Star Dog
Well-Known Member
You obviously know more than me I'll leave you to it.
Milky Weed
Well-Known Member
So dr.bugbee gave out a rough formula for calculating nutrients via mass balance, it was in the course i took. There are calculations to figure out nutrient levels via how much water they have transpired. Just wanted to let you know there are ways to get a rough estimate but thats moreso for scientific studies. I myself would likely never need those calculations, i just go by sight.
Armyofsprout
Well-Known Member
i wasn’t saying calculated estimations don’t exist. What I was saying is they are only estimations because when you throw in genetic variability then you can reach a point of standard deviation at random. It’s like saying if you take 5 different people from birth and feed them the same program under the same conditions then they will all turn out exactly the same.
they might all turn out strong and healthy but not all of them will turn out the same just due to genetic makeup. This is the exact reasoning behind weeding out the weak in breeding and the more adaptable and stronger these genetics evolve, the more they can potentially take. No different than if you take the landrace strains of yesterday and compare them today it’s like night and day of what’s capable.
All science is based off fundamental trial and error. I COULD plug in a formula but like you said I could also just go by sight and actually be more accurate for myself that way. Never know what breakthrough you can make. Years ago people would never even have to thought to run 3.0 EC. Now a lot do
Armyofsprout
Well-Known Member
That’s the upside to growing. There’s always 10 different approaches to everything and none of them are correct or incorrect, just different.
Gregshed
Well-Known Member
Roots can vary their nutrient uptake in more ways than one, higher ec won't always mean it takes up a higher amount but only it's optimum still.
Only some things are limiting, the same fertilizer but with different levels of manganese or whatever could show different limits.
Better to compare everyone using the same fertilizer.
Only some things are limiting, the same fertilizer but with different levels of manganese or whatever could show different limits.
Better to compare everyone using the same fertilizer.
calvin.m16
Well-Known Member
High EC weed is mids. Cant stand when the weed tastes like I put a 9 volt battery on my tongue. 3.00 EC Athena is a prime example of growing mids.
BRO I HIT 3.6 EC my weed is "clean" broooooooo
BRO I HIT 3.6 EC my weed is "clean" broooooooo
Billy the Mountain
Well-Known Member
So long as the plants nutritional needs are being met, more EC does not equate to more/faster growth.
The plant is going to uptake what it needs, it can't be force-fed.
The plant is going to uptake what it needs, it can't be force-fed.
calvin.m16
Well-Known Member
Apparently nutrient toxicity isn't a thing. I'll be sure to write that down.
Kassiopeija
Well-Known Member
Urea, or any type of non-ionic small nute molecule - it can't be controlled by antiports. Plant has no choice to "drink" all of it in... can swiftly lead to tox.
High boron (hemp is boron sensitive) will also kill it quickly. Think of using borax "by the hand"
High boron (hemp is boron sensitive) will also kill it quickly. Think of using borax "by the hand"
calvin.m16
Well-Known Member
Why over feed on purpose?
Billy the Mountain
Well-Known Member
Apparently reading comprehension isn't a thing.
Gregshed
Well-Known Member
Its just to point out not saying overfeed. A reason why you can run higher or lower within reason still get same results.
PJ Diaz
Well-Known Member
That's not quite accurate. There is a point of nutrient toxicity when the plant suffers. There is also a point at which the EC is too low, and the plant's nutrition will suffer.
calvin.m16
Well-Known Member
It's just as easy to over feed a cannabis plant as it is to under feed it. There's nothing to be argued. The statement that you can not overfeed a plant is absolutely false.
Gregshed
Well-Known Member
Yes but within levels roots regulate all uptake in many ways, it was just to answer why one can run lower or higher and get the same results not to say overfeeding will work well.
It seemed that was the case here, some run lower some higher.
Kassiopeija
Well-Known Member
Optimal plant growth sets in after the 'critical concentration' of which follows 'luxury consume' that has slightly reduced growth. That's because the plant has to use energy to deal with the surplus of nutes (nute processing) and some, like Ca also crystallize out in tissue and affect phyiology negatively
^^ "Piper-Steenbjerg-Effekt"
^^ "Piper-Steenbjerg-Effekt"
Kassiopeija
Well-Known Member
obviously running higher will be associated with higher costs
Last edited:
Rurumo
Well-Known Member
In the last few years we've gotten some good data from studies, finally being done with drug cannabis, that proves high levels of phosphorus, for ex, are counterproductive. In that study, yield was highest between 30-90ppm P (with 30 ppm P having 80% the yield of 90ppm), BUT <30 ppm P contained the highest levels of THC. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpls.2021.657323/full Yield went up slightly with higher P, but cannabinoid levels went down. This isn't the only study to show a decline in cannabinoid levels as NPK increases either. I'm curious to see why you guys are pushing high EC, what is the result you hope to achieve? Higher yields? I've always associated lower EC fed crops with increased quality and better flavor, and also, as Kassi noted, lower costs and less waste. Most fertilizer schedules set high EC levels because they want to sell product, that's how its always been.
dizzyground
Well-Known Member
I think it depends alot on strain + light (+ some other things for sure)
Plants under LED need ALOT more ec imo, and under hps less. Like 1-1.4EC under hps and around 3 EC under led. Based on my limited experience