Kellogg Patio-Plus soil; GrowMore Sea Grow fert; household LED lightbulbs; scrog

  • Thread starter az2000
  • Start date
  • Tagged users None
hyde

hyde

some of your goals may be achieved in different ways. i found using light to achieve them, was no beuno, at times.
ph, can do this. lower= sqatty n fatter. i'd have to verify... i didn't log. just seems a pattern. higher ph chokes the nutes that stretch.
when you see an area growing less efficiently, chop it, or understand it. the plant is spending energy, on larf... essentially.

bend your shit under the net to fill out the grow area. it's spotty, because it was trained to have spots. train it another way, perhaps... raise and lower nets, to accomplish, as needed. you can grow taller, if we learn how to bend. i loathe supercropping. training... bending... is not supercropping. see budstacking/bud backbuilding; +16%, on avg. wasn't my experiment, but i can definitely tell the diff, in mine.
you can download a light meter, on your phone. i can run the calculation and get you close to your par, but it's moot... you can use the meter, to train em where the light is and coax em out, of where it isn't.

a pretty garden
 
az2000

az2000

Oct 22 (DAY 55) continued....
Feeding

The soil's too dry to wait till morning. I'm going have to feed a little before lights go out (14 hours from last feeding. I'll pour the rest in the morning.). They're definitely doing well with the stronger (300+ ppm) feedings. BTW: I'm keeping all the feedings summarized in a spreadsheet. I'll post that at the end of the grow.

This time I'm boosting potassium a little again, targeting NPK ratio 1-1-1.6 (318ppm).​
Potassium sulfate (0-0-50). Want 70ppm.​
GrowMore Sea Grow All Purpose (16-16-16). Want 248ppm.​
GrowMore Amber Humic. 1.2mL/L (medium dose per label)​
Starting water = 137ppm created with:​
65ppm tap​
36ppm gypsum​
26ppm epsom​
Added 0.116g/L potassium sulfate for 73ppm increase​
Added 0.667g/L GrowMore Sea Grow All Purpose for 248ppm increase​
Added 1.2mL/L GrowMore Amber Humic for 20ppm increase. Total increase over water: 321ppm (or 341 counting Amber Humic). Total ppm: 478.​
Added pinch (1/16 tsp/gal) sugar (for the soil microbes).​
Runoff: 1430ppm (3% runoff.).​
Note: Lower volume because I spread the feeding over 13 hours. (I.e., they drank some of what would have poured through if I'd done it at once). I like that PPM. Looks good to me (except the volume is too low to read much into it).​

Actual NPK ratio 1-1-1.63 (321ppm)​

Oct 23 (DAY 56)
Feeding continued...

I poured the remainder of the feeding a couple hours after lights came on. I documented the runoff above.

Oct 24 (DAY 57)
Feeding

This time I'm boosting nitrogen & potassium, targeting NPK ratio 1.31-1-1.51 (335ppm). After that last feeding, they look like they might benefit from more N.

Potassium sulfate (0-0-50). Want 59ppm​
GrowMore Sea Grow All Purpose (16-16-16). Want 228ppm​
Pennington Alaska Fish (5-1-1). Want 48ppm​
GrowMore Amber Humic. 1.2mL/L (medium dose per label)​
Starting water = 135ppm created with:​
44ppm tap​
55ppm gypsum​
26ppm epsom​
Added 0.096g/L potassium sulfate for 68ppm increase​
Added 0.516g/L GrowMore Sea Grow All Purpose for 223ppm increase​
Added ?mL/L Alaska Fish for 48ppm increase.​
Added 1.2mL/L GrowMore Amber Humic for 27ppm increase. Total increase over water: 339ppm (or 366 counting Amber Humic). Total ppm: 501.​
Added pinch (1/16 tsp/gal) sugar (for the soil microbes).​
Runoff: 1330ppm (20% runoff).​
Note: Much higher volume. I was worried I might be getting salt buildup after the last two feedings with low runoff. It looks good to me. Normally I feed strong, and do 10-20% runoff to get rid of the excess. I don't try to dial it in. I feel it does better with the strong feeding (and modest flush). I think I can feed a little stronger now, and continue with higher volume runoff (at least 10%). I would be looking for 1400-1800. I was only doing low-volume runoff because it appeared they were underfed, and I didn't want to wash away what was in the soil while it was just 830ppm.​
Actual NPK ratio (based upon the actual PPMs created): 1.32-1-1.6 (339 ppm)​

