Never looked at Mel Franks formula. The guys a Dinosaur so I expect his formula is also. Would you like to post it here.
-
Happy Birthday ICMag! Been 20 years since Gypsy Nirvana created the forum! We are celebrating with a 4/20 Giveaway and by launching a new Patreon tier called "420club". You can read more here.
-
Important notice: ICMag's T.O.U. has been updated. Please review it here. For your convenience, it is also available in the main forum menu, under 'Quick Links"!
The myth, of the high P myth?
- Thread starter epicseeds
- Start date
Never looked at Mel Franks formula. The guys a Dinosaur so I expect his formula is also. Would you like to post it here.
I'm sort of wondering how this thread became a I have no idea how to formulate, can you help thread which dilutes the great information which was posted here years ago.
And to answer that - look at it this way, if a company lists accurately they give their formula away to any half arsed formulator. Would you list accurately if this were the case? Then of course there are the garanteed minimums and compliance testing by agricultural regulators so you always list lower than is in the bottle to ensure any discrepencies don't fall below guaranteed minimum.
I don’t know what the hell youre talking about and to be honest I’m not really interested in your theories. Let’s agree to disagree
byeI don’t know what the hell youre talking about and to be honest I’m not really interested in your theories. Let’s agree to disagree
You have no idea period pal. Now why not start a thread called "I have no idea - please help"
G
Guest
You have no idea period pal. Now why not start a thread called "I have no idea - please help"
Nice to see someone who just shows up and starts acting like a dick to folks. Regardless of who knows what your the kind of douche that must make friends where ever you go. I predict banishment for thee in in a short time.
hyposomniac
Active member
Sounds more like he showed up and gave a dude some info and was treated disrespectfully, and responded in kind.
Kind of how you mouthed off to me once for no good reason, so I have to laugh at your white knighting
Absolem
Active member
Post #51 is very informative. Read what YosemiteSam says starting on page five.
From my own experience I wanted to see how low I could push P. In veg I was around 27-30 ppm and starting 12/12 I increased P to 40 ppm. Around week 5 1/2 into 12/12 the plant leaves didn't look as lush as they should. I didn't see any difference in flower size or appearance. At that point I upped the p to around 80 ppm for a couple weeks then reduced my EC the final 10-14 days till chop.
@ OMalley
Great job learning how to break down nutrient profiles. There are several Dept of Ag sites from various states that randomly test fertilizer and post the results online. I'm glad no one was around telling me that breaking down nutrients is just a waste of time. It's given me the ability to tailor my nutrient profile as I see fit. For 40$ you can send in any fertilizer to a lab and have them test it for macro and micro nutrients.
Cheers
From my own experience I wanted to see how low I could push P. In veg I was around 27-30 ppm and starting 12/12 I increased P to 40 ppm. Around week 5 1/2 into 12/12 the plant leaves didn't look as lush as they should. I didn't see any difference in flower size or appearance. At that point I upped the p to around 80 ppm for a couple weeks then reduced my EC the final 10-14 days till chop.
@ OMalley
Great job learning how to break down nutrient profiles. There are several Dept of Ag sites from various states that randomly test fertilizer and post the results online. I'm glad no one was around telling me that breaking down nutrients is just a waste of time. It's given me the ability to tailor my nutrient profile as I see fit. For 40$ you can send in any fertilizer to a lab and have them test it for macro and micro nutrients.
Cheers
Last edited:
King Rat
Active member
I'm into this topics since a while and i'm at the point where i'm really convinced that higher amounts of K (Potassium) and Mg are the things that could be used as a booster (without the P in PK Boosters)
I was thinking about to accomplish this with potassium (20% K2O) from the CANNA mono line and some epsom salt when stretching stopped and the first buds formed.
The thing to solve at the moment is figuring out how much K is too much and results in toxicity or Mg lockout in conjunction with the lucas formula.
What do you guys think about that?
