Frimpong
🔥Freak Genetics🔥
Being sexually mature def adds to the amount ?most of my clones are the same way.Some plants mature that way, very few.
Since both are i would lean towards because them being clones.
Being sexually mature def adds to the amount ?most of my clones are the same way.Some plants mature that way, very few.
Since both are i would lean towards because them being clones.
Some plants mature that way, very few.
Since both are i would lean towards because them being clones.
Thanks for your input gentlemen!Being sexually mature def adds to the amount ?most of my clones are the same way.
Excellent Mac!!With 4-5 weeks from seed, they may still not be quite ready to show after a week of flower. They should show by 3 weeks after flip, latest, with males typically showing earlier, 1-3 weeks.
If you reveg right when you find out what they are, you shouldn't notice much of a hiccup, or typical reveg growth. I e. Spiral leaf, single blad, then 3, then 5, like you might see from a finished plant reveg.
So I've been thinking about the above statement of feeding at a rate of around 950 PPM.
I would like to bounce this off the brain trust...
Maybe I've been screwing the pooch all along...
I just mixed up 3 gallons of nutrient to feed/water with, as I mentioned I mix 3 part dry nutrients.
I start with RO water, I then put in the Masterblend (or Jack's) and Epson salt, mix well.
I then add the Cal/NI, and mix well again.
At this point I took a PPM reading, it was 510. (not something I usually do)
I then added the Cal/Mag and the Silica Blast, took another reading and near 870 PPM.
Finished with some PH down to get to a 5.8, and took a final PPM reading, it was 886.
(My PPM pen takes reading on the 700 scale.)
My question is...
Am I feeding at 886, or 510??
As I understand it, if I was using tap water I would disregard the original PPM reading found in the tap water.
If I am adding Cal/Mag to supplement the RO, should I do that first and then ignore the initial PPM caused by that addition?
I know that I am suppose to be able to read the plant and let it tell me what it wants. One of my plants is telling me it is hungry.
(I think...maybe...sorta...if I am hearing it correctly...)
If this is in the wrong place, Mod's you are welcome to move it. Or say the word and I will.
Hope my question makes sense,
WillieP
Thanks for the assist Red!In RO, I'd say you're feeding at whatever the pen tells you you're feeding at final read since it starts at 0 ppm. Your plant doesn't know whats tap and whats RO....it just knows the total concentration of salts/minerals that are in the water. So if your final read is 886, Id say your feeding at 886.
Fyi the calcium in cal-mag is typically calcium nitrate. If you need more cal-mag, bump up the cal-nit and epsom a touch.So I've been thinking about the above statement of feeding at a rate of around 950 PPM.
I would like to bounce this off the brain trust...
Maybe I've been screwing the pooch all along...
I just mixed up 3 gallons of nutrient to feed/water with, as I mentioned I mix 3 part dry nutrients.
I start with RO water, I then put in the Masterblend (or Jack's) and Epson salt, mix well.
I then add the Cal/NI, and mix well again.
At this point I took a PPM reading, it was 510. (not something I usually do)
I then added the Cal/Mag and the Silica Blast, took another reading and near 870 PPM.
Finished with some PH down to get to a 5.8, and took a final PPM reading, it was 886.
(My PPM pen takes reading on the 700 scale.)
My question is...
Am I feeding at 886, or 510??
As I understand it, if I was using tap water I would disregard the original PPM reading found in the tap water.
If I am adding Cal/Mag to supplement the RO, should I do that first and then ignore the initial PPM caused by that addition?
I know that I am suppose to be able to read the plant and let it tell me what it wants. One of my plants is telling me it is hungry.
(I think...maybe...sorta...if I am hearing it correctly...)
If this is in the wrong place, Mod's you are welcome to move it. Or say the word and I will.
Hope my question makes sense,
WillieP
Thank you for you input Sir!Fyi the calcium in cal-mag is typically calcium nitrate. If you need more cal-mag, bump up the cal-nit and epsom a touch.
My jacks comes out to around 950ppm at full strength if that helps any with figuring out the ppm pen thing lol.
In my experience with jacks (masterblend is probably similar), trying to reduce nitrogen in flower ends up cutting out too much calcium, and overall nutrient uptake suffers and weird shit happens.
Hope you get it figured out!
Pretty much the same except I use a 3.6-2.4-1.2 ratio (I believe jacks recommends 3.6-2.4-1.1 but I usually need a little bit more magnesium).Thank you for you input Sir!
While I have a Jack's user on the line, let me ask a question.
When you say you get 950 at full strength, what do you mean?
I mix at 3 gallons of RO water with 3 grams of Jack's (or Master lend), 2 grams cal/ni, and 1 gram of Epson salt.
I maintain that 3-2-1 ratio but adjust the amounts to raise or lower the PPM.
Is this the same or similar method of use that you use?
Thanks for your help,
WillieP
Ok so I'm trying to wrap my head around this...Pretty much the same except I use a 3.6-2.4-1.2 ratio (I believe jacks recommends 3.6-2.4-1.1 but I usually need a little bit more magnesium).
I typically mix up about 16 gallons at a time so it ends up being 57.6g pt A 19.2g epsom, 38.4g cal-nit. That lands right on at 1.9 ec for me, which should convert to around 950ppm if I remember the math right (good chance I'm not lol).
The whole 500 vs 700 scale for ppm always confused me, so I stick to EC readings.
Hope this helps!
I just checked, you are correct on the conversion, I mixed up the 500 and 700 scale. My bluelab does all 3, I checked the res and it's at 1.8ec, 8xx on the 500 scale, and 12xx on the 700 scale.Ok so I'm trying to wrap my head around this...
You are using the same ratio as I am just a little higher numbers.
3.6 to 2.4 to 1.2 = 3 to 2 to 1
So there we are apple to apple.
But you are mixing your weights per gallon of water, and I am mixing my weights per three gallons of water.
So in effect I am feeding at less than a third of your feed concentration.
I have to be starving the hell out of my plants.
The way I understand the EC to PPM thing is that 1.0 EC would equal which ever scale you are using. In my case 1.0 EC would equal 700 PPM, or 2.0 EC would be 1400 PPM. So 1.9 on the 700 scale would be 1.9 X 700, or 1330 PPM. Again that's just the way I understand it.
And apparently I am the guy who has been starving his plants for better than a year and a half, so take it for what it's worth.
I understand this on paper, but I don't get my PPM pen readings. I will calibrate my pen this evening and start off by doubling the amount of salts I am adding. I will record the reading and see how the plants respond to the change.
I appreciate you sharing your method with me. Maybe this is the breakthrough I've been needing.
All input welcome from all sources!
Cheers,
WillieP