Grow #2 - Indoor hydro tent

  • Thread starter Nate_in_AK
  • Start date
  • Tagged users None
Aqua Man

Aqua Man

26,480
638
Nate_in_AK said:
Big drop (0.5+) in pH for both plants overnight. White got a big does of nutes yesterday, and pH changes sometimes follow, but I'm not sure why Blue changed. I'm glad I didn't adjust the nutes for Blue yesterday.

Blueberry, looking scary. I pulled the pH back up to 6.1 (it fell to 5.4). Looking over my logs, I suspect she might like a little higher pH than average.
If I don't see significant improvement this weekend, I think I will do a partial change in order to drop her PPM ( currently 450).
View attachment 1026310

White Widow pulled her PPM down to 1150 from 900 and drank another cm of water. Her pH dropped only from 5.9 to 5.5, and I boosted her back up to 5.9 again.
View attachment 1026311

If Blueberry doesn't pull her act together, I will be tempted to flip White Widow into flower before too long.
Click to expand...
High amounts of nutrients and im assuming low alkalinity. Nutrients are generally acidic in the ratios we use. Seems like the buffering capacity exceeded and probably becoming mg more concentrated. Also sources of ammonia/ammonium will lower ph as the plants uptake that source of nitrogem. Probably a combination of things. But I think nutes are to high and you could use a bit more of a buffer
 
Nate_in_AK

Nate_in_AK

738
143
Aqua Man said:
High amounts of nutrients and im assuming low alkalinity. Nutrients are generally acidic in the ratios we use. Seems like the buffering capacity exceeded and probably becoming mg more concentrated. Also sources of ammonia/ammonium will lower ph as the plants uptake that source of nitrogem. Probably a combination of things. But I think nutes are to high and you could use a bit more of a buffer
Click to expand...
This is going to sound like a dumb question, but what is the 'buffer'? The way you wrote here makes me question my understanding. My water is 60PPM from the tap before any adjustments.
 
Frankster

Frankster

Never trust a doctor who's plants have died.
Supporter
5,188
313
cemchris said:
What are those pots in the pic? They look thin. Something Im looking for.
Click to expand...

These are my "intermediate pots" they are after the peat pots, and before the cloth ones, they simply allow the plant to be "transplanted" without taking it out of anything, reducing overall trauma, while keeping appropriate bag size thought the life cycle.

I purchase them by the hundreds for little of nothing. There called "tree seedling bags" on ebay. I get the largest ones, 20x10 cm I believe, but I got some smaller ones here also, just to try them out (pictured around the med bottle).

Just got the new lode of them today, as I ran out of the original 200 I purchased, so I got 200 more, I think I paid $9 or just 5 cents per bag.
 
IMG 20200905 160308
Aqua Man

Aqua Man

26,480
638
Frankster said:
These are my "intermediate pots" they are after the peat pots, and before the cloth ones, they simply allow the plant to be "transplanted" without taking it out of anything, reducing overall trauma, while keeping appropriate bag size thought the life cycle.

I purchase them by the hundreds for little of nothing. There called "tree seedling bags" on ebay. I get the largest ones, 20x10 cm I believe, but I got some smaller ones here also, just to try them out (pictured around the med bottle).

Just got the new lode of them today, as I ran out of the original 200 I purchased, so I got 200 more, I think I paid $9
Click to expand...
Wow
 
Frankster

Frankster

Never trust a doctor who's plants have died.
Supporter
5,188
313
Aqua Man said:
Oh fuck yeah if your not running silica its a huge benefit to the plants. Lots of brands out there pro tek is a popular one
Click to expand...

Hmm, I'm always split on this subject. I realize the immense benefit of silicon for plant resistance, and general vigor, but I've also heard that it can be very toxic to plants.

I wonder if cannabis are "accumulators" of silicon. (I bet you might know this question)


Toxicity. Although uncommon, excess levels of silicon can possibly compete with uptake of other nutrients. In gerbera and sunflower, high levels of silicon were found to deform flowers. Plants that are considered “non-accumulators” of silicon
 
Aqua Man

Aqua Man

26,480
638
Frankster said:
Hmm, I'm always split on this subject. I realize the immense benefit of silicon for plant resistance, and general vigor, but I've also heard that it can be very toxic to plants.

