Info on dyna gro and bloom

  • Thread starter MeanGreen420
  • Start date
  • Tagged users None
Dr.Green55

Dr.Green55

577
143
Interesting conversation and I should probably stay out of it lol but I'd like to suggest some points,

So yes I believe that one formula can be used from start to finish, in fact I know some large well known growers that are doing just that, and I proved it to myself it can be done without any negative effects. but there are some rules so to say, and I don't believe it can be done with any bought-en nutes

The issue with bought-en nutes is its one size fits all pretty much , use in soil coco hydro etc , but the other issue is their base nutes are all inferior products meaning there just weak low in Calmag P, k etc they want you to buy 10 bottles of stuff and not once but twice for grow and bloom, so its no way you could ever run just their base nutes.

the key of a proper formula is ratio , the ratio of ions to ions period.. example N to Ca or K to Ca to Mg etc etc all these ions work with each other, they need to for uptake, so the better the ratio of these ions to each other the more active ions will be available for uptake. think of of this way say your feeding at 800ppm but only 40 to 50% of the solution is a active ions what the plant can uptake vs 500ppm with 80% active ions, easier up take , less competition, and less salts to build up.

what effects or determines these ratio's, well many factors, but i'll touch on a few, light intensity, temps, RH, Co2, air flow etc those can all effect nutrient uptake and what rate, but a big one really is the medium your using, soil coco or hydro. So the ratio's of the formula really need to reflect the medium your using, if i'm in hydro my formula will be different then in soil here's why , Ions act differently in different mediums changing the availability of uptake, In water diffusion coefficients of ions are virtually the same , but in soil their not ,the diffusion coefficient is a lot different due to how the ions act. some don't absorbed in the soil and some are highly absorbed, thus changing the availability of ions and the ratio's. and coco is its own animal

So I'd suggest , I feel I have without question proven it to myself in the last few years , that if you use a properly built base formula for the medium your growing in and for your grow style and apply it a the proper concentration ,you can absolutely run the same base mix from start to finish with optimal results. My plants will act the same no different , as long as i'm feeding at the proper concentration my plants will never be deficient, over feed and I very rarely flush as I don't have salt build ups. and that is key , the sweet spot, nutrients always available, not under or over feed, easy uptake, remember plants selectively uptake nutrients when they want what they want, so if the nutrients are always available/easy uptake your plant will grow at optimal growth to the environment. Another thing don't throw everything at your plants at once, I feed twice a day, first feed at lights on base plus fulvic, if I want to give them some silica , thats in the afternoon once a week by itself, kelp once a week, afternoon by itself, humic/micro once a week/other week in afternoon by itself , enzymes same thing.
 
BillFarthing

BillFarthing

Supporter
472
143
It has .05% available sulfer according to the analysis. How much are you suggesting it should have.

50-60 ppm sulfur final concentration for healthy plants. The only way to do that is with an A/B formula.

0.05% is 500 ppm/1000ml concentrate
10ml dosage= 5 ppm sulfur final concentration= not enough S
 
Last edited:
MIMedGrower

MIMedGrower

17,190
438
I got it from tissue samples I had run. My NPK and secondaries are 120 NO3- (12 NH4+)-50 P-150 K-50 Mg-150 Ca-60 S


Wow. Thats a lot more sulfer than i have heard.

I know silica can be that high but i thought sulfer is only a trace element.

I will review other tests.
 
BillFarthing

BillFarthing

Supporter
472
143
User111287 pic2034732 1588630832
 
Dr.Green55

Dr.Green55

577
143
Wow. Thats a lot more sulfer than i have heard.

I know silica can be that high but i thought sulfer is only a trace element.

I will review other tests.

I'd agree with bill if running 120 N , S should fall in the 60-70 range , I have even ran more without showing signs of access in the plant , Sulfur has a close relationship with Nitrogen , I'd treat and think of S as a secondary Nutrient, higher S has been shown to increase N uptake Rate , N recovery rate and N efficiency. Not to mention S also plays a big part in the building block of the plant.

I usually just run N-S in a 2 to 1 ratio , I like running Ca 10 to 20% more then N , N -k in 1 to 1.75 ratio and K-Ca-Mg in 4-2 -1 ratio, and I know there has been studies behind that.
 
MIMedGrower

MIMedGrower

17,190
438
I'd agree with bill if running 120 N , S should fall in the 60-70 range , I have even ran more without showing signs of access in the plant , Sulfur has a close relationship with Nitrogen , I'd treat and think of S as a secondary Nutrient, higher S has been shown to increase N uptake Rate , N recovery rate and N efficiency. Not to mention S also plays a big part in the building block of the plant.

I usually just run N-S in a 2 to 1 ratio , I like running Ca 10 to 20% more then N , N -k in 1 to 1.75 ratio and K-Ca-Mg in 4-2 -1 ratio, and I know there has been studies behind that.


