speak now or forever hear your peice!

[spurr]

I add Si last, right before i pH.
My tap is ~0.3ec. ~7.6pH.
My nutrient mix (including tap) pre Si is ~1.7ec. ~6.9pH.
Ive never had Si raise the pH to 8. Its normally only a few tenths.

So... while i see what your trying to avoid, i dont think the pH upswing caused by the Si is significant enough to cause fallout.

I guess either way will work, and again, i see what your trying to do, but id rather pH just once, rather than a possible two times..
(With stable tap water, i can estimate how much pH down im going to use anyway, negating the need for two pH adjustments.)

I think the issue is the Si:K ratio (as per analog, IIRC) and amount of product. Ex., 2.5 ml/gal of Pro-Tekt will not affect pH the same as 2.5 ml/gal SilicaBlast. I agree if the pH does not exceed ~7.5 it's less of a concern. However, even before I used Si I would pH adjust water before adding ferts, to try and keep them as soluble as possible.

When adding D.M. Silica at 7.5 ml/gal the water will reach pH > 8, so in that case pH adjusting seems like time worth spending.

I chalk up my multiple pHing and what I wrote about Si to my anal-retentive nature.

 

[quantic_soul]

Thanks spurr for clearly stating why people have recommended pH adjusting water before adding nutrients. I have read it in the past but never had a clear idea of why.

BTW for you nutrient formula I am not sure that you specify but when you say CalMag+ I am assuming you mean Botanicare CalMag+. I realized recently that GH has a product by the same name. The difference is that Botanicare CalMag+ has Calcium Nitrate whereas GH version has Calcium Carbonate. That is why I have been under the assumption you are using the botanicare version.

 

[spurr]

Yes, I am using BontaniCare "Cal-Mag Plus", I believe the General Hydroponics product is "CaMg+"; from the sub-brand General Organics.

That's a pretty good idea about starting a thread, or maybe a log. As of this point, there are at least 5 people testing/using my mix (or something very similar with my mix as a base); not including myself. One person is doing a large grow.

 

[toohighmf]

I use it Last as well. It's my PH up, damnit! In bloom anyway for the first 6 weeks on a 10 weeker.. however, certain concentrates of silicate need more time to properly mix in the solution to ensure you stabilize PH. I add calmg first, than my micro or base 1 part. Then my humics, fulvic, bvit. Aminos, h2o2, then silica.

I add Si last, right before i pH.
My tap is ~0.3ec. ~7.6pH.
My nutrient mix (including tap) pre Si is ~1.7ec. ~6.9pH.
Ive never had Si raise the pH to 8. Its normally only a few tenths.

So... while i see what your trying to avoid, i dont think the pH upswing caused by the Si is significant enough to cause fallout.

I guess either way will work, and again, i see what your trying to do, but id rather pH just once, rather than a possible two times..
(With stable tap water, i can estimate how much pH down im going to use anyway, negating the need for two pH adjustments.)

 

[Smoking Nomad]

It is only logical to be as organic as possible. That being said, maximizing product is a common goal. I've tried to be as organic as possible but have long known too many pitfalls to claim organic.

 

[Marquis de Sod]

hey too high, why you straying off from the 2part with Floralicious Plus regimen? you just trying this new stuff out cause you met the salesman guy or have you made a run with all the new additives yet? if so how much better are the results? mds

ps i pm'd you about a bloom enhancer. but i guess this thread pretty much tells me what you're using.

AND to all you KISS guys and AN haters, anybody gotta home made recipe for Big Bud? and WTF is GH make both KoolBloom AND MaxiBloom and two of each?????? are either of THEM what i need????

in MG soil i have been using
Bio Bizz Bloom
Liq. Budswell
Sugar Daddy
Floralicious Plus
Cal Mag Plus
(also at @ 1 month into bloom tried Hydroplex, and got NO APPARENT EFFECT at all. only used 4ml/gal. i know you love this stuff 2hi, and i applied it only two times in the second month. no difference at all to my other plants. did i not use it enuf times or what? same with Bushmaster about a year ago, zip.)

now using
FloraNova Bloom
Dry Budswel
Molasses
Carbo Load
1 ml Floralicious Plus like you, i switched for pretty much no reason whatsoever. i think molasses and epsom are basically Sugar Daddy, couldnt afford the liquid Budswel so went dry, thought i'd get bigger buds with the higher numbers of the floranova vs, the 1-2-2 of the BioBizz, so just waiting and seeing. If i had more money to burn i would use the liquid Budswel and Sugar Daddy instead of the molasses and carbo load. Going to throw some epsom salt in my 30 gallon res right now tho. threw in a table spoon of Monster Bloom as well, have no idea what it will do but 'couldn't hurt' right? (famous last words)