A word about PPMs:
For the nutrient solution, I'm using an HM TDS-3 meter calibrated to 342 (using HM's calibration solution). For the runoff I'm using an HM EZ-TDS calibrated to 1000 (using 1 gram of ordinary salt from the kitchen table dissolved in 1 liter of distill water. Mathematically that's supposed to be 1000ppm. But, it's not pure salt. Has iodine, etc. And, the meters aren't really reading parts per million. They're reading conductivity. Different minerals conduct better or worse, I believe.).

The reason I mention that: I have 4-5 TDS meters & have noticed if I calibrate to something 1200ppm (1.2g salt in 1 liter distilled water), then measuring a 300ppm solution will be about 80ppm higher (than if I calibrated to the real 342 calibration solution). Likewise, if I use the 342 calibrated meter to measure the 1400ppm runoff, it will read 1200ppm. (I might be exaggerating. But, it will be off a fair amount.).

I usually use the 1g/L salt (distilled water) solution, but will do 1g/gal to get 264ppm (instead of 1000 @ 1g/L). Or, 1g in 2.92 liters to get 342ppm (in theory). I also have HM's 1000ppm calibration solution. My 1g/L salt solution comes out 5% higher than the official solution.

Anyway, this stuff doesn't matter much if you're doing your own thing, just comparing one feeding to another. The only thing that might matter is if you use the same meter for nutrient solution and runoff. You'd have to know that it will be less-accurate the further from the value you calibrated to. Additionally, if you discuss PPMs with other people, it would matter how you (& they) calibrate (which range, whether it's official solution, or DIY salt g/L = 1000 "close enough" reference, etc.). The interesting thing about the salt & distilled water method is that it's cheap; you can make various reference solutions (strengths) for yourself, and see how your meter varies (the further you go from what you calibrate it too). You could use just one meter and know you need to add or reduce the displayed value when measuring further away from what you calibrated it to. You need fairly accurate water-volume measurement, and a jeweler's scale (I like the Horizon Pro-20B. Also the GEM-20. Both are on ebay & Amazon, inexpensive, can be recalibrated.). Once you make your solutions, they'll last a long time.

I think this is one thing which EC meters are better for, but not really either. PPM meters are measuring EC, converting it to the ppms of some hypothetical dissolved element (when elements have different conductivity, I think). PPM meters are more of a "rose-colored eyeglasses" view. Seeing the EC would be more direct. But, EC 1.2 vs 1.3 is 70ppm (theoretically, if all the dissolved particles were sodium chloride, or whatever). For the way I fool around with 20ppms of something or other, that wouldn't work well for me (unless EC meters display two decimal places. I've never seen one. Maybe they do.). But, then again, who knows how accurate my meter's measurement is down to that granularity. Maybe I just think I'm controlling things that much. I don't know. I've done it for 6-7 years. My mind thinks in terms of ppms (and NPK ratios).

Oct 25 (DAY 58)
24 hours after last feeding

I took these photos 24 hours after the last feeding (and 3 days since the last photos). Space remaining:
day 58 - space remaining.JPG


I'm keeping the tent closed now (starting late yesterday). It's pretty obvious that the back of the tent has filled in a lot, but the front hasn't. That must be the reflective wall. With the front open, they don't get that boost.

It may be too late to fill in. They're probably past much of their stretch now. But, it would help the bud development. (I've never noticed the reflective material make much difference with normal-shaped plants. I usually sidelight around the plant more vertically. This seems different because the plants are growing sideways. It seems obvious to me that the reflective material is making a difference.).

