The myth, of the high P myth?

[Storm Shadow]

Mullray the only rubbish is your zero evidence to back up anything ...

Low P.....

Frosty ...Check

Yield.....CHeck

Aroma......Check

Flowering Times.... Check

Mullray....Check

When your in China...try some Peking Duck....stay away from all the other Duck... Often imitated but never duplicated ...

 

[spurr]

Based on that one Spurr, I grew my first outdoor plants in 1976 so yep I think perhaps I was growing before you were in nappies

Okay, sure. Whatever you want to claim that you think puts you at an advantage, and makes you feel better, is fine by me; truth be damned.

I would think I've made it pretty clear I travel a lot - growing for now isn't going to happen. Back to China in a week etc.

I have no idea why you're getting defensive, I was only asking because I was curious.

As for the rest, you've come onto this thread and basically brought your standard fair of argumentative dogma with you and diminished the quality of this thread. What YS and others are doing here is establishing through trials optimum P. It is my belief that this has threatened you

Man, you need to stop smoking that dirt weed in "Asia", it's making you crazy. So, YS and others are the only ones testing and working on ideal P, huh? Okay, sure; the fact you seem to believe that is about as wacky as you believing I "diminished the quality of this thread".

If anyone is threatened here it's you, by me. Even though you shouldn't feel threatened, it's obvious you do, otherwise you wouldn't be so defensive.

so first we have to wound up with Storm Shadow and his rubbish and then you drop in to attempt to undermine things further. You're boring Spurr - extremely boring.

I have no idea what set you off, but I couldn't care less. You've been on my short list for some time, but you seemed to have chilled out lately ... until that post. I have been posting in this thread since like page 3, so your account of Storm Shadow and I is wrong.

PS - my thoughts are at this point low P through stretch is a great thing. As for the rest I am undecided but I suspect higher P levels in flower are beneficial than you believe are required.

Good, that's fine. It's nice to see you're finally coming around to low P, at any point; being that you were a high P person at the start of this thread. Too bad you can't do any testing yourself, huh? Then you could test your guess, like I have done in the past ...

Mullray, I think you've made it clear you can't play nice on a constant basis, and I am too jaded about humans to care. So, I will go back to ignoring you and you can please go back to ignoring me.

 

[spurr]

The point being that YS is actually expanding his trials rather than dogmatically holding on to a point and trying to demonstrate that point over and over again (and if they don't listen we'll over run the thread and turn it all nasty - its a tactic I've seen Spurr use before).

No, the point is many of us, including YS, myself, Donk, DessertSquirrel, Strom Shadow, etc., nearly everyone but you, are "actually expanding [our] trials rather than dogmatically holding on to a point ...".

Anyone who has been around to read a few of my thread/posts, and/or communicate with me knows, I am very open to being wrong. In fact, I like to learn when I am wrong, and I am appreciative when I'm shown I'm wrong. However, to show I'm wrong about something a person needs to provide more than opinion and anecdotal evidence; just like what you should expect if someone is to show you're wrong about something. That said, once I am shown that I am wrong I accept it thankfully, you do not.

YS's findings at this point are the only ones that matterbecause he is actually running comparitive trials and while they are far from perfect (however while also being far more analytical than Spurrs and yours) measuring outcomes with levels of P.

Dude, you're off your F'ing rocker. There are many people in this thread testing low P vs high P, and I have done so long before this thread. I'm unsure why you have such a hard-on for YS, but I assume he's not cool with your claim about him.

If we use your definition of tests of worth, then what I have done and Storm Shadow and many others have done, provide useful findings. YS provides no more analytical results than I. But this isn't about YS vs. Spurr; it's about mullray having a temper tantrum and the fact mullray is only one here making big claims that has never done any testing on high vs low P. So, by your definition, YOU are the only one here, who is inconsequential.

What i find funny, is you're acting like low P is some big surprise to plant nutrition. The cannabis world has it's head in the sand in a lot of areas, and plant nutrition is among them. Pull yer' head out of the sand mullray, come join us!

At this point his findings indicate (and I stress "indicate") that where higher levels of P are concerned in Coco this results in higher resin production.

YS did not suggest higher resin production, he suggested higher trichome density. At least get your facts correct. You get so hung up on "coco" vs. "peat" vs. "water culture", etc. Silly rabbit, P is an anion. If high P causes greater trichome production in coco, it will do the same in peat and water culture.

