THCFarmer.com
121,296 Members Log In Register
Log In Register

Let's Talk About the Calcium/Potassium See-Saw

  • Thread starter Thread starter BillFarthing
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

Let's Talk About the Calcium/Potassium See-Saw

BillFarthing 114 Replies 24,401 Views
Page 6 of 6 · Replies 101–115 of 115
#101
Didn’t want to start a whole other thread just to ask this, but what about sulfur? How high can I run S without burning anything? If I run Mg in late bloom at 60, can I safely run S at around 80-80?
 
#105
I wish I could translate all this hydro talk to soil. I wonder what a ppm is..

The two should join forces once and for all
 
#106
Anyone relying on river water in the American Rockies will tell you they need totally different calcium regimes for different parts of the year. From snowmelt through mid summer, the water is not very hard (around 60-100 ppm Ca) while the rest of the year it can spike to 200 ppm or more. As soon as the river started to rise in the spring I would have to test it weekly and start adding supplemental calcium as soon as it dipped below 100 ppm and then cut out all Calcium entirely by late August when the Calcium was spiking again.

I'd guess this also applies on the American high plains? Does anyone know?
 
#108
One of the fundamental problems in using tissue samples to establish a plant's nutrition demands is the fact that the test-plants' nutrition regime itself influences the outcome.
Matters get worse from ion rivalry & how it all works out together, so it's impossible to just alter a single parameter without influencing another, or more.
 
#109
N1ghtL1ght said:
One of the fundamental problems in using tissue samples to establish a plant's nutrition demands is the fact that the test-plants' nutrition regime itself influences the outcome.
Matters get worse from ion rivalry & how it all works out together, so it's impossible to just alter a single parameter without influencing another, or more.
Click to expand...
Wouldn’t a plant still follow the same general nutritional trajectory regardless of antagonisms? Within reason, of course. This is assuming your feed fairly balanced.

Would love to hear more about this stuff.
 
#110
jguit said:
Wouldn’t a plant still follow the same general nutritional trajectory regardless of antagonisms? Within reason, of course. This is assuming your feed fairly balanced.

Would love to hear more about this stuff.
Click to expand...
Hello, this study on Cannabis deficiencies & toxicities elaborates on that topic in its preliminairy paragraphs.
They also did test on Bor-toxicity so I'm having my doubts if that "Dr" (previous poster in this discussion) did grow Cannabis healthily with absurd high dosages of 8-10ppm[!!!].
That would render Bor actually a macro-mineral. The study did simply increase Bor by 1 order of magnitude.
Bor is generally known for its narrow tolerance for plants.

I also cannot find that N has the ability to lockout B, because B is mostly taken in in a non-ionic state and simply because it's a micro-essential that already is taken in by 3 orders of magnitude less. An increase/decease of N by +-50% will not do away with this large discrepancy....

Ion rivalry is based on the strength of the electro-chemical charge an ion exerts and how big it's molecule volume incl. its hydrate hull is in relation to the other kat- or anions.
Plants can regulate some of that via ion pumps channels etc but at the end of the day they have to deal with whatever nute recipe makes it in.

www.researchgate.net

(PDF) Characterization of Nutrient Disorders of Cannabis sativa

PDF | Essential plant nutrients are needed at crop-specific concentrations to obtain optimum growth or yield. Plant tissue (foliar) analysis is the... | Find, read and cite all the research you need on ResearchGate
www.researchgate.net www.researchgate.net
 
#111
Thanks. I've seen that document before, great info. I wish there were more like it.

Interestingly, the study does mention that cannabis may be more tolerant of excess B than other crops.

That said (not sure if I'm doing the conversion correctly), it looks like approx 5 ppm of B induced toxicity in the study.
 
#112
N1ghtL1ght said:
Hello, this study on Cannabis deficiencies & toxicities elaborates on that topic in its preliminairy paragraphs.
They also did test on Bor-toxicity so I'm having my doubts if that "Dr" (previous poster in this discussion) did grow Cannabis healthily with absurd high dosages of 8-10ppm[!!!].
That would render Bor actually a macro-mineral. The study did simply increase Bor by 1 order of magnitude.
Bor is generally known for its narrow tolerance for plants.