Also, you can see plants 4-6 (right half of tent) look obviously more thriving/energetic/enthusiastic/happy. These are the closeups:

1-3
day 58 - 1-3.JPG


4-6
day 58 - 4-6.JPG


I'm really thinking it's the light (the 3000k "wide surface" bulbs). Maybe the rougher transplant for 1-3 stunted them. I've never seen shock affect plants that much. (The first transplant from seedling cups to 20oz cups, the seedling soil was very sandy and fell apart in my hands. I expected the plants to die within 4 hours. They were thriving after 4 hours.).

So, I will buy 2 more of those Philips 16w? (I forget) 3000k "wide surface" bulbs tomorrow morning, and put them on the left side of the tent. That will indeed answer the question. If those lights are doing something spectacular, then it should be evident very quickly on the left side.

LIGHTS
The top fixtures remain as I last documented. (I haven't changed them to be what I showed in the diagrammed plan for flower a few days ago.).

The Cree 15w 2700k A19 bulbs (three of them on the tent legs. Rear left & right corners, front middle pole) are too bright to look at (as are any of them). But, a few times I've seen distinct red LEDs mixed in with whites, which reminds me of the old Area-51 RW-150 fixture (which I still have if the cannabis museum of history needs one). That fixture's whites & reds were considered exceptional performers.

I've also faintly detected blue diodes (out of the corner of my eye). When feeding yesterday, I saw one of those Crees reflected in the water-covered black runoff tray. I could definitely see blue LEDs spaced among the red and white. They were light blue. Not a cool white (6500k), but more blue. Not "blurple" blue either. Maybe 8000k? 10000k? Much lighter than blurlple blue. But, more blue than 6500k. (I think. Maybe it's an optical illusion compared to the reds, maybe it looks more blue.).

Anyway, that's interesting. I can't say I've noticed the plants liking that light better. In fact, I'd have to say that they like the Philips 16w 2700k (which is all warm white, not a mix of colors). I feel like I've seen that a couple times. Or, at best, they're equal. (But, maybe they supply different spectrum which, overall, are better than the plant receiving just one.).

Either way, I definitely have noticed the plants like those 3000k "wide surface" bulbs. That's not speculative. It's strange because they don't appear to be bright. The more concentrated A19/21 bulbs look brighter (more intense). But, my PAR meter shows really good levels under those "wide surface" bulbs. It must be the way the diodes are spaced out, they look weak.

SCROG
I'm thinking I shouldn't tuck these things anymore (or once more). They're flowering enough now that I feel like they should start their filling out the vertical branch. I think it's possible to tuck them too much into flower. I don't know (buds growing sideways? instead of vertically). Plus, I don't like handling flowering buds. That's always seemed like a no-no to me.

I have 1.5 feet of vertical space above the fixtures. I'm not worried about too much vertical growth now. The point of SCROG is to have a uniform/even/flat canopy to make the most use of light. I want to capitalize on that. But, at some point the buds have to enlarge, fill out in the normal sense. Tucking too long would put them horizontal and perhaps impede the finishing. (I don't know. I've never done this before.). I'm thinking they're close to that point now.

pH
I think user @hyde said higher pH soil causes more growth/stretch? I can't say I've seen that. Using a fairly expensive Control Wizard soil pH probe (not some cheap thing from Home Depot, but I can't say it's good either. I don't know.). What I've seen is that the soil goes through a range of pH (5.5 to 7) from wet to dry. Even if it starts low, it passes through the good range. If it starts high, it passes through the good range too. (As long as it didn't start too low or high.). It hasn't looked to me like a deterministic value. It's just a matter whether the range is skewed lower or higher. As long as skewed too low or high, it all worked out in the end, I felt.

There could be some benefit to pH'ing nutrients for soil. Fine tuning. I got put off by it because the up/down products are essentially salts. They don't list their nutritional content because they aren't sold as food. But, using them changes the NPK ratio in ways you aren't cognizant of. And then, the downward spiral I found myself in was that I was overfeeding, getting salt buildup, acidifying the soil, causing me to add more "up" -- which added more nutrients to the solution, adding to the buildup, causing the soil to go further south.

