The myth, of the high P myth?

[spurr]

Humboldt Nutrients DeuceDeuce (0-0-22)
1170g/946mL = 1.24g/ml
@5mL/Gal
N 0
P 0
K 298
Ca 0
S NOT LISTED
Derived from: Potassium Sulfate, Ascophyllum Nodosum Kelp, and 1% Yucca Extract.

This product may settle some questions about whether it is a 'PK boost' or just a 'K boost' that is beneficial.

I agree, such a product (high K and no P) can help settle some questions. And using a product with high P with no K will go further to answer questions.

I have used sulfate of potash (potassium sulfate; K2SO4) before to boost K when I was testing just boosting K. I use sulfate of potash to boost K for organic grows. I assume that product is sulfate of potash with kelp extract and yucca. Sulfate of potash is a good source of plant available K and S. It's much cheaper to buy a 50 lb bag, though, than using that product from Humboldt, I assume.

One can use sulfate of potash and/or potassium magnesium sulfate (K2Mg2(SO4)3) ex., the brands Sul-Po-Mag and K-Mag, for organic horticulture in some states (i.e., OMRI vs NOP vs etc.).

Sulfate of potash:

• 50% K2O (potassium oxide) = 42% K
• 45% SO3 (sulphur trioxide) = 18% S

 

[spurr]

.661 lbs

 

[spurr]

Professor Spurr where is the Data for me to look at??? You have to remember its not just me that thinks so. There are many of us.

I think you didn't read this thread well enough, nor the thread re cannabis tissue analysis that I and others, linked to throughout this thread.

And maybe you missed it, but there are at least a half a dozen people here, in this thread, using sufficient (adequate) P of < 60-80 ppm. And all have posted pics of buds as nice as (and better) than the pics you posted. The issue of P isn't a big deal in terms of flower quality and quantity, IMO. Much bigger deals are K, N and Ca levels, etc., genetics, environment, etc. Many of those same people have been using sufficient P for some time, in many cases over many years ...

What is kind of annoying is you seem to have not read this thread, yet you come in posting about how high P is the only way you get big yield. However, you can't tell us how much P you provide, nor have you tested only boosting P and not K. Then you go on to attack some of those in this thread who have posted good info throughout this thread, and you try to place the onus of proof upon us, for your claims!

I for one am interested in how much K you apply, I have never known anyone to use that much K with cannabis. So you have some worthwhile input, at least about K, but damn you're hard to deal with.

Untill I see data and some plants grow over a period of time and not just a one time deal I might change my mind.

Like I wrote, I think you didn't read this thread, otherwise you would know people (myself and others) have already posted said info and many pics, etc.

FWIW, I don't care if you change your mind, and I doubt others here feel differently.

You just cant tell someone there wrong with just you opinion. We all have them that does not mean there wrong they just have a diferant opinion then you do.

Funny, isn't that exactly what you did with your first posts in this thread?!

You only presented an opinion based upon conjecture and anecdotal evidence, you presented no facts nor useable objective evidence with respect to P.

What I and others (like YS, etc.) wrote about P is based upon sound science (plant physiology, etc), and it's been known in the non-cannabis horticulture world (at least commercial and academia) for decades. I have referenced and cited many peer-reviewed and published papers, as well as much .edu sourced information, as have many others in this thread.

I'm staring to think you're only in this thread to try to cause disharmony ...

 

[spurr]

looks fantastic how would they look with a high p dosage any pics of that? Oh wait I posted those lol

That is the attitude and misunderstanding I was referring to, it's unhelpful and makes you look childish. Firstly, you didn't post pics of plants with *only* P increased, so you *can't* claim high P is the reason for your plants looking as they do. Secondly, your plants are not 'god's gift to the cannabis world'; they are nice looking sure, but I do see some issues. ex., mullray pointed out a few, and I see leaf tips that should not be curling downward.

I have seen better pics from plant with far lower P, than yours. But plant bud structure and growth, yield, etc., is controlled by many more factors than ions alone.

 

[roasthawg]

Home run.

