Spurr's groundbreaking fert. mixes and methods (YouTube screen-cast and web site!)

[analogue]

Yosemite Sam is somebody people can learn a lot from. I do.

my CaC03 alkalinity is 46 ppm.

My stock formula is:

N = 101 (can be 80 post-stretch)
P = 67 ( can be 60 )
K = 100
Ca = 120
Mg = 50
S = 76
Si = 100

EC = 1.25

NH4 is 20.2% of total N.

I also foliar spray every 2-3 weeks with Calcium 25, up until bud-set. I supplement Fe on top of my micro elements package, to 4 ppm Fe.

SiO2 is optional in fertigation but I use it that way, foliar too especially outside.

YS you write so much better than most folks I'm going to quote you from elsewhere:

What I think is important is pH control of the media, adequate Ca along with a low enough EC (1.5 or below) so that the Ca and B can be pulled into the plant by transpiration, not too much nitrate, good micro levels and not so much K as to interfere with Mg uptake.

The pH of your medium is important, and it's the type of nitrogen you use that drives this. And, if your plant doesn't transpire, Ca isn't moving.

There is a great 64 page magazine/book about pH managment called Understanding pH Management For Container-Grown Crops, by William R. Argo and Paul R. Fisher

 

[YosemiteSam]

So the formula I am currently using through stretch is:

CaNO3 2.3 grams per gallon (110 Ca and 94 N)
ammonium phosphate 0.22 (7 N and 15 P)
mkp 1 (60 P and 75 K)
epsom salt 1.5 (38 Mg and 50 S)
STEM 0.1 (.5 Mg, 3.4 S, 1.98 Fe, .35 B, 2.1 Mn, 1.2 Zn, .6 Cu and .001 Mo
Fe dpta 0.1 (2.6 Fe)

I spray Ca every other week and K2SiO3 when I think the plants want some K through the 5 th wk of flower on a 9 wk strain)...that is the extent of my foliar program except I add B to the Ca during stretch)...no other preventative for anything

I am playing with a little more Zn but have not seen measurable results with it...still playing around)

At the end of stretch I might add some Albion K to the mix and then slowly lower CaNO3 and increase K entirely depending on what I see

I am also experimenting with Ixper 75 a calcium peroxide mixed in with the coco...no results to report yet

Off the beaten path for sure

I would recommend starting with analogue's formula and tweaking things from there...you won't get any surprises with his bulletproof formula. Mine

 

[HG23]

Hey YS and analogue thanks for the info.

How are you getting those ratios analogue? Are you using a source of Ca other than Calnitrate? I tried working out your formula but am having trouble getting the numbers to fit using calcium nitrate as the only source of Ca. You refer to the above numbers as stock solution, are you adding other things at different times as supplements? You use lower Mg and N than I have seen lately, any particular reason or is that just what works for you?

YS, I am interested to see how your different experiments work out, especially interested in the high Fe number. Please keep us updated as you see fit. On your recommendation I will give analogue's ratios a shot once I get a formula worked out.

 

[YosemiteSam]

I am sure he will come back with the exact formula but he uses a spreadsheet that allows him to include the elements his water provides. Way more precise than I try to be.

The jump in Fe from what is in STEM to where I am now made a point difference in brix...so I highly recommend it.

The much lower K and Mg is where my formula goes completely against conventional wisdom...and I do cheat a bit by spraying K with the KSil

 

[analogue]

Hey YS and analogue thanks for the info.

How are you getting those ratios analogue? Are you using a source of Ca other than Calnitrate? I tried working out your formula but am having trouble getting the numbers to fit using calcium nitrate as the only source of Ca. You refer to the above numbers as stock solution, are you adding other things at different times as supplements? You use lower Mg and N than I have seen lately, any particular reason or is that just what works for you?

YS, I am interested to see how your different experiments work out, especially interested in the high Fe number. Please keep us updated as you see fit. On your recommendation I will give analogue's ratios a shot once I get a formula worked out.

Here's the breakdown on my formula including my source water analysis (1st white column, left) and another column (2nd white column, right) for adjustments (Pek pH down, supplementary Fe).

