why are my ppms going up now?

BenFranklin

Well-Known Member
I don't grow plants for trying to grow the largest plants... I got 6 plants under 600w (400watt during transition), same yield (over 12 strains, about a pound+ per run) with 1100ppm (nearly all H&G additives), 680ppm (only AB) as I got with 450-480ppm (AB + little bit of GHE Bloom). Currently 340-350ppm, of which half is tap and I expect a similar yield. That's pushing it though, I never recommended someone run 300ppm. I'll probably aim for 450-500 next run. I unlike many others like to see with my own eyes rather than choose to be blind.

I have a friend in D.C. that runs at half strength, his plants look great to be honest.... Much better than mine in most cases, however, his buds don't get nearly as hard or thick as mine. They stay pretty fluffy and airy.

His leaves always have a lighter paler green than mine which always end up being extremely dark purplish....
 
Last edited:

waterdawg

Well-Known Member
The nutes I buy come in a black bottle with a sticker that says either grow or bloom and a or b lol. Not a whole bunch of info! I buy them locally and they are sold to name brand distributors but mixed here. Oh and their cheap lol. A gallon of each is $30. I have never looked up the recommended mix, just add till I get to 550 ish. My first run ever I was running at 1000 and burnt the girls!
 

waterdawg

Well-Known Member
But yes my levels do slowly climb as the week goes on but very slowly. I actually dont think I've ever had them drop. Could it be the water I used that effects it as well. Its 250 out of the tap.
 

Sativied

Well-Known Member
Long posts... not trying to convince anyone... just not often there are people here I can have a somewhat normal discussion about this...

I have a friend in D.C. that runs at half strength, his plants look great to be honest.... Much better than mine in most cases, however, his buds don't get nearly as hard or thick as mine. They stay pretty fluffy and airy.

His leaves always have a lighter paler green than mine which always end up being extremely dark purplish....
It's hard to get over that thought of more nutes resulting bigger buds I know. What you basically claim with the above is that unhealthier plants that have been overfed results in more dense buds, which just isn't true, on the contrary. Comparing to a friend's grow means little, do a for-you-lower-ppm run and experience for yourself that healthy plants result in the most quality and quantity (which is a well-known fact for non-cannabis growers). I've had runs with as little as 1% popcorn, and I don't/hardly defoliate. Besides being hard and dense, they are also as frosty as can get as any one who has seen my frost shots in the frostiest bud thread can confirm. Plenty of growers who don't use such high levels and get great results.

Read Heath's post if you skipped it: http://rollitup.org/t/why-are-my-ppms-going-up-now.835107/page-2#post-10657292

The leaf color is highly affected by the amount of N, and I too was able to push a lot of N (over twice the ppm I use in total now) in my plants. Cannabis love sucking up N.... but, we grow for resin, not for fiber. One of the challenges of growing the highest quality (and with that as a goal quantity automatically follows) is spreading out the needed N over the entire run (because it's also important for the proper uptake of other elements).

350ppm:
groupupdate9.jpg
Yellowing leaf in front is from leaning against door. Note the plant right in the back, that one has roots growing back the rez below the tubes in which the plants are. That one could do with even 50ppm less, and is a very vigorous tri-whorled monster.

Lower bud that gets no direct light:
IH_5_clean2.jpg

groupupdate10.jpg

So no, what you suggest, that normal for cannabis (for you low) ppms lead to pale leads or fluffy buds, is not true.

Again, the lower ppm does not equal less nutrient use of the plant itself. You're treating it like a pig or goose instead of a plant. Plants don't eat, they create food for all other organisms based on basic elements, of which they only need "enough" to reach their genetic potential. More than 'enough' isn't going to get it to produce more buds than it would if it were to get just enough. There's an old test lab close to me that was recommend in a grow guide I got decades ago, which works closely with universities and scientists to determine the optimal range of nutrient levels for many different crops (for our many pro greenhouses) to get maximum yields. A range, not a supposed maximum value. More is not more when it comes to nutes and buds.


OK, I was just looking up General Hydro's PPM chart.. at Week 10, the mix I use(if everything is consistent and normal) runs about 12-1400ppm..