I think we all are well aware that a vast array of feed formulas work. However, I would bet that 90% + of growers fall into a category above the adequate consumption category. Results may be acceptable but much resources are wasted, in many cases there is great environmental impact, and certainly much wasted money in the pockets of snake oil salesmen.

Any negative environmental impact sucks for sure but I think that many of us just aren't that concerned with the price of nutes. In comparison to equipment and electricity nutrients are one of the least expensive aspects of growing. As long as I'm not overfeeding to the point of lockout I'm just not worried about the possibility of wasting nutes.

 

[spurr]

I mean what is also interesting is P sources are becoming increasingly scarce and the cost of P fertilizers more and more expensive. What sources are left are becoming less pure and have higher heavy metal content so research in this area may become more extensive.

Yup, and P pollution of ground water and water-ways and oceans is at an all time high. The Gulf of Mexico dead zone (thanks to NO3 and Pi pollution from golf courses and lawns, mostly) is bigger than ever before.

There was a recent news report recently that mass oceanic extinction is at hand, in the next decade! This is due to dead zones, often caused by bacterial and algae blooms from NO3 and Pi pollution, removing oxygen from the water and reducing pH.

 

[spurr]

Any negative environmental impact sucks for sure but I think that many of us just aren't that concerned with the price of nutes. In comparison to equipment and electricity nutrients are one of the least expensive aspects of growing. As long as I'm not overfeeding to the point of lockout I'm just not worried about the possibility of wasting nutes.

I for one like the money savings by not over-applying fertilizer. And I only apply ferts about twice a week with ~80 gallons of water. I imagine the savings would be great for a grower with a very big grow.

The main reason I am messing with this issue (conventional fertilizers) at all, is to try and come up with a standardized mix to be used for studies on cannabis. Ex., two different studies could use the same mix, for better correlation between studies. I plan to use my mix to study many topics, one such topic is the effect of conventional ferts on biota with respect to compost tea, media (microbial loop and players in the soil foodweb), etc. Ex., I plan to look into is something giant pumpkin growers (world record holders) swear by: mixing conventional and organic farming; e.g., I want to study the effect on microbes when applying inorganic ferts.

 

[spurr]

AEC (Anion Exchange Capacity):

There are many studies looking at effect of adding substances with high(er) AEC to media, with respect to P (and NO3) fertilization. AEC is to anions, what CEC is to cations.

Dave C. and I have chatted about this, and we both have looked into this topic pretty far. The results from all studies (IIRC) agree: adding AEC rich substances increases efficiency of P fertilization and allows for reduced fertilization (by ppm) of P, as well as reduceing loss of P to run-off (ex., drain to waste). In many cases plant yield and health increased, too.

Most studies looked at the effect of increasing AEC of soilless media based on aged/composted bark or coco coir or S.peat moss, with amendments and mixtures thereof.

Clay and humic substances have higher AEC than many other organic substances one can add to media. Some of the best ways to increase AEC in soilless media is addition of zeolite clay powder (aluminosilicate, see "Zar-Min" link) and/or pyrophyllite clay powder (aluminosilicate with about 80% of the total Si as non-crystalline, amorphous silica; link) and/or bentonite clay powder (ex., attapulgite mineral, aka "Fuller's Earth", see "AgSorb" link) and/or humic acid (or humate).

 

[YosemiteSam]

YS, I can only tell you re coco based on what I have read so don't believe me but as I understand it this is the case. This is what research has already found - not me. There is also so many variables here it's not funny. E.g. How much K does the coco already possess? (this will influence Ca requirements as high K will lock out Ca) Every brand will differ. Next variable - what is the CEC of the coco? Things such as particle size etc will influence this. BTW the K in coco is K Cl so it should theoretically become available immediately (not as some would say - only after the coco begins to break down).

I actually said I was starting to believe you. But only when I pushed the K:N slightly above 2.

As far as KCl it would be immediately available as soon as you add water. Thing is most coco is washed because of the NaCl (the Just Coir I use has very, very low Na numbers). So when the NaCl is washed out the KCl will be washed out also....I am sure water is the solvent of choice but even it is not name me one solvent that will dissolve NaCl but not KCl.