This lays it all out, hopefully .

I have acceptable results at 100 ppm N. In the past, I have reduced N to 80 ppm after stretch was over.

I have run various elements high and low with the same strain, for two years.

I run the same formula start to finish. While they are seedlings or something, the EC will be made lower (diluted). But once they have legs/leaves they start getting the 1.25 EC and they are allowed to eat, drink all they want from veg through flower.

Two weeks out from chop I switch them to a clear diet but that's another thread .

HumiSolve is a fulvic/humic product. I always include it after checking pH at the end.

Pek is a dry acid pH down adjuster - has nutrients in it (2nd adjustment column).

You dont have to use the type of chelated Fe I use, there is a cheaper version that is just fine.

I don't have a lot of source files at the moment, my trusty XP steed bit the dust.

4 ppm of chelated Fe works very very well.

The AgSil 16H is SiO2.

 

[YosemiteSam]

That is an outstanding formula right damn there...provided your alkalinity is similar to analogue's...pH control is number one on the list of important shit. If your alkalinity is higher you need more NH4...if it is lower you need less.

http://www.greenhousegrower.com/article/7178/understanding-plant-nutrition-the-complete-series

The article about irrigation water alkalinity and pH is a good one.

 

[analogue]

with regards to the pH of your medium...

Fine-tuning your substrate pH is all about the nitrogen. If you control it, you're in control.

The form of nitrogen in your fertilizer is what causes substrate pH to decrease or increase. Nitrogen is the most important pH-controlling ion because it is the only element required by plants that can be supplied as both a positive cation (ammonium: NH4+) or a negative anion (nitrate: NO3-) and accounts for more than half of the nutrient ions taken up by the plant. Fertilizers high in ammonium have an acidifying effect and cause substrate pH to decrease, and the opposite is true for fertilizers high in nitrate.

( source )

 

[analogue]

NH4 @ 15% now, also using an updated spreadsheet v.2.4

Stock Plants 2012
N = 97
P = 52
K = 100
Ca = 120
Mg = 50
S = 82
Fe = 4.1
NH4 = 14.65%
EC = 1.2 to 1.3
636 ppm



Flower recipe update coming (lower N @ 80 ppm, slightly higher K) as there is good progress in the garden with plants finished stretching.

 

[analogue]

Flowers EC=1.2x, NH4=14.5%
N = 79
P = 70
K = 121
Ca = 100
Mg = 55
S = 85 632 ppm

we went all in for the Dry Salts team, and dropped liquid pH adjusters in favor of dry PeKacid - it shows durable pH stability, which comes in handy to balance out the SiO2.

As a result, Stock Plants recipe was adjusted. More calcium, yeah.

Stock Plants, EC1.3, NH4 13.3%
N = 100
P = 70
K = 100
Ca = 125
Mg = 55
S = 77 661 ppm

On a side note, we spray Calcium-25 as a foliar, every other week until flowers appear.

 

[HG23]

Hey analogue,

Why did you raise P in both your formulas just now?

Not sure if it matters, but Ill ask anyways, have you tried your profiles on a larger scale under HID lighting? I see your using LED's in that cab grow.

 

[analogue]

Hey analogue,

Why did you raise P in both your formulas just now?

Not sure if it matters, but Ill ask anyways, have you tried your profiles on a larger scale under HID lighting? I see your using LED's in that cab grow.

I switched to PeK, a dry acid, for all of my pH adjustment. I ran out of liquid pH down and didn't want to buy any more.

It took more PeK than I would like to balance out the potassium silicate.

I ran 60 ppm P for a long time. Have tried 30 ppm P up to 90 ppm P.

I grew with HPS in a tent for a while - it was awesome.

I could lower P by using less mono ammonium phosphate, but I am using MAP to control the pH of my medium via NH4 which is acidic (well the plant has to actually use it for the media pH to change).

 

[HG23]

Hey guys thanks for all the input, I've been busy lately and haven't checked the forums for awhile.