IN fact at week 3 they have you running 1400ppm...

http://generalhydroponics.com/site/gh/docs/feeding_sched/GH-FloraSeries-REC-Charts.pdf
Right, that's what you nutrient manufacturer tells you to use and is the worst indicator you can get. There's also a HUGE difference between minimum ppm levels in different systems. I need to stay about 400 in my small non-recirculating DWC boxes, I need to use 650-ish in my hempy and coco buckets and bottles to keep those green. Medium stores nutes of which only some are released to the plant. In a true hydroponics setup (DWC, flooded tubes, nft) the plant has an abundance of nutrients to take up as it needs.

Plants are immobile because they don't need to hunt for food, they can create it themselves, yet in a recirculating system, the root zone in which they are stationary continuously refreshes making it extremely easy for the plant to take up everything it needs.

But yes my levels do slowly climb as the week goes on but very slowly. I actually dont think I've ever had them drop.
I think you know what that means by now. I know, it's amazing, downright amazing. That was what I thought anyway when I lowered to 450-ish, and now at 350... it's baffling that I only add the amount nutrients of the same ppm level as my tap. The hydro guys here in NL that run on mapito run 1000-1500 and up (0.5 scale). I've never seen one that didn't burn his plants though. Not saying your 650 is really high, but that's peak in most cases (peak being during late veg/transition and midflowering not at the end of flowering as nutrient manufacturer charts suggest). Drop it a little (50ppm) till it slowly drops (like 10-20 ppm in a day) instead of climbs, and then instead of topping off with only water, add water+nutes. At the end of the week you'll still have used more or less the same amount of nutrients. I know scary :lol: Dropping ppm does not equal small bud size.

A year ago I was in ya'lls boat:

That's actually pretty much how I'm looking at it, however, I have two reason for going just slightly higher than that sweet spot (like 50-65 ppm) :

1. I do 'need' to top off several times a week because I need to keep the solution level high enough (relatively small rez but also got pump near the top to prevent too much pressure reduction). If I were to sit on that sweet spot I would have to find it every time I top off. By going slightly higher the ppm increases and the ph drops (because it relatively uses more water than nutes as in not on the sweet spot) allowing me to use only water when topping off. Instead of adding water+nutes+additives+ph every time I need to top off. Added bonus is that I can add cold water at any point without ending up without having to readjust nute and ph levels.

2. I've been told many times to push the ppm level in order to push the plant's ability to take higher nute levels. If you merely give it what it asks for you're not pushing it to its full potential. Let me add that some of those (oldskool hydro growers over here that laugh when I add 'ponic') used burned tips as the main indicator for the max nute level. Lighten the tips, then take it a notch down and you got the real sweet spot. Not saying that's useful or recommendable as a default practice but I'm not sure sure the sweet spot is really that what the plant asks for).
Follow the quote to the original thread and read legallyflying's reply for more info about why more nutes does not equal more yield.

I see superstoner also posted in that thread: "I run about 600 ppm in my dwc and never top off and rarely does ph need to be adjusted. It starts at 600 and when 3-3.5 gallons have been used it is around 570-620 then i change it."
 

Sativied

Well-Known Member
Cool, I look forward to reading what you think of the results after trying it. Probably obvious but of course I'm not suggesting you give any less than the plants indicate is necessary. The moral of the story is basically look at plants first, ppm meter second. Also, plants/roots get used to living in a certain level, a sudden drop is not something they will enjoy, so try it on a new plant unless your ppm actually climbs.

Probably most who start with hydro, including me, at first try to achieve the highest amount of nutrient uptake, which is quite easy when all roots are surrounded by a nute solution. Many add additives even on top of that. In hindsight, it's imo much better to start low the first round, then try a little higher and/or add additives the next rounds to see if that helps increase the yield. And then some additives might actually work as advertised (without causing imbalance and premature yellow and nute burn), i.e. when you got some working space within that "enough nutes" range.
 

Sativied

Well-Known Member
Some more details on why hydroponics is so efficient and requires less nutrient use (by the grower, not necessarily by the plant).

First this:

To demonstrate that an element is essential requires that plants be grown under experimental conditions in which only the element under investigation is absent. Such conditions are extremely difficult to achieve with plants grown in a complex medium such as soil. In the nineteenth century, several researchers [...] approached this problem by growing plants with their roots immersed in a nutrient solution containing only inorganic salts. Their demonstration that plants could grow normally with no soil or organic matter proved unequivocally that plants can fulfill all their needs from only inorganic elements, water, and sunlight. [that's what a plant is, a chemical food factory, it does not eat or need vitamins and sugars]

http://www.tankonyvtar.hu/hu/tartalom/tamop425/0010_1A_Book_angol_01_novenyelettan/ch02s02.html


The Nutrient Uptake Process


Movement of nutrients to roots

Roots do not intentionally grow towards a nutrient source. For nutrient uptake to occur, the individual nutrient ion must be in position adjacent to the root. Positioning of the nutrient ion can occur by one or more of three processes [if you grow in soil].