I haven't seen a need to pH nutrient solution since I stopped (once I realized the runoff ppms closely track the acidity of the soil; the salt buildup.). If I want it more acidic, I feed more. If I want it more alkaline, I feed less. (I hardly use my soil probe anymore. I used to probe every day, twice a day. But, I hardly ever probe now.). It just seems to all work (knock on wood. Now it's probably going to go to hell after I said that. I always worry maybe I'm just lucky.).
 
Last edited:
az2000

az2000

Oct 25 (DAY 58) continued...
Lights

I went to Home Depot after posting, bought two more Philips 3000k "wide surface" bulbs, and replaced the two 100w-equiv A19s I had in the left top-fixture (I swapped the left/right arms to the front/back arms so the new wide-surface bulbs would be in the same left/right place as the right side of the tent.). That was a couple hours before lights went out.

Oct 26 (DAY 59)
Feeding

Doing the same feeding as last time. Aiming for NPK ratio 1.31-1-1.51 (335ppm).

Potassium sulfate (0-0-50). Want 59ppm​
GrowMore Sea Grow All Purpose (16-16-16). Want 228ppm​
Pennington Alaska Fish (5-1-1). Want 48ppm​
GrowMore Amber Humic. 1.2mL/L (medium dose per label)​
Starting water = 132ppm created with:​
49ppm tap (note: RO water has 10ppm. I don't count that. I.e., the difference between what I list here, and total starting PPM comes from the RO water.).​
48ppm gypsum​
25ppm epsom​
Added 0.093g/L potassium sulfate for 70ppm increase​
Added 0.525g/L GrowMore Sea Grow All Purpose for 228ppm increase​
Added ?mL/L Alaska Fish for 50ppm increase.​
Note: I don't measure exactly how much I use. I add tiny bits to get the desired ppms. AK Fish seems kind of erratic to me. I get different results from 1/2 tsp at a time. I'm thinking the bottle has to be shaken constantly or oils rise, rich stuff sinks (in just 1 minute). That might be why it seems erratic and hard to predict a volume. I'm going to start doing that (shaking before each pour).​
Added 1.2mL/L GrowMore Amber Humic for 15ppm increase. Total increase over water: 348ppm (or 363 counting Amber Humic). Total ppm: 495.​
Added 1/4tsp/gal molasses (for the soil microbes).​
Runoff: 1030ppm (15% runoff).​
I think that last 20% runoff "flushed" it a little. I think I can feed heavier and stay in the 10-15% range, see how the runoff ppms do. (Or, feed as I am, and do 5-10% runoff.).​
Actual NPK ratio (based upon the actual PPMs created): 1.32-1-1.61 (348 ppm)​

Oct 27 (DAY 60) -- THIRD WEEK OF 12/12 BEGINS TONIGHT
24 hours after feeding

They don't seem as happy today. The temperature dropped yesterday, it's been 70-75 in the tent. The humidity dropped too. I've had the tent doors closed hoping that side of the plant would grow more (into the reflected light, like I think the back did). I dialed the exhaust fan lower thinking that might warm the tent a little, and retain humidity.

So, they may not be getting enough fresh air.

Or... as I puzzled over this, I realized that the left side might not be performing as well because it doesn't get as much air blown over it. (When I was keeping the tent doors open, I had an oscillating fan outside the tent blowing into it. But, it was on the right side. The right three plants got the most disturbance.) At night, when I seal the tent -- and now during the day with the tent doors closed -- I have a clip on fan on the top-left side, blowing to the right-side wall. Again, the right side plants gets most of that air movement. The left side not much.).

I'm going to add a 2nd clip on fan to the opposite side today; let them blow at/across each other. Maybe create more even turbulence.

Space remaining:
day 60 - space remaining.JPG


Plants 1-3:
day 60 - 1-3.JPG


Plants 4-6:
day 60 - 4-6.JPG


I can't say I've seen any remarkable response to the new 3000k wide surface on the left (1-3) side. As I mentioned above, I'm wondering if the difference in sides could be the air flow which the right side has had more of. (Or, maybe it was transplant shock, 4 days before switching to 12/12, if I recall. Maybe they were set back a little & that's what I'm seeing due to less veg growth than the right side.).