One of the things I like the best about using Jacks is it's so easy to mix up a res. quickly. Just need to multiply the gallons needed by a couple constants and weigh two different dry salt mixes. I'd like to keep that kind of ease in my life. I'm guessing my easiest option will be to mix up concentrate solutions using Hydrobuddy which seems fairly straightforward, but I'm wondering if I can also make dry mixes in the proper proportions similar to how Jacks comes and still be able to say "I need x grams of this mixture per gallon and y grams of this mixture per gallon." Or however many parts I need to make if potassium silly needs to be separate. I thought of just using Hydrobuddy to figure out how much of each salt I need to make for, say, 1000 gallons and separating them into different mixtures (dry) based on the concentrate instructions. But then I would't know how much per gallon of each mixture I need, or could I also figure that in HB somehow. I feel like the answer is right there, I'm just not quite sure. If you have any input on the subject I would appreciate it.

 

[analogue]

Jacks and CaN03 is a great way to go. I started out that way.

Calcium needs to stay away from phosphates and sulfates, in concentration. That's all I know for sure

I don't know anyone that's done large scale dry mixing like you're talking about but the gent running CHN (custom hydro nutrients dot com) would probably know.

WaywardSon?

 

[YosemiteSam]

To make a dry batch that big you would need some specialized mixing equipment like a ribbon mixer. Otherwise you would likely not get it mixed evenly and you would run into spots that had more of one thing and less of another.

I think veg + bloom is an all in one dry mix that does not use any chemistry tricks. So it can be done...but it ain't cheap or easy

 

[crysmatic]

the alkcalc page has gone down. I'm looking for similar calculator, or make that spreadsheet that spurr talked about and never made.

I was the main person who debugged hydrobuddy, and through using it, gave Daniel feedback to make it what it is today. yvw. I owe Daniel much.

Daniel is a very smart guy. He gave me tonnes of great advice on making fertilizer. i.e. 10-15% ammonium of total nitrogen, NOT using citric acid, phosphorus is a poor buffer, among others. Spurr's claims sound like marketing...and that he's a saint for giving out free info. seriously.

I've been brewing for over five years...most of it gets distilled. I should have paid more attention to water quality, but it's most important for grain mashes (I like rum). Spurr used an old technique from a different industry, and applied it to hobby growing. It's not groundbreaking. Like me suggesting you use a high pressure pump (leader pump 750A 35 psig) and pressure compensating drippers for 100% uniform irrigation, together with rockwool. Greenhouses have used this for 40 years. It doesn't make me a hero...or does it

Some of his points are NOT science - merely hunches. The silicon ppm is borrowed from rose culture. CHM has an article that details several studies. Silicon doesn't boost yield in the sense that it's an essential element (in rose and cucumber crops). It reduces the likelyhood and impact on yield of pythium - which is still a very good thing. Max ppm was 100 for roses, 50 ppm for cucumbers (higher levels induced a fungal bloom). Silicon doesn't deposit uniformly throughout the plant. In cucumbers, it deposits in the trichomes (don't bother smoking them). afaik, we don't know where cannabis uses silicon. This is good enough for me to add a little silicon. Trichomes could be stronger, and resist rough handling. I'd account for silicon's alkalinity with 100 ppm :/

I spoke with a greenhouse tomato grower with 200,000 plants who doesn't use silicon, without issue; and another source only used 18 ppm. Silicon isn't approved for greenhouse use in Canada...and around half of European greenhouses use it. That's not a good endorsement by any means. fwiw, calyxes are modified leaves...hence we shouldn't be using "fruting" formulas. Tomatoes work well with a 1.6-1-2.7-2.3-0.5, or a 1.85-1-2.11-0.98-0.35 (NPK-Ca-Mg, I started this nomenclature). Why would cannabis use more phosphorus than tomatoes?

My fertilizer is very simple, and works out to pH 5.8 at 2.0 mS/cm. If I increase the strength, pH comes down, and I adjust with tap water. I understand that carbonate has some buffering effect. I will do nute analysis in the next few months to fine tune my formula. Fert companies have already done this analysis...the only issue is that I don't trust labels (making it impossible to copy), and it's still much cheaper to make your own. Maybe one day we'll know all the metabolic pathways of cannabis, and tailor fertilizers better...if that's possible.

