Ideal Light Intensity For Different Stages Of Flower Using High Power LEDs

[delps8]

Oh the take the high road approach now. This is typically called the 180. I am very well aware of how this is implemented. You get called out for posting your bragging in someone else's thread than you try to turn things around and become the good guy. First of all, if you are running Jacks per the formula it is not 3-2-0. it is 3.79, 2.52 and .99. This is the current recommended dose. if you want to keep this going I will respond when I have time but I stand by my words and options. I understand they can be harsh but sometimes the truth hurts.

Doesn't bother me in the least. I don't doubt that you're well intended but you're logically clumsy.

Good example - Jacks sells nutrients that sell under the name of a "3-2-1" formulation which is based on the following number of grams per gallon - Part A 3.79, Part B 2.52, and Epsom salts at 0.99. That was current as of a few days ago.

I wrote that I'm using Jack's 3-2-0 because I am using Jacks 3-2-1 formulation without the Epsom salt. I call that Jack's 3-2-0 to indicate that fact. I guess you weren't able to figure that out or you just can't help but troll me.

And don't get your knickers in a twist about the need for the Epsom. The strain that I was growing didn't need the extra Mg and S because there's a fair amount of those without adding the Epsom.

So yes, you completely missed the mark. Instead of inquiring about that you attempt to find fault when, as it appears, you were not able to think of an alternative approach or perhaps you're just pathetically intellectual lazy.

You may well have the most sincere intentions. I don't care. I'm simply not interested in what you have to say.

 

[Madmax]

I grew a similar plant like that..grew huge and foxtailed to fuck like yours..was a big yield but..

 

[Anthem]

Doesn't bother me in the least. I don't doubt that you're well intended but you're logically clumsy.

Good example - Jacks sells nutrients that sell under the name of a "3-2-1" formulation which is based on the following number of grams per gallon - Part A 3.79, Part B 2.52, and Epsom salts at 0.99. That was current as of a few days ago.

I wrote that I'm using Jack's 3-2-0 because I am using Jacks 3-2-1 formulation without the Epsom salt. I call that Jack's 3-2-0 to indicate that fact. I guess you weren't able to figure that out or you just can't help but troll me.

And don't get your knickers in a twist about the need for the Epsom. The strain that I was growing didn't need the extra Mg and S because there's a fair amount of those without adding the Epsom.

So yes, you completely missed the mark. Instead of inquiring about that you attempt to find fault when, as it appears, you were not able to think of an alternative approach or perhaps you're just pathetically intellectual lazy.

You may well have the most sincere intentions. I don't care. I'm simply not interested in what you have to say.

Can you please hit either the ignore button Johnny

 

[Observationist]

I grew a similar plant like that..grew huge and foxtailed to fuck like yours..was a big yield but..

I hate foxtail

 

[Christos1974]

Am I right that over 1,200 U/moles require CO2 for better uptake? Otherwise it's just a waste.

I believe it's anything over 1500

 

[Anthem]

Doesn't bother me in the least. I don't doubt that you're well intended but you're logically clumsy.

Good example - Jacks sells nutrients that sell under the name of a "3-2-1" formulation which is based on the following number of grams per gallon - Part A 3.79, Part B 2.52, and Epsom salts at 0.99. That was current as of a few days ago.

I wrote that I'm using Jack's 3-2-0 because I am using Jacks 3-2-1 formulation without the Epsom salt. I call that Jack's 3-2-0 to indicate that fact. I guess you weren't able to figure that out or you just can't help but troll me.

And don't get your knickers in a twist about the need for the Epsom. The strain that I was growing didn't need the extra Mg and S because there's a fair amount of those without adding the Epsom.

So yes, you completely missed the mark. Instead of inquiring about that you attempt to find fault when, as it appears, you were not able to think of an alternative approach or perhaps you're just pathetically intellectual lazy.

You may well have the most sincere intentions. I don't care. I'm simply not interested in what you have to say.

Jacks does not have a published formula called 3-2-0. That being said I am aware of individuals trying to omit the epsom salt. While it can be done it is not advisable. CA and Mg need to be kept in tight relationship. They are antagonist with each other. Two much of one is going to affect the uptake of the other. This is going directly against what the manufacturer has determined at the ideal values for each component. Does it grow plants yes, but why would JR Peters include Epsom Salt in their formulation if there is not a need for the additional Mg and S. Maybe it is the S that they are looking for. But you are trying to say, I know more than a fertilizer company with 70 years of experience with capabilities far above those of a home grower. I have done my research and I am well aware of the values needed to sustain cannabis plants. Jacks is just a simple straight forward product that will grow plants well. Is it the best, probably not but with a basic three part you have the option of making tweaks to parts without getting out of control on the plants.

I did light you up, for that I am sorry. I do not take it lightly when someone with a low post count, recommends viewing their grow journal on another Forum and basically stumps a senior member. I stand by my statements as they are true and factual.