I wonder if cannabis are "accumulators" of silicon. (I bet you might know this question)


Toxicity. Although uncommon, excess levels of silicon can possibly compete with uptake of other nutrients. In gerbera and sunflower, high levels of silicon were found to deform flowers. Plants that are considered “non-accumulators” of silicon
Click to expand...
If I remember right the most important nutrient is calcium followed by silica even before nitrogen.

Lots of newer studies out there on it.
 
Frankster

Frankster

Never trust a doctor who's plants have died.
Supporter
5,188
313
I even considered going to alibaba and making a huge order of "custom bags" of slightly thicker material, larger and selling them on ebay as "sets" I bet I could make money.
 
Frankster

Frankster

Never trust a doctor who's plants have died.
Supporter
5,188
313
Aqua Man said:
If I remember right the most important nutrient is calcium followed by silica even before nitrogen.

Lots of newer studies out there on it.
Click to expand...
Ahhhh, that's really interesting. That might be the "magic" I've been witnessing with my azomite mixtures.

It's especially noticeable during early development, and during seedling development.

What is AZOMITE? ... Technically, AZOMITE is a highly mineralized complex silica ore (Hydrated Sodium Calcium Aluminosilicate or HSCAS), mined in Utah from an ancient deposit left by a volcanic eruption that filled a small seabed an estimated 30 million years ago.
 
Frankster

Frankster

Never trust a doctor who's plants have died.
Supporter
5,188
313
Aqua Man said:
If I remember right the most important nutrient is calcium followed by silica even before nitrogen.

Lots of newer studies out there on it.
Click to expand...

So, with these new discoveries, I think the key might lay in trying different things out there. Because when you talk about things like silicates, and carbonates, calcium, there's SO MANY different forms of the substances out there, so finding that one that bound to another "useful" element, or one that's in an (active) form that's a little more readily avilailable for uptake, or perhaps a "mixture" of various ones that give a shotgun effect. Lot's of that has to do with covalent bonds, and how easily they can be broken, and that the "new" bonds are stronger.

Simply put "affinities" All chemical bonds are NOT created equal. Some are going to "give up" their electron positions much more easily than others.

My point being, that there's still things that can be done to try and "optimize" nutrient selection, and find that "near perfect" source.
 
Aqua Man

Aqua Man

26,480
638
Frankster said:
So, with these new discoveries, I think the key might lay in trying different things out there. Because when you talk about things like silicates, and carbonates, calcium, there's SO MANY different forms of the substances out there, so finding that one that bound to another "useful" element, or one that's in an (active) form that's a little more readily avilailable for uptake, or perhaps a "mixture" of various ones that give a shotgun effect. Lot's of that has to do with covalent bonds, and how easily they can be broken, and that the "new" bonds are stronger.

Simply put "affinities" All chemical bonds are NOT created equal. Some are going to "give up" their electron positions much more easily than others.

My point being, that there's still things that can be done to try and "optimize" nutrient selection, and find that "near perfect" source.
Click to expand...
Silicone dioxide I believe but a quick search should tell ya.
 
Frankster

Frankster

Never trust a doctor who's plants have died.
Supporter
5,188
313
Aqua Man said:
Silicone dioxide I believe but a quick search should tell ya.
Click to expand...
Sounds like the most reasonable choice to me also. Almost all of the "active" ones are going to be oxides of one form or another, but not (probably) always.
 
Last edited:
Frankster

Frankster

Never trust a doctor who's plants have died.
Supporter
5,188
313
Frankster

Frankster

Never trust a doctor who's plants have died.
Supporter
5,188
313
So where did all this silica-rich crustal material come from? The duo says that the collision 4.5 billion years ago turned the atmosphere into high-temperature steam which dissolved the rocks in the surface into a gaseous solution.

My theory would be that it possibly might be a "by product" of life itself, much like water is... It's quite possible (perceiveable) that silicon based organisms inhabited this earth, long before carbon based ones did.
 
Aqua Man

Aqua Man

26,480
638
Frankster said:
So where did all this silica-rich crustal material come from? The duo says that the collision 4.5 billion years ago turned the atmosphere into high-temperature steam which dissolved the rocks in the surface into a gaseous solution.

My theory would be that it possibly might be a "by product" of life itself, much like water is... It's quite possible (perceiveable) that silicon based organisms inhabited this earth, long before carbon based ones did.
Click to expand...
Thats all well above my pay grade lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Top Bottom