 

[dizzlekush]

I was the main person who debugged hydrobuddy, and through using it, gave Daniel feedback to make it what it is today.

Like me suggesting you use a high pressure pump (leader pump 750A 35 psig) and pressure compensating drippers for 100% uniform irrigation, together with rockwool.... doesn't make me a hero...or does it

I spoke with a greenhouse tomato grower with 200,000 plants...

NPK-Ca-Mg, I started this nomenclature

My fertilizer is very simple... I will do nute analysis in the next few months to fine tune my formula.

Wow. one question. does your bu**hole get chapped from talking out of it so much?

You seem to be a rather opinionated person but seem to lack any powers of introspection. You come to one of the best recieved and most informative threads on this entire forum with your 15 posts (that lack any information or knowledge of any significance) and you proceed to attempt to berate someone whom you know cant defend their own work or opinions while simultaneously asking for help with something that only the person you just insulted has ever done before, finding an obscure high quality alkalinity calculator and sharing it with the greatly unappreciative community that you are a part of.

In the midst of all this you unintentionally show just how much less you really know than you attempt to make us believe you know.

afaik, we don't know where cannabis uses silicon.

Yes we do, trichomes are the only heavily silicified organs on Cannabis sativa. [1][2]

fwiw, calyxes are modified leaves...hence we shouldn't be using "fruting" formulas. Tomatoes work well with a 1.6-1-2.7-2.3-0.5, or a 1.85-1-2.11-0.98-0.35 (NPK-Ca-Mg, I started this nomenclature). Why would cannabis use more phosphorus than tomatoes?

um, total non sequitur. why would cannabis use more P than tomatoes in relation to other nutes? perhaps because cannabis has one of the highest terpene contents out of any plants, and terpene synthesis is rate limited by IPP/DMAPP, which are diphosphate isomers, which demands high P substrate levels to get high terpene levels such as those found in cannabis. also every study that tested different P levels on drug type cannabis showed the highest THC levels at the highest levels of P fertigation. [3][4] Im going to assume you know about the "Phytocannabinoid-Terpenoid Entourage Effect" and that high terpene content in the cannabis is an essential part to a potent high & the medical benefits we seek.

I understand that carbonate has some buffering effect.

that's like saying water has a moistening effect. no duh. This just shows that you dont even know what pH really is besides a number that you want in a certain range.

Maybe one day we'll know all the metabolic pathways of cannabis, and tailor fertilizers better...if that's possible.

Oh my god, if you really think that the way to find optimal fertigation regimens is through understanding the "metabolic pathways of cannabis" then you don't even understand how to apply scientific method to real life applications. Im not gonna waste my time on explaining why this is mute and what could actually be done to gleam insight on superior fertigation regimens but anybody that know how to use proper scientific method to get useful information that can lead to practical applications of said scientific insight knows why your statement is ludicrous.

P.S. normally i wouldn't make a post that's this personal, especially towards a new member, but since you were arrogant and disrespectful to spurr (see below) i just decided to maintain the manner of discourse you brought to this discussion.

make that spreadsheet that spurr talked about and never made.

NOT using citric acid, phosphorus is a poor buffer, among others. Spurr's claims sound like marketing...and that he's a saint for giving out free info. seriously.

Spurr used an old technique from a different industry, and applied it to hobby growing. It's not groundbreaking

Some of his points are NOT science - merely hunches.

[1]Some Recent Advancement in Studies in Silicon in Higher Plants
D.W. Parry, M.J. Hodson, A.J. Sangster

[2]Trichomes of Cannabis Sativa L. (Cannabaceae)
P. Dayanandan, Peter B. Kaufmann

[3]Responses of Greenhouse-grown Cannabis sativa L. to Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Potassium
C. B. Coffman and W. A. Gentner

[4]Cannabinoid Profile and Elemental Uptake of Cannabis sativa L. as Influenced by Soil Characteristics
C. B. Coffman and W. A. Gentner

 

[plastochron]

dk, could you post the pdfs of the coffman papers please? cheers

 

[dizzlekush]

dk, could you post the pdfs of the coffman papers please? cheers

sure thing buddy

 

[crysmatic]

Please take the time to read, and thorough comprehend my arguments before you comment. It's a common theme with all of your rebuttals. Repeatedly attacking a poster's intelligence and credibility, selective quoting, acting indignant, and being offended on someone else's behalf, might lead someone to believe that you're overly sensitive. Let's try to stay objective. Present facts, discussion, and conclusions. It's called scientific method...not "make fun of the new kid." I like your signature btw.