As far as K tied up in the cec. Well I do think that can become available at some point depending on cation ratios. I think it happened to me on my last grow.

What is amazing me is the wide variety of formulas that are producing good looking bud. Trying to find the commonalities is proving to be quite the challenge and is making people a little testy.

I like this thread because we are getting so much input. It would be a shame to see that end because of some bullshit arguing. Or even worse would be not getting input from members because they do not want to be picked apart for their opinion. We might be missing out on valuable input because of the tone of this thread...that is no bueno. Everyone that posts ought to be given respect.

My plants are going to be 3 weeks into flower Sun. I will take some pics. They are around 6-7 ft tall and 8 around range. Everyone can judge for themselves if there are any deficiencies.

I plan to switch to 100-60-175-117-60-100 N-P-K-Ca-Mg-SiO2 for the flowering phase.

They went through stretch at 125-40-185-133-60-0

 

[Hammerhead]

Dude im no spring chicken. I dont need a calculator to grow dank bud. Been doing it for years. I have never in my growing life have seen that used. You guys can use it all you want. I dont need to. I dont pick any bones with anyone. Just because someone has no clue about a form you post and does not know how to use it means nothing in very old school.I grow by what the plant is showing me. You guys can keep using these forms I hope they work for you.

I would write home about these plants. They are all extremely covered in Tric's that dont show up in the pics. Every pic I upload here decreases the quality of the Photo a lot and dont do the plants justice at all.

I will take many pics Like I always do. They will be in my Album if anyone wants to see them. The spots you see are from me spilling Nutrients on the leaves when I water. You should be able to tell from the pic thats what its from very obvious. I dont fit in the room well and is difficult to water the plants.

This was my last harvest Bubba pre 98 (Peyote Purple from CBG)

To ea there own Professor Spurr. I leave you with your High K opinion. I will just agree to disagree with you and leave you all to your theory. Grow well

right... hence why i said it would be useful.
Most 'flower boosters' are P and K (monopotassium phosphate). This one would be useful to test just K (or more accurately Potassium Sulfate).
--

I like your grows, your posts, your pics. You obviously are doing fine without the need to understand why, but i dont see how you can try to pick a bone with someone, when you dont know how to calculate your own PPM levels.

As i think i said earlier in this thread, my P is always ~60ppm.
Anyone running GH 6+9 without a pk booster is ~ 97N 60P 107K 41Mg 97Ca 1.9Fe (not including any contributions from your substrate and water source).

Ive got some decent looking girls, but nothing insane. The only passed around 'cutting' i have is LemonG, and most of the other pics ive seen of her are basically unimpressive (shes a mid/low yeilder, but Terrific flavor).
None of my BOG gear has produced 'baseball bats', but his stuff isnt really known for that (as much as fast flowering, squat plants).
I had some pics of Ganesh's StrwD F2's, that were thick ass colas. Not hog legs, but pretty decent, but my harddrive died before i could upload them, and my phenos didnt have much flavor so i axed them after 2 runs.

 

[spurr]

You just cant tell someone there wrong with just you opinion. We all have them that does not mean there wrong they just have a diferant opinion then you do.

One point:

I don't believe I ever told you that you were wrong, I'm not sure about other member dealings with you. I did however write that IMO, 174 ppm P was too high after you asked for input. That is a far cry from "[telling] someone there wrong with just you opinion.".

I don't think anyone told you that you were wrong, I and others may have written we think 174 ppm is too high, but no one told you that you were wrong, IIRC. The only other thing I can think of, is when I wrote you can't draw conclusions about boosting P (in terms of yield) from use of PK 13/14; which again, is a far cry from "[telling] someone there wrong with just you opinion.".

I tried to be cordial to you and joke around a bit, even tried to help you, when you came into this thread, but you won't be friendly. So either you cut it off with the "professor spurr" crap and your attitude, or please put me back on ignore, thanks. I agree with what YS wrote about the recent downward tone of this thread ...

 

[YosemiteSam]

That Peyote Purple is definitely worth writing home about. Simply beautiful.

I just ordered some. Hopefully I can do it the justice you did Hammerhead.

