plumsmooth
- 273
- 63
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.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.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 was making the point that it’s not 321 it’s exactly what you just wrote it’s quite a difference from three two oneI 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.
Well,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
Meaning ppl ran it 3-2-1 and the new numbers are an updated recommendationI 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.I am having a hard time understanding what you are trying to say?
Thanks pardon me I actually thought that was just a clevel Numerologically friendly rounded ratio...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.
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.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
They obviously don't follow that standard rounding rules. Shouldn't it 4-3-1 based on these numbers?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.
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.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
Can you explain further? I do not understand your standard rounding rules based on this being the weight of each component.They obviously don't follow that standard rounding rules. Should t it 4-3-1 based on these numbers?
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.Can you explain further? I do not understand your standard rounding rules based on this being the weight of each component.
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.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.
Not 1 to .99 bro.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 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.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?