming is becoming a guide to general agriculture.

Last year 1 in 6 pro growers surveyed were using over 300ppm K at peak flowering. The average was about 160ppm. Again, at peak/late flowering. Many have spoken out about the high K numbers we just don't need. We have K Ca and Mg in that group and want lot's of Ca and a bit more Mg now under LEDs so the K has to come down.

I see nothing to support any ratio, except getting that group total looked after.

Ratios do matter, there are numberous studies supporting this.
If ratios wouldnt matter, why is there such thing as the Mulders Chart?
And because you're always citing Canna - even they state on their site, that the Ca:K ratio does matter and should be always between two and ten.

4:2:1 is a tried and proven ratio for me under LED, along with more food in general.

150-120-380-190-80

Midflower, no burnt tips, no deficiencys, no claw, no purple stems.

Last run I used Floraflex and they are pushing more than 500ppm K since flowerday one.
No problems whatsoever.

 

[Broggemann]

This is more the issue I'm dealing with now. In addition to a too high VPD, I waited too long to transplant out of the solos. I've gotten them to the point of being very healthy with short internodal spacing that I neglected to account for that and let them stay too long. I'm not exactly sure why it's an issue with the small plants in veg because they get to 48" root bound in a 1G and they couldn't be happier.



Looks like Mg but it could also be from whatever negatively affects the root zone in the solo. Maybe the roots got damaged from drying out too much?

Youre plants are hungry!
K, Mg, Ca and probably N (makes for better Ca-absorption) as well.

 

[jackspratt61]

This is more the issue I'm dealing with now. In addition to a too high VPD, I waited too long to transplant out of the solos. I've gotten them to the point of being very healthy with short internodal spacing that I neglected to account for that and let them stay too long. I'm not exactly sure why it's an issue with the small plants in veg because they get to 48" root bound in a 1G and they couldn't be happier.

Looks like Mg but it could also be from whatever negatively affects the root zone in the solo. Maybe the roots got damaged from drying out too much?

Try 2grams gypsum, 2grams Epsom with .66ppm B per gallon of water. Trial at full ,1/2 and dbl strength.

 

[f-e]

Ratios do matter, there are numberous studies supporting this.
If ratios wouldnt matter, why is there such thing as the Mulders Chart?
And because you're always citing Canna - even they state on their site, that the Ca:K ratio does matter and should be always between two and ten.

4:2:1 is a tried and proven ratio for me under LED, along with more food in general.

150-120-380-190-80

Midflower, no burnt tips, no deficiencys, no claw, no purple stems.

Last run I used Floraflex and they are pushing more than 500ppm K since flowerday one.
No problems whatsoever.

It's interesting to see what you are doing. I'm not using what you or I do as examples though. For me, the numbers are balanced, and I'm in a high Ca soil I'm not including. I would rather look to a wider outside set of sources though.
Thousands of plants over 6 sites. Each with treats of no K, 50ppm 100ppm 200ppm. No yield response anywhere https://www.ncat.edu/caes/agricultu...mp-program/hemp-conference/files/mcginnis.pdf
If you lowered K you could lower Ca, but importantly Mg as other tests have shown over 70ppm to be detrimental.

The Mulders chart would be great, if I could find two that agree. It confirms things like dropping the K to let the Ca and Mg become more available. Without having to increase them.

 

[ButterflyEffect]

Bottom leaves have fade like N, but the veins remain green. I'm going to say Mg.
Tops a bit small, thin, lighter, twisted, not opening and overall a bit compact with red up the stems. Looks like Ca.
Both likely caused by the low RH. Bag them?

It's Mg, at the very least. It happens the most when the plants get too big for the solo cup. Their structure this time was pretty substantial for 9" plants. Of course the high VPD didn't help matters.

 

[ButterflyEffect]

Won't yellowing of lower leaves because of low Mg respond quickly to some foliar application of Epsom?

The good Dr suggested too that the NPK ratios we should be pivoting around is phosphorus as far as not to get too much and base the rest on it. I missed his Ca discussion.

But Ca is needed for all new growth and I sure got strong stems.

They're coming back with the foliar now. I was just trying to figure out why it was happening and why Mg.

If your VPD is too high, transpiration slows and with it the movement of Ca. The difference in my veg room when I run the VPD low compared to high is staggering.

 

[ButterflyEffect]

Youre plants are hungry!
K, Mg, Ca and probably N (makes for better Ca-absorption) as well.

Mostly lockout is my guess. They dry out too quickly in the solo for their mass. The room runs hot and I feed around 8-1000ppm. Between the low humidity and still being stuck in a solo for a plant of that mass. They'll bounce back fully within a week.

 

[ButterflyEffect]

Try 2grams gypsum, 2grams Epsom with .66ppm B per gallon of water. Trial at full ,1/2 and dbl strength.

Foliar? I've never had good results using gypsum and since I'm not in soil it doesn't work well due to it leaching out too quickly.

 

[ButterflyEffect]

It's interesting to see what you are doing. I'm not using what you or I do as examples though. For me, the numbers are balanced, and I'm in a high Ca soil I'm not including. I would rather look to a wider outside set of sources though.
Thousands of plants over 6 sites. Each with treats of no K, 50ppm 100ppm 200ppm. No yield response anywhere https://www.ncat.edu/caes/agricultu...mp-program/hemp-conference/files/mcginnis.pdf
If you lowered K you could lower Ca, but importantly Mg as other tests have shown over 70ppm to be detrimental.

The Mulders chart would be great, if I could find two that agree. It confirms things like dropping the K to let the Ca and Mg become more available. Without having to increase them.

I don't recall seeing a different mulder chart. Wouldn't it be something other than a mulder if it were different?