Root Interception

The root can "bump into" the ion as it grows through the soil. This mechanism is called root interception. Work by Barber estimates that perhaps one percent of the nutrients in a corn plant come from the root interception process.


Mass Flow

The soluble fraction of nutrients present in soil solution (water) and not held on the soil fractions flow to the root as water is taken up. This process is called mass flow. Nutrients such as nitrate-N, calcium and sulfur are normally supplied by mass flow.


Diffusion

Nutrients such as phosphorus and potassium are absorbed strongly by soils and are only present in small quantities in the soil solution. These nutrients move to the root by diffusion. As uptake of these nutrients occurs at the root, the concentration in the soil solution in close proximity to the root decreases. This creates a gradient for the nutrient to diffuse through the soil solution from a zone of high concentration to the depleted solution adjacent to the root. Diffusion is responsible for the majority of the P, K and Zn moving to the root for uptake.


http://www.spectrumanalytic.com/support/library/ff/The_Nutrient_Uptake_Process.htm

What's important to realize is that mass flow is not actually about plant drinking the nutrient solution. The uptake of water moves the ions in the solution close enough to the roots, which then take up those individual elements. What a plant needs to produce big fat buds is enough of those ions (the essential nutrient elements) near its roots, which with and efficient hydroponics setup is obviously easy to achieve with relatively low ppms of the soup (large surface area in a constant supply of ions).
 

BenFranklin

Well-Known Member
Some more details on why hydroponics is so efficient and requires less nutrient use (by the grower, not necessarily by the plant).

Actually, this goes along with one of the first postings I made on this forum, I asked if anyone has ever done a "minimalist grow"... with the idea being using the least amount of water an nutrients it would take to subsequently obtain an "average" harvest.

The responses I got were far less than enthusiastic, so I completely ditched the idea. LOL!

Now, my interest has been reawakened. I am looking forward to this.

Normally.. Following manufacturers instructions.. Using tablespoon, I run 2 micro, 1 grow , 3 Flower.. per 5 gallon bucket.

I am thinking that I will run Teaspoons instead, on just one bucket to see the difference in harvest. IE: 3 teaspoons of flower instead of 3 tablespoons.

3 tablespoons of flower = 12 teaspoons, as if you didn't know.. hehehe =)

What I am hoping for is a nice average harvest using this idea, but if I get less than, I will shoot for 800. As you said, I will let the plants tell me what they want.

After all, I grow my clone mother in 1 - 1 - 1 tablespoons per 5 gallon buckets. You should see that thing.. It's a picture perfect pot plant. Well, except I had to chop it a bit cause it was getting bigger than I need at the moment. The thing grows like frickin crazy though.

I've personally seen plants that the leaves looked absolutely atrocious, but, the harvest was outrageous, we called it "Ragweed" back in the day. It was just the way the stuff grew in soil.



PS> Ahhhhhh after further reading... So that's really why aeroponics are superior to "hydroponics" simply because the nutrients are being atomized at the roots, where they need them most.

I always thought it was because aeroponics created a higher oxygen content for the roots and the roots took advantage of that higher oxygen content much like the plants above the surface take advantage of cO2.

This is like my airbrush in which paints are "atomized", by the forceful mixing of air... it makes the paint flow MUCH better.

Thank you VERY much Sativied.
 
Last edited:

waterdawg

Well-Known Member
Actually 600-650 is the highest I run and typically run 500-600, but I have run lower and to be honest it seems to always trend up but it does go up and down through out the week. Also I very rarely top up, just refill. I have tried to establish a pattern and just when I think I've got it, it goes up or down when it should be doing the oppisite.
 