 

[Marquis de Sod]

this member i met in person today from this site (!!! i know MY FIRST INTERNET DATE!!!) uses Plant Marvel Nutriculture Bloom 5-50-17 and it's all he all uses to bloom. he uses the PM veg for grow and then third week in this is ALL HE USES every other water till the end.

now i know this sounds weird, but he says he gets cola the size of a 2 liter bottle in plants he grows under 600W above an LST plant in a 12.5 gallon pot filled with Sunshine #4 soil. the PM bloom was $21 for a coffee can size sack. which i bought and plan to use. but first, I just me, am going to bomb them with a 0-10-10 once or twice to get them to bulk up. seems the koolbloom powder is 0-10-10, which preceds the use of the liquid form, that is more like this bag i just bought. (even tho i gave a plant the 0-10-10 two weeks ago and noticed, you got it, no difference.)

So is timing ala Fox Farms trio: fertilizing at varying strengths at different times of the bloom cycle, REALLY THAT IMPORTANT? i did try mimicking their formula once, with different brands that had very close to the same numbers, at the approximate times they said to, and i personally, as usual, didnt see one fg thing different from one plant to the next. and BTW, i found an OLD can of Big Bud at the local store and when i blew the dust off the lid, the price said CHOKE!! $98!!!! for a large cold cream sized jar. you must be kidding me. who could afford that. i know people love it Including you 2HiMoFo, but crikey! if you want it i will tell you where it is. well, i mean, what part of outer mongolia it's in. from the dust on it they would be happy to mail it to you.

 

[Guest3498]

Hey toohigh, what's the deal with that bud+? I heard it was the same formula as the old powder bigbud or something...

Some friends of mine have been raving about the humbolt nutrients a+b and slew of additives. I'm thinking of giving it a try, been using floranova and pbp for too long I'd like t o give something pH balanced a shot.

 

[toohighmf]

The nutri+ line is pretty much identical to AN's 2+ profile, but half the cost. Bud+ is og big bud. Finisher is overdrive.

 

[spurr]

Is the nutri+ line out of Oz? I ask because there is a company called nutri+ (IIRC) based in Oz, that sells some unique products; though many are not unique. I noticed they sell a triacontanol product ("Nutri-Stim", IIRC), which I would like to try; I use powder triacontanol now, but I am interested in that product. The point of my ramble is this: can you get nutri+ in the US?

EDIT: it looks like I was thinking about "nutri-tech", not "nutri+", darnit:

http://www.nutri-tech.com.au/products/liquid-fertilisers/nutri-stim-triacontanol.html

 

[Marquis de Sod]

The nutri+ line is pretty much identical to AN's 2+ profile, but half the cost. Bud+ is og big bud. Finisher is overdrive.

i found the page on www.nutri-plus.ca but it doesnt say if the Bud+ has those L amino's you like so much that were in the old big bud. and their finisher i take it, is Final Drive. anyway, i didnt see any way to buy it. they just reference retailers, and the states that have it in the u.s. are few and far between. two states away from me so doubt i will be getting any. i didnt notice if any wholesalers/suppliers that do mail order were on their retailers list.

 

[desertsquirrel]

Pargro...

I just started to test this myself, i think you might like it..

it holds 14% less water then rockwol, and is around 30% cheaper.

you could kick the test up a notch by using slabs (i love them).

http://grodan101.com/sw77817.php

 

[toohighmf]

If I top drip I'll run slabs. Pargro sounds like the shizzle! I always felt grodan xtra were great, but delta 4x4x4's hold way too much moisture. thats why I run 4x4x2.5" cubes in my NFT..
We Shall see. cloning next week, as my latest bloom is freshly trimmed and hangin..

 

[desertsquirrel]

sweet man hope harvest went well. let me know how you like the pargro.

 

[thefatman]

Humus, Humic Acid and Fulvic Acid

Humus is defined as the organic matter in soil, a mixture of partially and totally humified substances. Compost is an intermediate product consisting of humic substances and partially decomposed organic matter.

The use of numerous names to describe commercially available humic materials has contributed to the confusion. Humates, humic acid, leonardite, brown coal, lignite, slack lignite, oxidized lig- nite, weathered lignite, humalite, fulvic acid, fulvates, ulmic acid, humic shale, carbonaceous shale, colloidal minerals, humin, concentrated humus, soil organic matter, peat, humus acid, humus coal and dead organic matter are some of the terms that are used to describe and/or market humic substances.