Whatever works but these are not the numbers that are being suggested from the tissue tests and info i have read. Cannabis is an accumulator plant. It will take up more than needed. More is not neccessarilly better.

I thought
70ppm is where calcium should be. Not sulfer. And 4-1 has been shown for calcium to mag. K should equal nitrogen or maybe a bit more. And they have proven silica is more needed as a macronutrient not sulfer.
 
BillFarthing

BillFarthing

Supporter
472
143
I thought
70ppm is where calcium should be. Not sulfer. And 4-1 has been shown for calcium to mag. K should equal nitrogen or maybe a bit more. And they have proven silica is more needed as a macronutrient not sulfer.

Have you seen Hoagland formula? It's what all modern hydroponic ratios are based on. I have no idea what you are talking about with those ratios. Ca:Mg and N:K can be different for DWC, soil and coco.

Sulfur is a secondary nutrient, not a micro. Silica isn't even a micronutrient, it is not necessary for plant growth. It is considered a mineral biostimulant like molybdenum. Perhaps you should read Hydroponics: A Practical Guide for the Soilless Grower by J. Benton Jones Jr. to get a basic understanding.
 
Last edited:
MIMedGrower

MIMedGrower

17,190
438
Have you seen Hoagland formula? It's what all modern hydroponic ratios are based on. I have no idea what you are talking about with those ratios. Ca:Mg and N:K can be different for DWC, soil and coco.

Sulfur is a secondary nutrient, not a micro. Silica isn't even a micronutrient, it is not necessary for plant growth. It is considered a mineral biostimulant like molybdenum. Perhaps you should read Hydroponics: A Practical Guide for the Soilless Grower by J. Benton Jones Jr. to get a basic understanding.


I will look for that. The info i posted is in the dyna grow tests, advanced nutrients tests and now the university of utah hemp testing grow lab head by Bruce Bugby and works with medical growers as well.


The info pretty much matches what max (forget last name at the moment) and ed rosenthal determined back in the late 80’s.

I have posted the dyna grow interview with the results many times. They do not match yours apparently. But they match all the other tests specific to marijuana i have seen.

And i will read about it but i dont see why the ratio would change due to medium. Maybe the nitrate ratio to ammonium. And maybe better chelated nutes needed the more toward water vapor you go.
 
BillFarthing

BillFarthing

Supporter
472
143
And i will read about it but i dont see why the ratio would change due to medium. Maybe the nitrate ratio to ammonium. And maybe better chelated nutes needed the more toward water vapor you go.

Coco has high Cation Exchange capacity. It provides K, but binds Ca and Mg. Clay and aluminum can bind the positive charge of calcium in soil. Potassium content is a see-saw with Calcium in every medium. It's not as simple as you make it out to be.

You seem eager to learn. I hope you keep trying.
 
MIMedGrower

MIMedGrower

17,190
438
Coco has high Cation Exchange capacity. It provides K, but binds Ca and Mg. Clay and aluminum can bind the positive charge of calcium in soil. Potassium content is a see-saw with Calcium in every medium. It's not as simple as you make it out to be.

You seem eager to learn. I hope you keep trying.


No need to be facetious Bill. And coco binding up calcium doesnt change the plants nutrient needs. But i see the need to add additional calcium so the plant has access to what it needs.

Other than that i am just sharing credible results from actual current marijuana testing.

While sounding very sciency your info is sounding like more your opinion than any plant science i have studied.
 
BillFarthing

BillFarthing

Supporter
472
143
No need to be facetious Bill. And coco binding up calcium doesnt change the plants nutrient needs. But i see the need to add additional calcium so the plant has access to what it needs.

Other than that i am just sharing credible results from actual current marijuana testing.

While sounding very sciency your info is sounding like more your opinion than any plant science i have studied.

Nope. I'm being genuine. I want people to learn how to grow the best and most cannabis.

No offense, I can tell that I'm older than you by how you come off. Books from J Benton Jones, Howard Resh and Lynette Morgan are how I learned and are valuable.
 
Dr.Green55

Dr.Green55

577
143
Whatever works but these are not the numbers that are being suggested from the tissue tests and info i have read. Cannabis is an accumulator plant. It will take up more than needed. More is not neccessarilly better.

I thought
70ppm is where calcium should be. Not sulfer. And 4-1 has been shown for calcium to mag. K should equal nitrogen or maybe a bit more. And they have proven silica is more needed as a macronutrient not sulfer.

yeah I'm little baffled by your thoughts on Ca and some of your ratio's but like you say its what works, I'm not saying mine is end all be all, but growing in sunshine it works for me, and in hydro which I've ran since sometime in the 90's it worked with a little variation, My ratio's are derived from 25 years of mixing and testing practical and lab, small room setting to large commercial setting with a team of people, some of who were way smarter then me lol. My ratio's are a suggestion for who ever wants to try them, but I will say I know there has been studies showing the ratio of N to S that I suggested and show the little high S has a positive impact on N in a few different ways , also the 4-2-1 ratio I suggested and used a variation of for many years is also suggested from a a study done by North Carolina state university I believe, I think it was done last year.