You don't need to stress the word "indicate". You're correct some of his grows indicated, to him, that trichome density was increased. The part you should stress is the findings are non-analytical and very preliminary.

FWIW, I have always been open to YS's belief that P may increase trichome density, and I still am. So the disingenuous narrative of me that you are trying to create is all shot to hell, sorry to say!

Whereas Spurr and yourself have a point to prove and have been actually detracting from the quality of information by plastering the thread with dogma that actually proves very little (but nevertheless has been interesting)

Okay, sure, whatever you have to believe you make yourself happy is fine by me ... no matter how asinine and inaccurate are your claims.

WBTTL! (Won't Be Talking To you Later!)

 

[Guest 18340]

This is an extremely long thread and I just don't have the energy to go back and edit out all the riff-raff. I don't know who started it, and frankly I don't care.
Let's please stay on the topic at hand. If you guys want to take jabs at each-other then do it in chat or PM's.
If this thread is outlived it's usefulness then let me know and I'll lock it.
Just trying to keep the peace
evl

 

[DonkDBZ]

Day 25 of my Low P

Bubba Kush



Super Lemon

 

[thefatman]

ive posted this elsewhere, but it certainly belongs here.

AN commissioned a study, its 15-20 pages long, here's a link, and images of the first 4 pages.

http://www.growersunderground.com/PhosphorusMyth.pdf

Drain to Waste formualtions can easily be formulated using these charts from AN, but they are not of much use for formulating nutrients for soil growing or hydroponics as tissue samples do not account for the need of pH buffers or for nutrient lock prevention. i.e Fat Mikie of AN was just talking out of his but and confusing issues so as to push his products and bad mouth others products. Even his researchers will admit they did not agree with his video as his interpretation of the data was obsurd as presented.

 

[spurr]

@ thefatman,

You should check out the thread "Hemp (Cannabis sativa L) tissue nutrient analysis data" (link); esp. see the last page. That thread is a lot better in terms of the topic of tissue assay, I and others added many cannabis studies, as well as that "study" by AN.

I am unsure what you mean by "... tissue samples do not account for the need of pH buffers ... [for hydro and soil/soilless culture].". Drain to waste also uses pH buffers, and roots still exude pH buffers no matter what (ex., H+ protons from uptake of ammonicial N and bicarbonates from uptake of nitrate N).

I am also unsure what you mean by "... nutrient lockout prevention [for hydro and soil/soilless culture].", can you elaborate?

Cheers

 

[Grizz]

just wanted to say i have been lurking this thread for awhile now and inspired by it I changed my nute program , i use dutch master gold and went half veg food and half flower food with canna pk 13/14 in week 4and 5, without a doubt i got the best yields, tightest buds, and overall best harvest i have had in over a year, thanks for the truth.

 

[YosemiteSam]

3 weeks in

3 weeks in

40 ppm P so far. zero chelates. zero humic/fulvic.







More budsites than I have ever managed to grow...now if I can just get them to fill in.

 

[YosemiteSam]

gettin a hair better at shaping these things.

gettin a hair better at shaping these things.

 

[Snow Crash]

Just to catch me up here.

What is considered "High P?"

Are we all being clear about differentiating between elemental Phosphorus and labeled P2O5?

As an example. Cutting Edge Solutions Flowering schedule of 5ml Micro 5-0-0 5% Ca, 15ml Bloom 0-6-5 1% Mg, with 10ml Plant Amp, 10ml Uncle John's Blend, and 5ml Mag Amped. This systems ppm levels (calculated off of the labels) are:

N: 65
P: 104
K: 206
Ca: 92
Mg: 52

The labeled ratio would be 1 - 3.6 - 3.8 with 1.4% Ca and 0.8% Mg

I am not running these ratios (and I'm also working in Roots Organic Coco mix which contains a good amount of amendments) but wanted the input from you guys regarding these levels and your opinions on them.

What is the preferred labeled ratio in this thread? What is the highest P threshold you guys won't cross, and what is the lowest N threshold you wont cross? These questions are specifically related to flowering.

 

[spurr]

IMO it's best to speak in terms of ppm P, not the relative amount of N, P2O5 and K2O on the label.

The label listing of N, P2O5 and K2O is not a ratio[1], it's the percent by weight of total N (ammonicial plus nitrate; as well as urea if it's present), total P2O5 and total K2O. The numbers on the label have nothing to do with each other, except they all comprise the fertilizer. So, when you ask what is "high P", the best answer would be elemental ppm of P, not the percent of P2O5 listed on the label.

