Just Like Jacks isn't 3-2-1, MasterBlend isn't 2-2-1

[plumsmooth]

I can not figure out if it is some hippie lazy grower convenience thing but maybe the Companies did this to simply things however...

Jacks is more like 3:2:.64 and Masterblend is 2:2:1.25

I don't know about YOU but to ME this is a big enough difference to do it correctly per the numbers?

BTW my new fresh masterblend premixes a lot more thoroughly with no grains floating around on the bottom. I always assumed it was probably the Magnesium Sulfate undissolved for some reason in Jacks Hydro?

I pre-MIX around 250 Grams per Liter of Jacks Hydroponic. I am now for Convenience mixing 165 Masterblend to match the Calcium Nitrate I already have mixed at 165

However the number are coming out different. It seems what was a 1.5 Gallon 480-500 PPM of Jacks is now around 420-430 of Masterblend? (.5 conversion) Based on the NPK numbers this shouldn't be the case?

 

[Aqua Man]

I can not figure out if it is some hippie lazy grower convenience thing but maybe the Companies did this to simply things however...

Jacks is more like 3:2:.64 and Masterblend is 2:2:1.25

I don't know about YOU but to ME this is a big enough difference to do it correctly per the numbers?

BTW my new fresh masterblend premixes a lot more thoroughly with no grains floating around on the bottom. I always assumed it was probably the Magnesium Sulfate undissolved for some reason in Jacks Hydro?

I pre-MIX around 250 Grams per Liter of Jacks Hydroponic. I am now for Convenience mixing 165 Masterblend to match the Calcium Nitrate I already have mixed at 165

However the number are coming out different. It seems what was a 1.5 Gallon 480-500 PPM of Jacks is now around 420-430 of Masterblend? (.5 conversion) Based on the NPK numbers this shouldn't be the case?

Depends on the quality, source and makeup of the nutrients. They are not identical. Probably the cal nit and magnesium sulphate will be very close. The difference will likely be in the micro mix.

add to that quality of test equipment and scale and id say no issue here

 

[Anthem]

I can not figure out if it is some hippie lazy grower convenience thing but maybe the Companies did this to simply things however...

Jacks is more like 3:2:.64 and Masterblend is 2:2:1.25

I don't know about YOU but to ME this is a big enough difference to do it correctly per the numbers?

BTW my new fresh masterblend premixes a lot more thoroughly with no grains floating around on the bottom. I always assumed it was probably the Magnesium Sulfate undissolved for some reason in Jacks Hydro?

I pre-MIX around 250 Grams per Liter of Jacks Hydroponic. I am now for Convenience mixing 165 Masterblend to match the Calcium Nitrate I already have mixed at 165

However the number are coming out different. It seems what was a 1.5 Gallon 480-500 PPM of Jacks is now around 420-430 of Masterblend? (.5 conversion) Based on the NPK numbers this shouldn't be the case?

I am having a hard time understanding what you are trying to say. Jacks per the website is 3.79, 2.52, .99 all by weight so I have no idea where you are coming up with your numbers.

 

[plumsmooth]

I am having a hard time understanding what you are trying to say. Jacks per the website is 3.79, 2.52, .99 all by weight so I have no idea where you are coming up with your numbers.

I was making the point that it’s not 321 it’s exactly what you just wrote it’s quite a difference from three two one

 

[Anthem]

I was making the point that it’s not 321 it’s exactly what you just wrote it’s quite a difference from three two one

Well,
While it is presently posted as 3.79, 2.52, .99 that is a modified version of the original at 3.0, 2.0, 1.0.

 

[plumsmooth]

I am having a hard time understanding what you are trying to say?

 

[Aqua Man]

I am having a hard time understanding what you are trying to say?

Meaning ppl ran it 3-2-1 and the new numbers are an updated recommendation

 

[Anthem]

I am having a hard time understanding what you are trying to say?

When J R Peters first launched the Jacks Nutrient Line the Ratio was 3 parts Jacks, 2 Parts Calcium Nitrate and 1 part Epson Salt. It has since changed to the current ratios.

 

[plumsmooth]

When J R Peters first launched the Jacks Nutrient Line the Ratio was 3 parts Jacks, 2 Parts Calcium Nitrate and 1 part Epson Salt. It has since changed to the current ratios.

Thanks pardon me I actually thought that was just a clevel Numerologically friendly rounded ratio...

Thanks for clarifying that. I thought 3-2-1 was a little High in Mg..

Have you compared against Masterblend Numbers? Some people seem to like a 2-2-1 or 2- For Veg wth Jacks

 

[Anthem]

Thanks pardon me I actually thought that was just a clevel Numerologically friendly rounded ratio...

Thanks for clarifying that. I thought 3-2-1 was a little High in Mg..