Sativied

Well-Known Member
I don't agree with the comments near the sweet spot chart in the following image for reasons I posted in previous posts (lower ppm doesn't have to mean less nutrients over a week, just better spread out and easier for the plant to reach max potential) but, it does depict the answer to the question in the thread title nicely:

howtohydro.jpg

Another reason for posting this is to share the source with those who subscribed to this thread and or read it in the future of course:

Source: How-to Hydroponics (google how-to hydroponics fourth edition, free-ish copies of the pdf floating around)

I just found it, only skimmed through it but not focussed on cannabis which is usually a good thing...
 

waterdawg

Well-Known Member
Thanks! I have always been reluctant to drop below 500 and not due to how the plants and water respond, but more to do with the "more is good" mind set. Perhaps a bit of trial and error when i resume growing. Thanks again!
 

NeonTetra

Member
Just stumbling on to this thread to determine if I need to up my nutrient levels in veg growth in preparation for flowering. Always enjoy reading Sativied's perspective--good correspondence with my hydro and plant biology books.

I think the nutrient concentration needs must be markedly different based on the system you're running and how many plants are involved. I run NFT and have a pretty high flow rate--so the environment immediately surrounding my roots is dominated by bulk transport. In slower-flowing systems (DWC, ebb & flow) or those with lots of medium, many nutrients may undergo diffusion-dominant transport. Since diffusion requires a concentration differential, your bulk solution would need a higher concentration to 'drive' diffusion.

I'm still pretty new to growing but from what I've read, the situation is a little more complex than how many people think about it. The rhizosphere is that area between the medium and the root. The root actually exerts influence in this area by excreting ions to actively attract certain (usually macro) nutrients. In medium-less hydroponics (aero, NFT) it's like the entire system is the rhizosphere--so the plants are actively controlling this environment.

It's pretty frustrating to have to rely on such a crude measurement as PPM whenever the reality of what's happening in the system is more complex. As many have pointed out here, it seems the best condition is when the PPMs are slowly dropping and the pH is slowly rising. In my experience this is when my system seems most stable--only requiring slight adjustment every few days. I think the key to gaining control is to keep a very good eye on your numbers and use a solid engineering approach to making adjustments.

I use an Excel spreadsheet not only to log parameters in my system but also to help me make adjustments. I have a continuous top-up using float valves fed by an RO tank, so my reservoir never drops, and the concentration is always steadily diluting. I don't add any pH adjuster to my fresh water feed since pH will be vastly dominated by the reservoir.

It's pretty simple to create a formula to help you make precise adjustments to the TDS. Rather than go by a "rule of thumb", you can easily determine a constant for your system and nutes/beneficials that you use to precisely adjust your TDS from one value to another. I've attached a screenshot of my spreadsheet. The grey columns are calculated values based on some formulas I wrote. If this method seems interesting to anyone I could start a thread.
 

Attachments

Last edited:

NeonTetra

Member
Yeah I'll start up a new thread to cover the spreadsheet. Need to make sure I remove incriminating meta data, and I'll format it to be a bit more general purpose...
 

Sativied

Well-Known Member
The root actually exerts influence in this area by excreting ions to actively attract certain (usually macro) nutrients. In hydroponics it's like the entire system is the rhizosphere--so the plants are actively controlling this environment.
Yes that's why it's called (cat/an)ion "exchange". The ion that is released is a hydrogen ion, and the hydrogen (H+) concentration is what the pH represents, which in turn influences the cation and anion exchange capacity, that is the the uptake of nutrients.

By staying slightly below the sweet spot you can get a better indication of what is the best macro ratio for a stable soup (which doesn't necessarily mean it's the ratio the plant actually uses, but it's better to have a stable soup with a close-enough ratio throughout the week (or w/e) than a heavily fluctuating soup with the perfect ratio at for example a too high doses.).

The classic response is to blame too high or too low ppm for a too fast changing ppm while often it's an imbalance that is too blame (like using too much high P (anion) bloom products too soon). Like you said, "it's pretty frustrating to have to rely on such a crude measurement as PPM".

"In general, an excess of cation over anion leads to a decrease in pH, whereas an excess of anion over cation uptake leads to an increase in pH."
http://www.tps.com.au/hydroponics/pheffect.htm


That actually allows the plant to balance the pH, but is hard when the ratio is off (when for example again there are too many P anions in the soup). I'd love to get a Hanna Photometer to measure the NPK and Ca for example, but they are pricey and the process is messy. While the values itself are interesting, just as with ppm it's the change over time that can give valuable info.

And thanks for the compliment dude.
 
Top