I'm still unsure about further tucking. I was worried the last tucking was too late (and the buds would be growing horizontally). But they look good again. I'm thinking I'll leave it this way and let them do what they will. I have 1.5 feet of space to raise the lights. They won't stretch that much now.

My concern is that I'll tuck them, and their vertical veg/stretch growth will be done, and the buds will be growing into the net. My impression of SCROG is that it should look like what they do now. I'm just not sure when to stop tucking & still maintain this upward bud development. I think I'm there. Tonight starts WEEK 3 of 12/12 lighting.

LIGHTS
Probably this week (end of the week) I'll probably upgrade the top-fixture bulbs to what I showed in the diagram (posted Day 46<<link). Each fixture needs two more 100w-equivs, and one 120-150w equiv in the center. I might just do the remaining two arms (each) and then do the centers a week later.
 
Last edited:
az2000

az2000

I grew these 2 dwarves useing 1 led spotlight from home depo to prove it can b done.
Can you provide details about the light used? Did you use it unmodified, or remove the lens(es) for less absorption loss? (They often have a front & inner lens. Did you remove either? Removing both seems to just turn it into an ordinary lightbulb like I'm using, with the diodes facing the way you want the light to go, but much more diffuse than a spotlight. It's more like 120-degree angle light.). What distance?

I've had it in my mind for a couple years about how a powerful'ish (120w-equiv, 150w-equiv) flood light (or spot, I don't know. But, like 40-degrees maybe) might work on a normally-shaped (christmas-tree) cannabis plant. I looked at one last year. It seems very harsh. Not great coverage. But, intense (with penetration). I've had a nagging eeling that might work well.

I've always felt it's better to distribute the lighting watts around the plant, closer. I.e., if you were using a 25w (150w-equiv) flood/spot, I think it would be better to break that up into three 9w (60w equiv) A19 bulbs (with the plastic diffusion globe removed so it's more directional). That way the light is closer (less inverse-square loss), more even coverage (which I think would mean the light could be used more efficiently by the plant, compared to part of the plant getting hit harder).

That last part is what I wonder about. Maybe a plant benefits from being driven hard with photons (1000ppfd) over half its surface -- rather than having a nice even bathing of 500ppfd over double the surface. I.e., maybe that plant can use intensity better than coverage. (If I lay in a warm bath, I fall asleep. Concentrate all that caloric heat contained in 20 gallons of water into a single scalding drop, you'll get my attention!).

One reason I've thought about that: Some of the best results I've had from household LED lightbulbs were old (2014) Cree 19w (90w-equiv) 3000k 47-degree floodlights. I haven't used them for awhile because (logically) they don't seem as good as modern bulbs. They were glass front (couldn't cut off the front to reduce absorption loss). And, even if you could cut off the front, the diodes were mounted on a small tower -- shining sideways. They had inherent reflection loss (as well as absorption loss). Compared to modern floods which have the LEDs pointing the direction you want the light to go, and the lens(es) can be removed to have umimpeded light, those old Cree bulbs seemed like they must be inferior.

But, looking back on it, I got some of my best results with those. I've lately been thinking maybe there's a big difference between mixing 2700k & 5000k bulbs. Maybe 3000k is a winner. But, perhaps it was the concentration and penetration. I don't know. I'd like to try it sometime. A very stark, harsh, dramatic lighting.

I think of lighting in terms of w/sq ft. I would probably try to get 25-35w/sq ft. Which would be average 120w in a 2x2' square space. That could be four 30w floods. That would be very intense. Hang them in a circle around the top (meaning pointing down on all four sides of the plant). Leave the lenses on the bulbs to make it very strong/penetrating.

It would be interesting to see how that compares with a dozen 9w (60w-equiv) diffusion-removed bulbs like I usually do. Or, 8 16w (100w-equiv) -- which is easier to work with than a dozen (like I'm doing now). I've done enough of the "distributed" lighting that I should be able to see a difference if there is any. I should try it sometime.