 

[jackspratt61]

Foliar? I've never had good results using gypsum and since I'm not in soil it doesn't work well due to it leaching out too quickly.

Pour directly into your reservoir all in one spot,not evenly. Calcium is the only element transferred between the roots. It's why calcium spikes work in buffered mixes and soil and this simulates that practice even though your not in a well buffered mix.You could substitute one gram calcium nitrate for one gram of the gypsum as the plant needs some n too.The B will stimulate transpiration,ca and p uptake and increase nitrogen metabolism. Dont worry about leaching the immediate effect is all we're looking for.

If your concerned spray one branch or top with 3 gram each of calcium nitrate/mg sulfate and 48 ppm B.

I'm seeing good responses to B and Ca at these rates and I'm in a similar setup.

 

[Broggemann]

It's interesting to see what you are doing. I'm not using what you or I do as examples though. For me, the numbers are balanced, and I'm in a high Ca soil I'm not including. I would rather look to a wider outside set of sources though.
Thousands of plants over 6 sites. Each with treats of no K, 50ppm 100ppm 200ppm. No yield response anywhere https://www.ncat.edu/caes/agricultu...mp-program/hemp-conference/files/mcginnis.pdf
If you lowered K you could lower Ca, but importantly Mg as other tests have shown over 70ppm to be detrimental.

The Mulders chart would be great, if I could find two that agree. It confirms things like dropping the K to let the Ca and Mg become more available. Without having to increase them.

This study is talking about lb/acre, not ppm.
They are growing in soil, outdoor, under the sun.
That's a whole different ball game.

As I said, I struggled for more than two years under LED.
Fed low. And fed high (3.0EC+), because of the new nutrient shedules and formulas formulated for LED.
And there is no comparison.

Maybe you should stop making theories in every thread and on a daily basis and just try it for yourself.
Feed your plants heavy for one run with a LED tailored nutrient regime and report back.
Should make a bigger difference than turn something up 10ppm, another thing down 20ppm, and so on...
Do some big chances instead of minor changes and watch for the tendency.

The amount of broscience and bad advice is quite big on forums nowadays.
I hate to admit it, but you will probably get a better grower on IG than on all these stoner boards, where people tend to overthink things and just repeat what they heard.

So excuse me if I sound pissed.
I just smoked a lot of subpar weed over the years and don't want people to do the same.

 

[Three Berries]

Mostly lockout is my guess. They dry out too quickly in the solo for their mass. The room runs hot and I feed around 8-1000ppm. Between the low humidity and still being stuck in a solo for a plant of that mass. They'll bounce back fully within a week.

When the medium gets really dry the pH will drop like a rock with the concentration of the minerals.

 

[ButterflyEffect]

Pour directly into your reservoir all in one spot,not evenly. Calcium is the only element transferred between the roots. It's why calcium spikes work in buffered mixes and soil and this simulates that practice even though your not in a well buffered mix.You could substitute one gram calcium nitrate for one gram of the gypsum as the plant needs some n too.The B will stimulate transpiration,ca and p uptake and increase nitrogen metabolism. Dont worry about leaching the immediate effect is all we're looking for.

If your concerned spray one branch or top with 3 gram each of calcium nitrate/mg sulfate and 48 ppm B.

I'm seeing good responses to B and Ca at these rates and I'm in a similar setup.

Thanks for the tip. I'll give this a go the next time I need a Ca boost.

 

[ButterflyEffect]

When the medium gets really dry the pH will drop like a rock with the concentration of the minerals.

Yep. That's likely what's happening. I just need to be more attentive now that I'm training them better and they tend to have significantly more nodes now.

 

[f-e]

This study is talking about lb/acre, not ppm.
They are growing in soil, outdoor, under the sun.
That's a whole different ball game.

As I said, I struggled for more than two years under LED.
Fed low. And fed high (3.0EC+), because of the new nutrient shedules and formulas formulated for LED.
And there is no comparison.

Maybe you should stop making theories in every thread and on a daily basis and just try it for yourself.
Feed your plants heavy for one run with a LED tailored nutrient regime and report back.
Should make a bigger difference than turn something up 10ppm, another thing down 20ppm, and so on...
Do some big chances instead of minor changes and watch for the tendency.

The amount of broscience and bad advice is quite big on forums nowadays.
I hate to admit it, but you will probably get a better grower on IG than on all these stoner boards, where people tend to overthink things and just repeat what they heard.

So excuse me if I sound pissed.
I just smoked a lot of subpar weed over the years and don't want people to do the same.

You don't sound pissed. Just a bit lacking. How we do it isn't reliant. You are using this bro science you speak of. The ' I do it like this ' approach to countering what I'm putting forward from industry averages and university studies.
How I do it, isn't what I advise. I walk my own path of experimentation. I'm passed halving and doubling feeds though. I'm passed halving and doubling most of the individual elements within my feed for full cycles. You think moving individual elements 20ppm isn't a big change? That's half the P or Mg load of many feeds. It's not a small effect.
I tried to check your pics, but nothing in 10 years, and what I saw was mediocre. You are not speaking from high ground here.
The figures I put to that field study are correct. You just choose to see them as wrong. You are struggling for points here. Moving away from the conversation, towards personal comments.

Having theories is what separates the sheep from the shepherd. Those capable of original thought, have the new ideas that need peer review. Those incapable of original thought, that can offer no peer review, find it frustrating to see a conversation they can't converse with. It's like two foreign shopkeepers chatting away while you stand there wanting to be served. You don't know what they are talking about, and just want it to be over as you are getting nothing out of it. However, it doesn't mean the shop keepers got nothing out of it. Simply that you don't understand.

 

[jackspratt61]

Thanks for the tip. I'll give this a go the next time I need a Ca boost.