To answer your question, IMO, "high" P is above about 70-80 ppm, I normally cite 80 ppm. And "low" P, IMO, would be below about 30 ppm.

As far as a threshold I won't cross, we lack sufficient data at this point, IMO, to suggest such a threshold as a rule. More testing is needed. However, I can write that for veg and pre-flowering, I would never again use over 60 ppm (unless testing), and for mid-to-late flowering I would never again use over 100 ppm (unless testing).

Others here will likely consider "high" P to be different ppm value(s) than I.


[1] Please see the following thread I started on the topic of whether NPK and KCaMg are ratios (spoiler: they aren't). It has more info and debate from some who disagree with my positions:

"There is no such thing as an NPK ratio ..."
https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=213096​

 

[thefatman]

@ thefatman,

You should check out the thread "Hemp (Cannabis sativa L) tissue nutrient analysis data" (link); esp. see the last page. That thread is a lot better in terms of the topic of tissue assay, I and others added many cannabis studies, as well as that "study" by AN.

I am unsure what you mean by "... tissue samples do not account for the need of pH buffers ... [for hydro and soil/soilless culture].". Drain to waste also uses pH buffers, and roots still exude pH buffers no matter what (ex., H+ protons from uptake of ammonicial N and bicarbonates from uptake of nitrate N).

I am also unsure what you mean by "... nutrient lockout prevention [for hydro and soil/soilless culture].", can you elaborate?

Cheers

Just what is on the last page that you wish to draw my attention to?

Tissue samples only show uptake of nutrients not the added salt put in the nutrient formulations for recirculating reservoir growing to deal with H+ protons or bicarbonates.

I consider only drain to waste systems that are used with inert non absorbent media when I say buffers are not needed. While H+ protons and bicarbonates are exuded they typically go down the drain rather than remain on the aero roots. I speak mainly of drain to waste aero by way of high pressure or air atomized. Explain why you think formulations for such need buffers in a drain to waste system where there is no media to hold exuded H+ protons or Bicarbonates. Excess fluid is applied in drain to waste true aero systems. I believe they adequately remove exuded H+ protons and bicarbonates and send them down the drain. The systems do not have roots sitting in drainage water nor do they use recirculation. I know of no posted scientific tests ever done to determine whether exudates remain on the roots of aero grown plants between spraying of new atomized nutrients from a non contaminated reservoir. If you know of any such tests please provide a link or a citation with references.

It would be nice if you listed the ratios you believe are appropriate for all major nutrients rather than just saying the ppm of P in the mixed nutrient. While I do not use nutrient solution at the typical 100 to 1 mix that is the industry standard and use no higher ppm of P than you apparently use or recommend knowing the ratios of the mix is still important. My reference to nutrient lock out is the lesser accessibility of some nutrients when the pH is lower or raised beyong an idealized range with hydroponics in inert media grows where H+ proton and bicarbonates readily alter the solution pH. The term decreased nutrient availability due to nutrient pH rage changes is probably a better way of saying nutrient lock out.

Here are the ratios I desire, not the "ratios" as listed on the bag. N, N:K, Ca:N, Mg:N and P:S.

 

[Snow Crash]

With regards to speaking about ppm I agree that it is better to talk in terms of elemental Phosphorus. I also feel it is important to translate that value into a labeled percentage. In this way it removes the confusion new growers would have interpreting this information without prior knowledge of the labeling issue with Phosphorus and Potassium.

With regards to the validity of calling the percentages of N-P-K a ratio I have to disagree on this specific occasion. The NPK values I provided on the CES system can be interpreted as both ratios or percentages. This is due to using Nitrogen as the relational value for the reduction of the other values.

By doing Nppm/Nppm the remaining value is not a percentage because we are dividing ppm by ppm (they cancel out). All that is left is the arbitrary value of "1" this could as well represent 1% as it does 10%. It is a place holder for the quantity of Nitrogen as it will be in relation to the other elements present.

The value given to Phosphorus is then Pppm/Nppm. Again, ppm/ppm leaves only the arbitrary value. In this case it was 3.6. The same is done for Potassium, Calcium, and Magnesium.

In this way, where each element has had the ppm canceled out (ppm is just a more accurate percentage) the final values can be nothing other than ratios. They are in Relation to the quantity of Nitrogen and as the Nitrogen value increases, from 1 to 2, or 1 to 5, the values of the other elements will increase at a predictable rate.