The guidelines for lighting typically say 600-900ppfd in late veg, flower. It's never clear if that means all over, or if a plant will respond better to 900ppfd over 30% of its surface (than it would with 500 over 80%. How much does intensity matter versus total photons arriving on the plant surface?). Same thing with DLI (daily light interval). I forget what the good value is considered to be. But, if a plant gets strong/direct light for half the day, and shaded light the remainder, is that better (worse) than filtered light all day long (assuming both end up being the same calculated DLI quantity)?

I'm wondering if there's something like that involved in lighting. I'd like to try the strong/focused light sometime. I've done this more-even diffuse lighting enough that any difference should stand out to me. (My next grow will be to try the 150-watt CMH in a 2x2 space. I have to do that next when it will be cold here. After that I could try growing with headlights (statuesque-type of lighting.).
 
Last edited:
az2000

az2000

Oct 28 (DAY 61)
FEED (across two days again)

In the previous post: I mentioned that the plants didn't seem as happy. I theorized it was lower temperature (and/or lower humidity). Later I realized: it was probably the 20% & 15% runoffs of the prior two feedings, and how the runoff ppms dropped 28% (1430 to 1030). I think the plants returned to an under-fed condition.

I wasn't feeding strongly enough to replace the nutrients washed out with that volume of runoff. I should have either continued feeding 340ppm with lower runoff. Or, feed stronger (and be prepared to do more runoff if the ppms reach 1800.) I usually feed stronger with more runoff. I jumped the gun on that. When it hit 1400, I thought I was in the good zone. But, apparently it took some time to get there. I didn't need that much runoff.

The soil will be too dry before lights out. I'll have to pour a little (no runoff) before lights out to tide it over until the next day. Then, pour the remainder tomorrow when the soil feels dry enough again.

I did this "long-wait pour" a few days ago and got almost no runoff because the plants consumed so much of the initial pour. So, I'm aiming for a little stronger AND no/little runoff (due to the delay between pours, which will keep more salt in the soil). That should reestablish the ppms in the soil. I'm going back to Sea Grow by itself, because I know it won't burn if this is too strong. This will be NPK ratio 1-1-1 (360ppm).
GrowMore Sea Grow All Purpose (16-16-16). Want 360ppm​
GrowMore Amber Humic. 1.2mL/L (medium dose per label)​
Starting water = 155ppm created with:​
48ppm tap​
63ppm gypsum​
34ppm epsom​
Added 0.860g/L GrowMore Sea Grow All Purpose for 369ppm increase​
Added 1.2mL/L GrowMore Amber Humic for 19ppm increase. Total increase over water: 369ppm (or 388 counting Amber Humic). Total ppm: 543.​
Added pinch (1/16tsp/gal) sugar (for the soil microbes).​
Runoff: ?ppm (?% runoff). (WAITING TO DO 2nd pour, and maybe no runoff at all).​
Actual NPK ratio (based upon the actual PPMs created): 1-1-1 (369 ppm)​

I poured enough to wet the soil (two pours, about 20 minutes apart. I.e. a little bit to re-hydrate the topsoil. Let it saturate for a bit. Then more to flow further in). No runoff.

LIGHTS
Before lights out, I swapped the 60w-equiv PAR-38 & BR40s (top fixtures) with the 100w-equiv A19s. The lights now are:

lights early flower.png


The only low-watt bulbs remaining are the centers of the top-fixtures. I plan to swap them to 120w-equiv (slightly stronger than the others) next week. I posted my planned flower lighting on Day 42<<link. However, now I'm thinking I might change that plan. (More about that at the end of this post.).

Oct 29 (DAY 62)
24 hours after wetting (haven't poured remainder)

They look happier today. I think that stronger feeding (no runoff) helped.

4-6 (right side):
day 62 - 4-6.JPG


That side (RIGHT side) still looks better/lusher/more-developed than the left side.