Planned schedule would be:
Flowering
week 1 - 3 lucas 8/16 & Bloom stimulator (just stimulator w/o nutes)
week 4 - 6 lucas 8/16 , Bloom stimulator, + K and Mg supplement
week 7 - (8,9) back to only lucas + stimulator
flush
i dunno if this makes sense but it seems like a simple working formula for me.
maybe i'll supplement some chitosan and molasses inbetween but i like to keep the things not too complex
I was thinking about to accomplish this with potassium (20% K2O) from the CANNA mono line and some epsom salt when stretching stopped and the first buds formed.
The thing to solve at the moment is figuring out how much K is too much and results in toxicity or Mg lockout in conjunction with the lucas formula.
What do you guys think about that?
Planned schedule would be:
Flowering
week 1 - 3 lucas 8/16 & Bloom stimulator (just stimulator w/o nutes)
week 4 - 6 lucas 8/16 , Bloom stimulator, + K and Mg supplement
week 7 - (8,9) back to only lucas + stimulator
flush
i dunno if this makes sense but it seems like a simple working formula for me.
maybe i'll supplement some chitosan and molasses inbetween but i like to keep the things not too complex
G
Guest
A tiger doesn’t lose sleep over the opinions of sheep.
Good to see the thread getting on track and therein lays a very good question. There is no single right anser though if you look at the science because grow methodology and fertigation frequency come into play. So as an example you may be talking say 80 - 90 ppm if you were only feeding the girls once a day but if you were feeding 8 times a day (high fertigation frequency) you may be talking 30-40 ppm or even lower because by feeding more you are more regularly supplying P to the root interface and vacinity where it is then available for uptake. One thing is certain, if you look at all dicot plants including herbaceous dicots the stated to be ideal ppm of P is vastly lower than hydro manufacturers recommend when you break down their feed charts. What is certain is most hydro manufacturers don't know crap or they simply want you using rediculous amounts of their PK additives so they can line their pockets (while likely losing us yields because excess P and K results in lockout of other key nutrient ions such as Ca and Fe).
Well you cerainly have tabs on yourself don't you tiger (meeeeoww) ? - have you anything intelligent and/or insightful to add to the thread.. ?
No one said you are wasting your time breaking down nutrient profiles. Certainly if you run lab analysis it is worth doing to establish given ppm in solution from any fertilizer product. What though is an utter waste of time is using the data from nutrient labels which list guaranteed minimums and are generally miles away from what a lab analysis would provide. BTW DBs such as the CDFA DB are also highly unreliable; however, sometimes as you point out compliance testing is done and if you can get your hands on the stated minimums to lab findings the lab findings provide you with a reliable road map to establish ppm in solution.
Absolem
Active member
BULLSHIT!
Here's some of the labels from the fertilizer products I use and their guaranteed minimum analysis.
These are products from Yara Fertilizer and Hafia Fertilizer. These products are used by farmers who farm 100s if not 1000s acres. They can't risk losing a crop because the manufacturer lied about the NPK's to keep their formula secret. If the manufacturer's lied about their NPK"s to these farmers they will be out of business very quickly.
The products in the pictures when lab tested are almost an exact match to the guaranteed minimum analysis. The lab tests I have on Canna nutrients are a match to the GMA. Same for GH. Why would a company lie about their NPK's to growers who have no clue how to make nutrients or understand what's in them? Most company's whose NPK's don't meet the GMA usually have poor quality control. These companies can't keep their formula's secret from people who know how to make nutrients because for $40.00 you can have a lab analyze them so lying about their NPK"s is pointless.
Yes there are some shady nutrient companies mainly catering to the cannabis community as you stated. Wow. Thanks for that great insight Captain Obvious.
What is a waste is your "advice" to people on this site. Instead of telling OMalley to double check the GMA with lab tests available online and pointing him to those tests you belittle him. Your advice is nothing more then a buzzkill to a grower whose trying to improve their skills. Why do you feel the need to discourage people instead of sending them on the right path? Make ya feel like you know something they don't?
Back to this thread about low P. YosemiteSam grew in coco coir. The reasoning behind limiting p is to keep the stretch in plants to a minimum. The stretch in plants the first two weeks of 12/12 is caused by phosphorous NOT nitrogen. Limiting the the P during the first two weeks of flower will keep the stretch down big time.