Have you compared against Masterblend Numbers? Some people seem to like a 2-2-1 or 2- For Veg wth Jacks

First of all going form 1.0 to .99 is not really going to have an impact on Mag. In fact I am going the other way because the actual NPK and micro nutrients in Jacks is slightly below where I want to be with the feed rates at 3.79, 2.52 and .99 epson salt. You are more than welcome to listen to someone stating that the percentages of any portion of the formula is not correct. But I have a very simple question for that person. Do they have the equipment and knowledge of a fertilizer company with 70 years experience. There are tweaks people are doing but the bottom line is the posted formulation will fulfill the plants nutrient requirements for all stages of life. If you feel someone with a few years growing knowledge growing a few plants every few months has more knowledge that a 70 year old fertilizer company I understand. Personally I will stick with the 70 years of experience.

 

[Aqua Man]

Nutrients are far more complicated than most realize… its not as simple as NPK there are far more minerals involved and they all have interactions with eachother and all environmental factors. What the company is supplying is a very close approximation to a one size fits all as possible for different genetics, environments, medias and the list goes on and on and on. Splitting hairs on NPK is like calculating a space shuttle’s re-entry with an abacus.

Generally speaking if you follow the recommendations you have the best chance of meeting your plants needs from a ratio perspective

 

[Habosabin]

Well,
While it is presently posted as 3.79, 2.52, .99 that is a modified version of the original at 3.0, 2.0, 1.0.

They obviously don't follow that standard rounding rules. Shouldn't it 4-3-1 based on these numbers?

 

[Anthem]

Thanks pardon me I actually thought that was just a clevel Numerologically friendly rounded ratio...

Thanks for clarifying that. I thought 3-2-1 was a little High in Mg..

Have you compared against Masterblend Numbers? Some people seem to like a 2-2-1 or 2- For Veg wth Jacks

And just for the record I went to the master blend Website. There formula is 5-11-26 for their hydroponic formulation. Jacks is exactly the same for their hydroponic nutrient base. Neither one of these formulas is complete. I did not take the time to read the feed rates for the calcium nitrate or magnesium sulfate (epson Salt) for master blend because once I saw the 5-11-26 I really do not need to see the ratio on those components.

 

[Anthem]

They obviously don't follow that standard rounding rules. Should t it 4-3-1 based on these numbers?

Can you explain further? I do not understand your standard rounding rules based on this being the weight of each component.

 

[Habosabin]

Can you explain further? I do not understand your standard rounding rules based on this being the weight of each component.

Maybe I'm not understanding how fertilizer works but 3.79 should not round to 3 while 0.99 is rounded to 1 in the math world. Even 2.52 should round to 3. But they aren't integer rounding based on the 0.99 rounding up to 1.

They must be rounding down to the closest integer and since there is something in the K less than 1 but more than zero they must be defaulting to 1. Following their rules ".99" should round to zero since they effectively truncated the decimals in the first two numbers.

 

[Anthem]

Maybe I'm not understanding how fertilizer works but 3.79 should not rounded to 3 while 99/100 is rounded to 1 in the math world.

I hate to be blunt we are talking apples and oranges. You keep on trying to round something like it is the NPK value of the fertilizer when it is actually the weight of each component in grams.

 

[plumsmooth]

First of all going form 1.0 to .99 is not really going to have an impact on Mag. In fact I am going the other way because the actual NPK and micro nutrients in Jacks is slightly below where I want to be with the feed rates at 3.79, 2.52 and .99 epson salt. You are more than welcome to listen to someone stating that the percentages of any portion of the formula is not correct. But I have a very simple question for that person. Do they have the equipment and knowledge of a fertilizer company with 70 years experience. There are tweaks people are doing but the bottom line is the posted formulation will fulfill the plants nutrient requirements for all stages of life. If you feel someone with a few years growing knowledge growing a few plants every few months has more knowledge that a 70 year old fertilizer company I understand. Personally I will stick with the 70 years of experience.

Not 1 to .99 bro.

3-2-1 to 3.79 2.52 .99

The later is equivalent to 3-2-.64

That means they concluded that the original Mg was almost 2x than needed!

 

[Habosabin]

I hate to be blunt we are talking apples and oranges. You keep on trying to round something like it is the NPK value of the fertilizer when it is actually the weight of each component in grams.

Not sure what you mean. If something weighs 3.79g and you only have one integer to represent it, it's usually 3 or 4. They are truncating the decimal in the first two numbers, rounding DOWN and rounding UP using decimal rounding in the last. Which makes it confusing. Again I really don't understand the npk numbers. I thought it was a weight number rounded to something. The OP is just stating those numbers are not close in precision. Basically only integer precision.

 

[plumsmooth]

Are you kidding 4 "or" 3. Since when has anyone ever rounded down from 3.79?

 

[BigBlonde]

While pondering math and physics, some consideration should also be given to marketing. In that case, it would make sense to truncate the first two to the integer, because people would like getting more than the label indicates. Then again, going from 0.99 to 1 is just easier.