1-3 (left side)
day 62 - 1-3.JPG


It's possible that the 3000k 16w "wide surface" lights (I swapped-in three days ago) are helping the left side. I can't tell if that it -- or if it's transplant-shock still catching up. It seems more like the light to me. (Or, if it may be that I added the clip-on fan for more airflow reaching 1-3's side of the tent. I changed too much at once.).

Some time ago, on the RIGHT side: I saw the 3000ks being preferred by the plants. I also saw the RIGHT show more deficiency when the watts were increased, apparently driving the plants harder than the LEFT side (not enough food to meet that need). So, I'm inclined to think the 3000ks are better. I believe I'm starting to see it on the left side. I'll give it a couple more days.

LIGHTS
I'm considering changing my original plan for flower lighting<<link. I think a more interesting comparison would be to leave the RIGHT side the way I planned (three 3000k), and put five 3000k on the LEFT side's top fixture. (The tent-legs 2700k would remain the same across the tent).

The LEFT side is noticeably behind the right side. If the 3000k had something to do with that, going full-on 3000k LEFT side should make that apparent. It shouldn't be subtle. It's too late (I think) for the LEFT side to fill in the open spaces of the screen. But, the buds would develop more than the RIGHT side. I think that will be a better comparison than what I was planning.

The 16w "wide surface" comes in 5000k too. I was thinking that might be interesting to compare 3000k by itself vs a mix of 3000 & 5000k. But, I don't think that's going to fit into this grow. If the LEFT side deteriorates with all 3000k, then I might try a mix (nothing to lose at that point).

FEEDING continued
Apparently I wet those plants enough yesterday (before lights out) that they're still moist today before lights out. I'm letting them go till lights on tomorrow.

That could be another factor in my underfeeding. Not only did I increase the lights (which I believe drove the plants harder, bringing out the underfed condition). But, transplanted into richer/heavier soil (not much soil, but I'm noticing a slow-down in frequency of watering). Delivering nutrients less frequently is less nutrients (over time). That could have factored into it too.

Since I'm waiting till the next morning, I bet I won't have any runoff pouring the remainder of yesterday's feeding. But, that's good because it will remain in the soil (which I think is too low ppm after those large-runoffs).
 
Last edited:
az2000

az2000

Oct 30 (DAY 63)
Poured remainder of feeding (at lights on) begun late Day61 (before lights out. I meant to tide the plants over till lights on next morning. But, apparently I made them wet enough to last 24 hours longer.).

Oct 31 (DAY 64)
FEEDING

The plants definitely liked that last stronger (369ppm) feeding. Since the runoff last time didn't suggest it's building up much, I will go stronger this time. I'm targeting NPK ratio 1-1-1 again (380ppm). I'll err stronger as I mix it.

GrowMore Sea Grow All Purpose (16-16-16). Want 380ppm​
GrowMore Amber Humic. 1.2mL/L (medium dose per label)​
Starting water = 137ppm created with:​
49ppm tap​
46ppm gypsum​
32ppm epsom​
Added 0.888g/L GrowMore Sea Grow All Purpose for 387ppm increase​
Added 1.2mL/L GrowMore Amber Humic for 14ppm increase. Total increase over water: 387ppm (or 401 counting Amber Humic). Total ppm: 538.​
Added pinch (1/16tsp/gal) sugar (for the soil microbes).​
Runoff: 1050ppm (4% runoff).​
Note: not much change from previous 1110ppm. Still doesn't appear I'm close to overfeeding. I'll feed stronger next time.​