 

[Hammerhead]

You still are on the list I never took you off . It had nothing to do with this thread professor SPURR. Most if not all of your post are telling people there wrong it has to do with your people skills you dont have any. I just have the balls to tell you. we dont need to go back and forth like I said. GROW WELL

 

[Storm Shadow]

Hammerhead is acting like an arse... sorry bro....Where Im from in Cali ...your pics are average...most def nothing to be bragging about...keep it real...tone down your prick level a few notches and go into a thread you can understand better....

 

[Hammerhead]

you all just cant leave it be can ya. Your and asshat go play with the litle boys. I dont need to prove anything to you kids. Where im from in Ca these are elite cuts. Your just being a jagoff. I had no beef with you but you had to open that potty mouth. you dont even grow where are your plants

 

[Storm Shadow]

your all just cant leave it be can ya. Your and asshat go play with the little boys. I dont need to prove anything to you kids. Where im from in Ca these are elite cuts. Your just being a jagoff. I had no beef with you but you had to open that potty mouth

Is that the Bulldog in your avatar typing? You sound like your chillen on the deck of Davey Jones Locker

 

[Hammerhead]

yes want to meet him

 

[desertsquirrel]

why are people so threatened by facts?

What is it about the totally false (scientifically speaking) idea of Low N, High P profiles that mmj growers cannot let go of? No other crops any place in the world are grown in this fashion.

 

[Dave Coulier]

I thought I would share my recent experience when P and K were boosted. At day 50 of flowering a clone of Sam's O.Haze x Skunk, I increased my base nutrient from 150ppm N, to 250ppm N.(I was experimenting with different nutrient strengths).

Original ppm at 150 N ppm.

Plantex 17-5-17 Complete 3.3 grams/gallon:
TN... 148
NN... 108
AN... 40
P... 19
K... 123
Ca.... 26
Mg... 9
Fe... 2.18
Mn... .65
Zn... .65
Cu... .44
B... .18
Mo... .13
total PPM = 330

Now at 250 ppm N:

Plantex 17-5-17 Complete 5.5 grams/gallon:
TN... 247
NN... 180
AN... 67
P... 32
K... 205
Ca.... 44
Mg... 15
Fe... 3.63
Mn... 1.1
Zn... 1.1
Cu... .72
B... .30
Mo... .22


P increased by 13 ppm, while K increased by 82 ppm.

It was at this time, I saw new floral growth begin from the end of buds. Some buds had up to an inch or two of new flowering growth, while other buds had up to 6 inches of new growth. The buds before this boost, were already on their way to finishing up, as the finishing time is day 85.

Now I was left with buds that were going to be partially finished come harvest time.

Then around day 60, I decided to boost N ppm to 300.

Plantex 17-5-17 Complete 6.6 grams/gallon:
TN... 296
NN... 216
AN... 80
P... 38
K... 246
Ca.... 52
Mg... 17
Fe... 4.35
Mn... 1.31
Zn... 1.31
Cu... .88
B... .35
Mo... .26


P increased by 6 ppm, and K increased by 41 ppm, and I saw the same new growth again, but this time it was even more pronounced. More buds had increased growth compared to the first time this occurred.

I ended up with up to a foot of new growth on some buds that were about 4 inches long before increasing the PPM.

I was excited to learn how to increase her production, but It came at a point too late in flowering to make it useful. Ive also ran this clone multiple times before, and never saw this happen before.

Ive got some pics showing off the new growth too.

Now P went from 19-38 ppm, after two boosts, and I saw new growth, but my soil test results came back P deficient, but thats not surprising considering the low ppm used.

Now K went from 124-246. And that doesn't include the 64 K that was being provided by Sul-Po-Mag, and Pro-tec Silicate as well.

Also, new growth wasn't limited to the end of buds. I had foxtails that packed on lots of new calyxes after the boosts. The bud size of this lady easily exceeded anything she had produced before.

IMO, this points to K being responsible for new growth over P, which was deficient.

Notice where my thumb is in the pictures. Above it is the new growth.

 

[desertsquirrel]

love the test dave. im really really surprised that o haze could take that much N. great to see. hope you stop by my thread the myth of low N.