I also cannot find that N has the ability to lockout B, because B is mostly taken in in a non-ionic state and simply because it's a micro-essential that already is taken in by 3 orders of magnitude less. An increase/decease of N by +-50% will not do away with this large discrepancy....

Ion rivalry is based on the strength of the electro-chemical charge an ion exerts and how big it's molecule volume incl. its hydrate hull is in relation to the other kat- or anions.
Plants can regulate some of that via ion pumps channels etc but at the end of the day they have to deal with whatever nute recipe makes it in.

Click to expand...
Hey N1, so the thing with the 8-1...trient-interactions-calcium-and-boron-ratio/.
 
#113
N1ghtL1ght said:
Hello, this study on Cannabis deficiencies & toxicities elaborates on that topic in its preliminairy paragraphs.
They also did test on Bor-toxicity so I'm having my doubts if that "Dr" (previous poster in this discussion) did grow Cannabis healthily with absurd high dosages of 8-10ppm[!!!].
That would render Bor actually a macro-mineral. The study did simply increase Bor by 1 order of magnitude.
Bor is generally known for its narrow tolerance for plants.

I also cannot find that N has the ability to lockout B, because B is mostly taken in in a non-ionic state and simply because it's a micro-essential that already is taken in by 3 orders of magnitude less. An increase/decease of N by +-50% will not do away with this large discrepancy....

Ion rivalry is based on the strength of the electro-chemical charge an ion exerts and how big it's molecule volume incl. its hydrate hull is in relation to the other kat- or anions.
Plants can regulate some of that via ion pumps channels etc but at the end of the day they have to deal with whatever nute recipe makes it in.

www.researchgate.net

(PDF) Characterization of Nutrient Disorders of Cannabis sativa

PDF | Essential plant nutrients are needed at crop-specific concentrations to obtain optimum growth or yield. Plant tissue (foliar) analysis is the... | Find, read and cite all the research you need on ResearchGate
www.researchgate.net www.researchgate.net
Click to expand...
I'll try it again , the last post didn't post right

So as far as boron goes we was studying and testing that upwards of 20 years ago, I seen test that were run up to 10ppm, I know other guys in different room were testing higher, I know guys as of today are still running higher levels or B them most can understand, Yes B is a micro nutrient but one needs to step out side the box and see the full scope of what B does, what is used for and it interactions.

Back when we were testing it I don't believe there was many or any other universities really doing any studies on, but there has been some done over the last few years , I mean a quick google search, and one can see how important it is, and its interaction with other nutrients, when i was talking about N and B it was in the context of ratio's, B has a very close relationship with Ca so much that when people think they have Ca deficiency It very well could be B, well B has relationship with N as well, Higher N solutions and even low/deficiency N solutions have direct impact on B, so can K on B, B also though effect the uptake N,P,K Ca etc and the better those ratio's are the more uptake can be achieved. B is no differnt though then most of the other other nutrients they all have a curve when most needed and not so much. The most important part in any solution is ratio's.

I knew of one study done, I had to go find it, it was done by NCSU , I thought I remembered they said 8ppm but it was actually up to 10ppm, and in that study they showed leaf sample of 65ppm. that falls right in line with may other studies farm crops, of having up to 75ppm samples and they are not a high B consumer like cannabis.

Here is that study. There is a ton more I could post but this is the study

 
Last edited:
#114
Skybound said:
Jack's has too much B and not enough Ca, especially for Kush strains. Most of the micros are not well dialed in for cannabis and the total inability to change any of it is itself a weakness. By acquiring the same exact stuff that Jack's, or every other branded nutrient on the market today, is made of, and keeping it all separate, you cut out all of the middlemen and science that aims to please all crops instead of just cannabis. I have my every element right where I want it, I pay less than Jack's for it and I do not have to worry about my PH either as that's baked into my own recipe.
Click to expand...
care to share your mix or target ppms for veg and flower?
 
#115
Page 6 of 6 · Replies 101–115 of 115
Back
Top Bottom