I have a bachelor in science, and I regularly read technical papers at the bleeding edge of technology. Tell me again how I "don't understand" scientific method. lol

sure, I guess 2 years is considered new by some, and I'm not a newb. l have a problem when hobby growers deify members - correlated to post count - and get all pissy when their idol is contradicted or questioned. fwiw I am now using a silicate additive. I was satisfied with the articles I read, and have added a fraction of Spurr's recommendation. Hobby forums aren't the place I seek high level, substantiated, and reliable info. Once in a while I find something worth considering or using. I occasionally post in another forum, and I don't accrue hundreds of frivolous posts.

Spurr never produced that spreadsheet (post 29). fact. Perhaps he was banned before he got the chance? He clearly says from whom/where he borrowed certain information and values from other sources (Daniel, Jalisco Kid, et al). fact. He didn't quantify it. Did Spurr post RESULTS from his methodical tests with statistically significant plant numbers? It's NOT scientific method - it's empirical observation at best. Other values are borrowed from other species, or growing environment/styles. I'm sorry if results from okra, tobacco or corn get me too excited.

Spurr cites high Si ppm, without quantifying it. He borrowed 100 ppm from rose culture, without qualifying it as a fungicide - don't expect bigger yields or higher potency. Root zone concentrations don't always correlate with leaf tissue (it's in the cannabinoid profile and elemental uptake paper).

Spurr says that he accounts for silica pH, but not its alkalinity/buffering (post 30) He actually leaves it up to the reader to quantify this. I don't like hype - I was addressing his arguments because they don't all stand on their own. I guess you didn't notice how much he was hyping his new formula, and in the same breath rolled out his commercial line nutes, growing systems, etc. Sue me if I'm being cynical, or doubt his altruism, and yes, I laugh at fanboys.

Yes, I helped debug hydrobuddy almost 3 years ago. Why do you have a problem with this? Everybody was using NPK-Mg-Ca, as per Ed Rosenthal. I changed it to Ca-Mg through using hydrobuddy (easier way to think for mixing nutes) and because Ca2+ is always higher than Mg2+. you also have a problem with this? If you decide to explore beyond this forum, check out fatman's diy thread on the farm.

As per Daniel fernandez, from whom Spurr got a lot of his info, carbonate is not a very good buffer...and it sequesters other ions as well (the same with citric acid). It's the carbonate/citric acid complex that buffers ions. It's a very subtle difference, I suppose.

You have to qualify medium/substrate before you posit a phosphorus hypothesis. Perhaps a hydroponic system which replenishes minimum substrate P levels frequently doesn't require as much solution phosphate. I only have anecdotal evidence that my own fertilizer, as used by several med patients in coco/peat, produces exceptional THC levels. Fatman, AN, among others, have championed low P levels as well. Perhaps you've heard of Jack's Pro fertilizer? It's used with calcium nitrate to make a 3-2-4 formula. Again, there's a problem with the high P logic. I think this contradiction requires further consideration.

Every study?! You mean, two? Quoting a paper from the Nixon era, that mention marijuana abuse and addiction? The thesis of the paper is to identify the geographic origin of imported weed by authorities (which is only "slightly feasible"). Perhaps you missed where they grow 60 plants, grown from seed (with 60 different genotypes), in 5" pots, 45 days in 12/12, including males??

they say that leaf elements correlate well with soil elements, and they give leaf analysis of 2.8-1-1.93-1.90-0.30 (this is high P?). So the pot with the highest THC used a standard 3-1-2 with K:Ca = 1.00, and Ca/Mg = 0.16 (the top 5 ranged from 3.0-6.3, less Mg the better).