Don't say bullshit without posting the lab analysis to prove your point champ. Oh geez do tell on P causing stretch - that's old old news now. However, all nutrient ions need to be kept within their respective ranges and ratios. A deficiency will result in reduced growth as will excess due to excess of any one nutrient antagonising other important nutrient ions (see Mulders chart). I know you think you sound clever but you really really arent. Now rather than tossing off about your lab analysis matching the guaranteed minimums try posting it to demo the point or its just more BS.
I saved 4$ on my insurance switching to Geico
Example of mislabeled products and how common it is
https://www.oregon.gov/ODA/programs/Pesticides/Fertilizers/Pages/StopSales.aspx
Stop sales between 2016 - 18 = 849
Fertilizer violations and penalties = 284
Go figure
https://www.oregon.gov/ODA/programs/Pesticides/Fertilizers/Pages/StopSales.aspx
Stop sales between 2016 - 18 = 849
Fertilizer violations and penalties = 284
Go figure
Ibechillin
Masochist Educator
This was posted by a member on t h c farmer september 21, 2018:
Dave Neal said:
Very well put absolem and great information about the lab test results. Researching into nutrient science it becomes very clear the manufacturers that have been in business for a long period of time aimed towards large scale farmers have the most to lose from an incident. GH and Canna are both quility manufacturers.
Example of mislabeled products and how common it is
https://www.oregon.gov/ODA/programs/Pesticides/Fertilizers/Pages/StopSales.aspx
Stop sales between 2016 - 18 = 849
Fertilizer violations and penalties = 284
Go figure
@BongFu funny you would post a link and not even read it first...
Stop sales to date currently 876 total
Advanced Nutrients has 13!
(3 this year already, 2 being adulterated product even!)
Canna has 2 for unregistered product 12/6/2016
(not another stop sale from then until now)
General Hydroponics has 3 stop sales for unregistered on 12/8/2016
(not another stop sale from then until now)
Yara has 3 stop sales for mislabeled 11/7/2017, 6/5/2017, 8/21/2017
(not another one since)
^Looks to me like the farmer oriented products do have more credibility...4 times as much according to oregon stop sale reports.
Penalties to date 284 total
Advanced Nutrients 5 this year already...
General Hydroponics none since 6/9/2016
Yara had none.
^RESULTS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES!
Last edited:
the oregon stop sales is interesting, overall not as valuble as the washington state database, I tried finding some more actual lab results from the oregon links it sucks you can't click on each product listed and pull up the analysis
I remember looking through different kelp meals on the washington database and them having drastically different levels of metals, I wonder how much that plays into a nutrient company's results like if a manufacturing site got their kelp from a different source than another site so the extract or whatever they put into the formula is different
I was told about the high P deal when I went to a hydro shop and they had an organic living soil workshop, it is probably less bullshit the more inert the medium is, like adding a booster in soil is probably not as worth it as it would be in an all perlite hempy, I did notice increased density when I used one of the fox farms boosters in hempy but the fact that there are three different ones is garbage
in soil the hottest P I add is a 5-4-2 and is mixed into the soil when transplating, then mammoth p microbes weeks 3-6 of flower
I think in hydro though and even in a not organic soil setup like if in smaller 2 gallon containers there are some products that actually work
I remember looking through different kelp meals on the washington database and them having drastically different levels of metals, I wonder how much that plays into a nutrient company's results like if a manufacturing site got their kelp from a different source than another site so the extract or whatever they put into the formula is different
I was told about the high P deal when I went to a hydro shop and they had an organic living soil workshop, it is probably less bullshit the more inert the medium is, like adding a booster in soil is probably not as worth it as it would be in an all perlite hempy, I did notice increased density when I used one of the fox farms boosters in hempy but the fact that there are three different ones is garbage
in soil the hottest P I add is a 5-4-2 and is mixed into the soil when transplating, then mammoth p microbes weeks 3-6 of flower
I think in hydro though and even in a not organic soil setup like if in smaller 2 gallon containers there are some products that actually work