Potassium hydroxide is the typical alkali used by manufacturers to extract humic acid from leonardite (coal). Since the remaining liquid solution is very alkaline, in the range of 8 to 12 pH, it is incompatible with acids. Here lies some of the confusion, the humic acid synthesized by this operation is not actually an acid. Because it can also be described as the product of adding acid to an alkaline solution, it is a salt — therefore the word “humate” may be more appropriate.

Some manufacturers follow the traditional method described above by treating the alkaline extract with acid, precipitating out the humic acid portion, leaving behind the so-called fulvic acid fraction in solution. The fulvic fraction is acidic, with a distinctive yellowish tint. Note, however, that the operation is vague. There is no definite pH at which the precipitate and acid are separated.

As various fractions of humic substances are soluble in a wide pH range, it makes sense that some fractions must be soluble at neutral pH. Some manufacturers treat humic materials with water, extracting the water-soluble fraction, calling that fraction either fulvic acid or “colloidal minerals,” which are promoted in human neutraceutical markets. Fulvic acid can be operationally defined as “the fraction of humic substances that is soluble in water under all pH conditions.”

The marketing of humic substances is interesting in that there is a lack of standardized analysis within the industry for fulvic acid and humic acid. For example, if liquidized humic materials are subjected to analysis, it is difficult to determine what the analysis reveals because of the infinite number of reassociations of free radicals that are possible during the extraction process. Some scientists argue that the reaction products are substances created by alkali treatment as complex degradation products, stripped of many of the original functional groups and recombined into an indescribable material. This may seem to be a nit pick, but some scientists like to argue about it.

The humin fraction gets very little attention. It may seem somewhat inert, but it has been described as acting like a sponge, soaking up nutrients. M.H.B. Hayes and C.L. Graham report in “Procedures for the Isolation and Fractation of Humic Substances” that the composition of humin is the same as humic acid and fulvic acid. They say that humin may be a humic substance in association with mineral oxides or hydroxides (from the reaction), or that humin may be coated with hydrocarbons or lipids (fats) stripped during the reaction, making them insoluble to aqueous solvents. Nobody really knows for sure.

Some people think that fulvic acid is more biologically active than humic acid because of its smaller molecular size. There is some truth in these representations as there is evidence that the lower molecular weight fractions have the ability to cross plant membranes and improve permeability of cell walls. It is true that fulvic acids have a higher “total acidity” than humic acids, but the chemical reactivity and chelating ability of humic acids is equal to or greater than fulvic acid, making them very bioactive substances. The humic acid fraction may be more effective than fulvic acid at solubilizing extremely stable aluminum and iron phosphates.

Thirteen carbon nuclear magnetic resonance and mass spectrometric analyses have revealed that the main structural features of humic acid, fulvic acid and humin are nearly identical. To scientists who study humic substances, the names have no meaning chemically. Some scientists say that humic substances from different sources are essentially the same.

Reported variations in plant response to different sources of humic substances are rare. In one case reviewed by Y Chen and T. Aviad in “Effects of Humic Substances on Plant Growth,” the young age of the humic materials were suspect, because humification is a time-dependent process. As the material ages, more bioactive ingredients become incorporated into the humic complex.

COMPLEX GEOBIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS

The lower molecular weight (the mass of a substance expressed in gram equivalents of its atomic mass) of fulvic acid is sometimes said to account for its greater biological availability. That is somewhat correct, but vague — the industry has not agreed on standardized molecular weights for fulvic acid. Defining humic acid, fulvic acid and humin by their molecular weights is a controversial concept.

Humic substances change their structure depending on pH and the type of metals present. High pH (or the presence of multivalent ions, such as calcium Ca +) makes humic substances open up their long-chain polymers, whereas low pH makes them close. In the presence of toxic metals, humic substances remove the metals from the surrounding environment by forming insoluble aggregated spheres around them.

Humic substances are polymer-like molecules that demonstrate self-organization. The bi-layers formed by humic substances to surround otherwise insoluble minerals are reminiscent of the way all living things utilize biochemical reactions. The self-organized (micellular) colloidal phases act like biological molecules in cellular systems, showing a strong resemblance to the biological mechanisms of living membranes, as described in college textbooks. Humic substances are more like living creatures than chemical entities, but they don’t reproduce.

Slight changes in pH will actually cause the humic polymers to fracture, breaking up the original molecules. The fractured molecules are then free to associate with numerous other free radicals, metals or impurities. Humic substances are made up of hundreds of different molecules of many different sizes (polydispersity) with many ways to orient them-selves by twisting, bending, compressing, and expanding (conformational changes). They are held together loosely by weak forces in a colloidal state.