I learned a lot by trial and error and thinking outside the box
 
MIMedGrower

MIMedGrower

17,190
438
yeah I'm little baffled by your thoughts on Ca and some of your ratio's but like you say its what works, I'm not saying mine is end all be all, but growing in sunshine it works for me, and in hydro which I've ran since sometime in the 90's it worked with a little variation, My ratio's are derived from 25 years of mixing and testing practical and lab, small room setting to large commercial setting with a team of people, some of who were way smarter then me lol. My ratio's are a suggestion for who ever wants to try them, but I will say I know there has been studies showing the ratio of N to S that I suggested and show the little high S has a positive impact on N in a few different ways , also the 4-2-1 ratio I suggested and used a variation of for many years is also suggested from a a study done by North Carolina state university I believe, I think it was done last year.

I learned a lot by trial and error and thinking outside the box


Again. I use available bottled fertilizer. I have been growing only 6 years and only because the available weed in my new area when i moved to michigan sucked. I have no other gardening experience. The info I am relating is not mine. It is from reputable sources in my opinion though.
 
MIMedGrower

MIMedGrower

17,190
438
Nope. I'm being genuine. I want people to learn how to grow the best and most cannabis.

No offense, I can tell that I'm older than you by how you come off. Books from J Benton Jones, Howard Resh and Lynette Morgan are how I learned and are valuable.


I have read morgan from that list. And I am 51 years old. And it is apparent to me you dont like being contradicted. Trying to divert attention to your opinion of me from a few posts shows the kink in your armor. I was just relating the most recent cannabis info I know of. And i tried to post it in a non confrontational way first. Expecting more info returned resulting in a conversation. Sorry it didnt work out.
 
Dr.Green55

Dr.Green55

577
143
Again. I use available bottled fertilizer. I have been growing only 6 years and only because the available weed in my new area when i moved to michigan sucked. I have no other gardening experience. The info I am relating is not mine. It is from reputable sources in my opinion though.

Hey man I get that, am I'm only suggesting stuff to try if you want as well as others , those are just basic ratio's I seen have great success on many levels of growing. I'm still learning shit, and with legalization more and more , there is going to be a lot of new stuff coming out, in fact I no of some studies that is showing some scientific data that P as no effect on the plant when given in a higher dose leading in to flower and during, other then maybe stretch , they store P early and somewhat through veg thats it, so 15 to 20ppm may all be that is required, I believe there is a study being done to validate this, one less booster the companies can push on people lol
 
BurnzYzBudZz

BurnzYzBudZz

HOWCan.i.helPYOU?
Supporter
3,888
263
So here’s my next question. My tap water is 350-400ppm 7.6-8.1pH. Should I continue using RO when I mix my nutrients and feed and use my 350ppm tap pHed down for non feed days? On the non feed days it would be more like a light feed.

Another question, when mixing nutrients add protekt first, then nutrients, then ph up or down is last? Thanks.
Burnz
 
Dr.Green55

Dr.Green55

577
143
Have you had your tap water tested and do you know exactly whats in it, if you do know whats in it, and depending what it is , you could maybe build a formula around it, I don't see a bottle nutrient working really well with it , popular brands of nutes usually run Ca in the 90 - 130 range Mg in the 70-90 range and S in the 90-120 range some a little higher or lower, but keeping those in check while getting a good NPK could be an issue. I seen it done before with no issues, but it depends on whats in the tap water. I don't believe in giving my plants straight water anyhow, atleast not until the end, if your finding you have to give straight water to flush on a regular bases your probably over feeding anyhow.
 
Dr.Green55

Dr.Green55

577
143
I'd agree with bill if running 120 N , S should fall in the 60-70 range , I have even ran more without showing signs of access in the plant , Sulfur has a close relationship with Nitrogen , I'd treat and think of S as a secondary Nutrient, higher S has been shown to increase N uptake Rate , N recovery rate and N efficiency. Not to mention S also plays a big part in the building block of the plant.

I usually just run N-S in a 2 to 1 ratio , I like running Ca 10 to 20% more then N , N -k in 1 to 1.75 ratio and K-Ca-Mg in 4-2 -1 ratio, and I know there has been studies behind that.

I should note for anyone reading , those are just basic ratio's for a base nutrient the whole way through veg and flower, if i'm doing a veg, pre-flower and flower mix with foliar feeding etc , those will change.
 
Top Bottom