Thus, only when the Nitrogen percentage has been reduced to a value of 1 and all other values are determined by the deviance in concentration and described by this deviance, are NPK ratios actually ratios. Only when they are calculated.

As they are listed on the bottles, I agree, they are percentages. But I must strongly disagree that percentages can not be used as scaling ratios if more than two values are present. This is shown when only one Element's ppm level is used as the "ruler" for the arbitrary values of many other elements. The ratio is then between N:N, P:N, K:N, etc. This allows one to compare the ratio of P to K, N to Ca, or K to Mag, because they use the same ruler for evaluation.

 

[spurr]

With regards to the validity of calling the percentages of N-P-K a ratio I have to disagree on this specific occasion. The NPK values I provided on the CES system can be interpreted as both ratios or percentages. This is due to using Nitrogen as the relational value for the reduction of the other values.

The reason I wrote NPK isn't a ratio, is because it's made of three 'parts'. A ratio can only be made of two 'parts'. I agree the (elemental) levels of N|P|K and K|Ca|Mg (either as percent by weight or ppm), with respect to each other, are important (granted, for different reasons).

Ex., NO3:NH4, NO3, NH4:K, N:K (or as K:N), etc., are all ratios we should consider; but the levels of N, P and K cannot be a ratio, nor can the levels of K, Ca and Mg (as either percent by weight or ppm).

 

[spurr]

@ thefatman,

You should check out the thread "Hemp (Cannabis sativa L) tissue nutrient analysis data" (link); esp. see the last page. That thread is a lot better in terms of the topic of tissue assay, I and others added many cannabis studies, as well as that "study" by AN.

I am unsure what you mean by "... tissue samples do not account for the need of pH buffers ... [for hydro and soil/soilless culture].". Drain to waste also uses pH buffers, and roots still exude pH buffers no matter what (ex., H+ protons from uptake of ammonicial N and bicarbonates from uptake of nitrate N).

I am also unsure what you mean by "... nutrient lockout prevention [for hydro and soil/soilless culture].", can you elaborate?

Cheers

Just what is on the last page that you wish to draw my attention to?

It's not that I want you to look at them, it's that I thought you would like to read them. I was referring to the cannabis specific papers I uploaded, esp. the one on NPK effects on THC and CBN, in greenhouse grown plants. I though you may find some of the studies useful, if you have not yet seen them. Also, the post by Tester where he made many charts and graphs, and compares and contrasts studies, etc., is good.

Tissue samples only show uptake of nutrients not the added salt put in the nutrient formulations for recirculating reservoir growing to deal with H+ protons or bicarbonates.

I am unclear on how that relates to your claim that tissue sample data can't be used for anything but drain-to-waste. However, maybe I am misunderstanding your point. I think maybe you are trying to say one thing and I am hearing another.

I consider only drain to waste systems that are used with inert non absorbent media when I say buffers are not needed. While H+ protons and bicarbonates are exuded they typically go down the drain rather than remain on the aero roots. I speak mainly of drain to waste aero by way of high pressure or air atomized.

Do you not use pH buffers in the reservoir? (I'm kinda confused about your point, I think)

Explain why you think formulations for such need buffers in a drain to waste system where there is no media to hold exuded H+ protons or Bicarbonates. Excess fluid is applied in drain to waste true aero systems.

By "buffer" do you mean lime (to buffer upward) or sulfur (to buffer downward)? I am thinking pH up and pH down, in terms of pH buffers.

I think we have our wires crossed on a few issues ...

I know of no posted scientific tests ever done to determine whether exudates remain on the roots of aero grown plants between spraying of new atomized nutrients from a non contaminated reservoir. If you know of any such tests please provide a link or a citation with references.

I am not aware of such study either; but the rhzisosphere is not water per se, it's liquid and has lots of water though.

It would be nice if you listed the ratios you believe are appropriate for all major nutrients rather than just saying the ppm of P in the mixed nutrient.

You asked about P, I thought. And since P is an anion, the ratios that matter most are NO3 and P:S. I could list what I consider appropriate, and have somewhat already done so in this thread (re NO3:NH4, P:S, K:Ca, K|Ca|Mg, etc.) ... but I wouldn't want to list it here in this thread about P.

While I do not use nutrient solution at the typical 100 to 1 mix that is the industry standard and use no higher ppm of P than you apparently use or recommend knowing the ratios of the mix is still important.