Any change in solution pH, concentration or the presence of metal ions — especially calcium ions — will cause huge changes in the physical makeup of the humic molecules. Even slight changes cause the molecules to change in orders of magnitude. Rapid changes in molecular structures are not unique to humic sub- stances — water molecules, for example, change their structure 10 trillion times a second. Although water is an extremely simple molecule, the determination of its structure at any given instant is still not fully known. The amazing complexity of humic substances may forever keep their structures a secret.

FULVIC ACID

The primary reason why there is so much confusion about humic substances is the fact that the procedures used to describe them are based on “classical” aqueous extraction. If minerals are present in the parent material, they become complexed by humic substances. This allows more humic and non-humic material to be solubilized during extraction by breaking down ion bridges that would normally hold the molecules together in higher-purity materials. Unless the super- natant is separated by special procedures (such as passing over an XAD-8 resin) to isolate the fulvic portion, the extracted substances may contain amino acids, proteins, sugars or fatty acids in addition to the fulvic acid.

In biological molecules, it is an established fact that the presence of functional
groups such as carboxyl, phenol, quinone and hydroxyl are responsible for the activity of these molecules. There is some evidence that there are more functional groups in fulvic than in humic acid. The effectiveness of fulvic extracts may be influenced by the way they are synthesized during chemical processing. The fulvic fraction of humic substances is undoubtedly a beneficial part of oxidied lignites.

Content from ACRES U.S.A. Jan-Feb 2004 • Vol. 34, No. 1&2

Cal-Mag Plus

Nitrogen 200
Magnesium 120
Calcium 259
Sulfur 160
Iron 10.00

Grams

Calcium Nitrate 488.9
Magnesium Sulfate 464.0
Iron Chelate 38.57

Volume of Stock Solutions 1 gallon
Dilution Rate 100

 

[spurr]

@ thefatman,

That is a good read on humic substances, I have spoken to the author many times, he's a smart guy and his mentor is even better.

Re CalMag Plus: are you suggesting there is S in the product from Botanicare? I ask because IIRC CalMag Plus is made with CaNO3, MgNO3 and Fe-EDTA.

 

[CascadeFarmer]

That is a good read on humic substances, I have spoken to the author many times, he's a smart guy and his mentor is even better.

Yeah Lawrence knows his stuff when it comes to humics. He's NOT a fan of any alkaline/acid extracted humics/fulvics. Really learned a lot from him. Hopefully his group will get a standardized method for fulvic acid testing accepted by the industry soon and more importantly an agency like CDFA.

 

[thefatman]

@ thefatman,

That is a good read on humic substances, I have spoken to the author many times, he's a smart guy and his mentor is even better.

Re CalMag Plus: are you suggesting there is S in the product from Botanicare? I ask because IIRC CalMag Plus is made with CaNO3, MgNO3 and Fe-EDTA.

And who is his mentor.

It is a just as easy to make near like product to Cal-mag Plus. Most individuals do not keep Magnesium Nitrate on hand or Fe-EDTA. The sulfur will cause no harm nor will it effect the perform of the Cal-mag Plus. Yes I recommend "chelated iron" (I should have said EPTA Chelated iron) over FE-EDTA iron (a less common used chelated iron)for the same reason. It is not normally possesed by most growers or most hobbyists or small commercial growers mixing their nutrients. Many of the nutrient formulations are formulated purposilly with salts not normally possesed by most growers as it discourages most people from makes making their own and encourages people to buy it premade. There is no advantage in Inert hydroponics to using Fe-EDTA instead of EPTA chelated iron, there is also very little advantage when using it with soil type growing methods. Nor is there any gain in using the mag nitrate over the Calcium nitrate. When there are little to know gain using less commonly possesed salts there is no reason to be buying them.

You have to also consider that the major manufacturers also now try to use formulations that can not be readily formulated by software such as Nutron2000.

IMHO Most mj specific nutrient manufacturers are more concerned with the profits made by using uncommon salts then making formulations easy to duplicate by almost anyone. They are not really our friends as much as we are their captive customers who are willing to pay high prices for nutrients for our mj growing as they try to make it appear like rocket science to formulate nutrient mixes..

 

[Rednick]

pureblendpro gives me the best tasting buds. not the biggest... but best!

Sad but true.

 

[thefatman]

Yeah Lawrence knows his stuff when it comes to humics. He's NOT a fan of any alkaline/acid extracted humics/fulvics. Really learned a lot from him. Hopefully his group will get a standardized method for fulvic acid testing accepted by the industry soon and more importantly an agency like CDFA.

Sadly most humus sold in mj specific nutrients are acid/alkaline extracted.