Simple botany says that a random genetic recombination will have 25% low thc (<4500 ppm), 25% high thc (>8700), and 50% intermediate thc (4500-8700). Maybe that accounts for the high P sample with HALF the thc of the highest thc sample (18 vs 19). Pay attention when the author himself (with an agenda) says that results are inconclusive. For a moment, you got my hopes up.

My formula isn't far from this...maybe this is why it rocks. The paper certainly doesn't back up Spurr's 0.8-1-1.2 NPK. His veg is 2.3-1-3.5-1.9-1.0 (actually the closest), and his early flower is 2.3-1-4.0-1.9-1.0. Neither one approaches 3-1-2, and his increased K in late flower contradicts the negative correlation in the papers. As long as we're picking formulas out of a hat, try my 4-5-6...it's ground breaking!

"Since the mechanism of biogenesis of cannabinoids remains unknown, we can only speculate concerning the use of the elements shown to be significantly related to cannabinoids." metabolic pathways. potayto, potahto. Isn't it hard to quote a paper which you also discredit? Or state the complete opposite of a paper's findings? When a paper is "peer reviewed", usually the peers are quite astute and on par with the authors.

The paper does hint that stress correlates with THC. Others have suggested that PK spikes are merely stressors, and that EC spikes (with a low P fertilizer) accomplish the same goal. Fatman uses his 3-1-4 throughout flower.

In the world of commercial greenhouses, they don't use a buffer complex, and use 0-3% ammonium (of total N). It would be smart business practice for a NON cash cropper to use any tool available to maximise profits; especially a very well researched crop such as tomatoes or peppers. Some esoteric papers and anecdotal evidence won't convince me. I'm pretty good at picking apart arguments.

Spurr's arguments still sound to me like someone who has stumbled onto something that gets great results, but still doesn't know why. It may be a moot point - we're after results. My pov is that different growers get similar results with (seemingly) vastly different environments, substrate, and fertilizers. There is a fairly large pool of knowledge in forums - some good, some not. I hope I'm not the only one trying to sift through all the noise. I'm always open to relevant research, although I'm not going to get excited just because it was posted on a pot forum. I went through this years ago. Only newbs look for shortcuts and magic bullets.

 

[dizzlekush]

l have a problem when hobby growers deify members - correlated to post count - and get all pissy when their idol is contradicted or questioned.

Wish you started off your first post in this thread with the same disclaimer about attacking people, staying objective and presenting facts and discussions, I really doubt it would have the same "fu*k you spurr" undertones it has.

FWIW i dont value members based on their post count. plastochron (the guy/gal who just asked for the pdf's) is a great example of this. I already recognized him/her as a valuable & intelligent member and had good discussions with him/her back when s/he had the same post count you do now. I also know some 10,000+ posters that have nothing of value to contribute. I care not about post count.

Also if Spurr were here, he could attest to me questioning him on his conclusion more than almost any member. Im a natural skeptic, i demand evidence for every theory presented, and extraordinary theories call for extraordinary evidence. I disagree with spurr a good deal, the funny thing about this argument is that I've pretty much already posited all the disagreements with spurr you have already mentioned (i.e. i agree with you), which you would know if you read my posts enough to ascertain a 'common theme' of them. I only use ~15ppm Si, and think that his 50-100ppm for cannabis is wasteful if not potentially harmful. I've mentioned how terrible citric acid is for a stable pH, i think he's off by an order of magnitude on his triacontanol application rates, i think his formulas call for too much NH4, i think his vegetative formulas N:K ratio is backwards, they have poor Fe:Mn and Fe:Zn ratios etc. etc... I disagree with spurr on MANY topics and question his conclusions CONSTANTLY, I just recognize how helpful he has been as a researcher and choose to be respectful to him when i disagree and question him, instead of going somewhere i know he cant voice himself and proceed to belittle his contributions.

P.S. Im aware of who you are and have seen you on the farm (your avatar is rather memorable for a young man like myself) and know of your 'contributions'.

P.P.S. I hope our interaction doesn't stop you from posting at ICM, as you seem to be more informed than most and i am always excited at the possibility of learning something new from a new addition to this community, i just hope this changes your etiquette a bit.