Yes, I agree. See the link in my sig to my nutrient formula, it has all the important ratios and relations (ex., K|Ca|Mg) listed (my chart is missing Ca:B and one other ratio, though).

In my post to you, I was referring to what some call the NPK ratio. Ex., from the label, the N-P2O5-K2O listing.

 

[thefatman]

oops.

 

[thefatman]

This is my present formulation for drain to waste air atomized aero. It is working well. My bloom has more Phosphorus, Nitrogen and Potassium then my veg. My calciums are obviously lower then generally used with recirculating reservoirs.

What is your opinion.

DTW VEG 2010 #2

Nitrogen 357
Phosphorus 55
Potassium 300
Magnesium 55.5
Calcium 200
Sulfur 78
Iron 10.00
Manganese 5.00
Boron 5.00
Zinc 5.00
Copper 1.00
Molybdenum 0.09

Ounces

Part A
Calcium Nitrate 13.2
Potassium Nitrate 4.0
Iron Chelate 1.35

Part B
Potassium Nitrate 4.0
Magnesuium Nitrate 7.07
Ammonium Sulfate 7.36
MonoPotassium Phosphate 3.5
Manganese Sulfate .269
Boric Acid / Solubor .368
Zinc Sulfate .291
Copper Sulfate.059
Ammonium Molybdate .002

Volume of Stock Solutions 1
Dilution Rate 100

DTW Bloom 2010

ppm

Nitrogen 400
Phosphorus 80
Potassium 430
Magnesium 70
Calcium 120
Sulfur 93
Iron 10.00
Manganese 5.00
Boron 5.00
Zinc 5.00
Copper 1.00
Molybdenum 0.09

I do not mean tissue samples do not help at all when formulating nutrient mixes I simply mean tissue samples supply data that is easy to use by pretty inexperienced aero drain to waste growers mixing their own nutrients as the tissue sample nutrient ratios are easily used as guidelines without having to always consider the effect of H+ protons and bicarbonates and their effect on recirculating reservoir nor is CEC and issue with aero drain to waste. (Long sentence huh.) Those are not issues with inert media drain to waste systems so tissue ratio data is much nearer the ratios used with the aero drain to waste system nutrients. Much more has to be considered when formulating mixtures for recirculating reservoirs or with media CEC as tissue samples do not reflect those issues.

I have not grown in soil or other absorbent media for years as well I have not been using recirculating reservoirs for quite a while. When I did use recirculating reservoirs I used auto water top off systems, EC controllers and pH controllers. I find my present DTW aero growing methods more cost efficient and easily adjustable. I have no desire to return to the days of absorbent medias such as soil or coco, nor to the use of recirculating reservoirs. Nutrients are just too cheap to make so drain to waste aero is an option I find less expensive and more worry free. Properly used I find it cheaper then dumping reservoirs regularly so as to keep ratios more in line than can be done by just adding more nutrient mix and water. Plus pH control is limited to only having to adjust the newly mixed nutrients.

Part of proplems in addressing what is written is uou talk of lime and sulfur signifying your addressing growing in soil type medias where I do not deal with soil type grows just aero presently and previously recirculating hydroponic reservoir grows. It has been a long time since I have had the need to use lime or sulfur.

I am really surprised at the ratio of soil and absorbent media growers in this forum in comparison to aeroponic or inert media hydroponic growers.

 

[YosemiteSam]

No Si.

I ran out and it took a while to get. I have it now and it will be added in for the rest of the grow.

thefatman...could you speak to the K:N ratio you have chosen. Do you keep your N higher than your K in flower?

 

[Dave Coulier]

It's an American thing lol. They're having problems catching up with the rest of the planet but will definitely get there (tongue in cheek but in part true). Give them some credit - it was only a few years ago that the be all and end all to anything was mag sulfate. The only other place I've seen outside of the US that is big on soil is New Zealand. Coco is huge in Australia and NZ. I think in Australias case this is largely due to the crazy summer temps and coco offers somewhat better root zone security.

Im an American and take offense to that, and you probably just offended other people that aren't Americans and use soiless media .

I use soilless because its easy and simple to start with. Getting the most of it requires experience though. Im not terribly knowledgeable about most hydro systems, and honestly I have dont have much desire to know more. I like to get my hands dirty, and Im happy to stick with that.

As for the imperial system...well Its pretty clear the US isn't gonna change over any time soon. They tried to change over once and it failed. I will say, I prefer the metric system though.