Nov 2 (DAY 66)
FEEDING

The plants look even happier with that even stronger (387ppm) feeding last time. It seems pretty clear that I've been underfeeding. I'm feeding pretty strong now; the runoff ppms aren't rising much. This feeding: I will resume varying the NPK ratio (N & K higher than P), and go stronger again. I'm targeting NPK ratio 1.51-1-1.57 (403ppm).
Rolling the dice on considerably stronger
While mixing I made an impromptu decision to err even more on the stronger side (ended up: 442 instead of the targeted 403.).​
1) Everything I've seen so far shows they want more. They responded well to the last couple stronger feedings (369 & 387).​
2) The runoff ppms aren't rising much. (1600-1800 would cause me to pour more volume for runoff, and/or reduce strength. But, the last three feedings were 1030, 1110 & 1050. The last time the plants looked happy was when it was 1330.).​
3) I need to replace the two top-fixture center bulbs with a 120w-equiv. This seems like a good time to be bolder with strength, change the lights, and cross my fingers that the lights will cause the plants to consume more.​
4) Back when I was feeding 200-240, 20ppm increments seemed large. Now, closer to 400ppm, a 40ppm increase is the same percentage increase. (It's not as bold as it sounds.).​
Kelp
I'm going to use Alaska Kelp this feeding. I don't use it in veg because it seems to cause strange stretch. (I've read it contains growth hormones from the kelp.). In flower, I think it causes buds to dense. It seems to concentrate that stretch within the bud.​
Potassium sulfate (0-0-50). Want 64ppm​
GrowMore Sea Grow All Purpose (16-16-16). Want 240ppm​
Pennington Alaska Fish (5-1-1). Want 85ppm​
Pennington Alaska Kelp (1-0-4.62). Want 13ppm (which translates, per the guaranteed anaysis, to 1.2ml/L).​
GrowMore Amber Humic. 1.2mL/L (medium dose per label)​
Starting water = 150ppm created with:​
72ppm tap & RO​
57ppm gypsum​
21ppm epsom​
Added 0.109g/L potassium sulfate for 76ppm increase​
Added 0.574g/L GrowMore Sea Grow All Purpose for 266ppm increase​
Added ?.?mL/L AK Fish for 78ppm increase​
Added 1.2mL/L AK Kekp for 22ppm increase​
Note: I treat AK Kelp like I do Liquid Karma (or, Amber Humic). I don't typically measure the resulting PPMs. When calculating the NPK ratio, I include this product because it has a guaranteed analysis label. But, I don't try to get those exact resulting ppms. I don't use it for the ppms (which are insignifcant). I use it more for the kelp.​
Added 1.2mL/L GrowMore Amber Humic for 27ppm increase. Total increase over water: 442ppm (or 469 counting Amber Humic). Total ppm: 619.​
Added pinch (1/16tsp/gal) sugar (for the soil microbes).​
Runoff: 1300ppm (5% runoff).​
Note: not much change from previous 1050ppm. I don't think there's any risk of overfeeding at this point (if I continue increasing ppms 10%).​
Actual NPK ratio (based upon the actual PPMs created): 1.44-1-1.66 (442 ppm)​

LIGHTS
I replaced the top-fixtures' center light (they were last documented 3 days ago<<link). This is what they are now:
4. lights mid flower.png


Back on Day42<<link, I planned on different lighting (to do a test between left & right sides). I think I'm going to do all 3000k (top-light) on the left side of the tent.

Nov 3 (DAY 67) -- FOURTH WEEK OF 12/12 BEGINS TONIGHT
24 hours after feeding

Top view:
day 67 - top.JPG


Plants 4-6 (right side):
day 67 - 4-6.JPG


Plants 1-3 (left side):
day 67 - 1-3.JPG


The right & left sides don't look as different now. If anything the center (3 & 4) look better (and 1 & 7 edges look about the same). I.e., both sides ramp up (looking better) toward the middle of the tent.

#1 (far left) still looks lagging. That might fit my theory that 1-3 suffered transplant shock. I screwed around with #1 the longest.

Back 3-4 days ago I did one last tucking (mostly around the edges. I was unsure if I should leave it alone. They were kind of tall around the edges. If those don't emerge, I may need to find them and untuck them (maybe they should just LST'ed/broken, or tied lower -- but not beneath the screen).

The heavy feedings seem to be about right now (the plants look right). I think the next feeding (late today, or first thing in the morning) will be as strong as the last one (442ppm), but I'll go back to Sea Grow by itself (simple 1-1-1 NPK ratio). I'll be watching the runoff ppms to see if it's going higher.
 
az2000

az2000

Nov 4 (DAY 68)
Feeding

Because the runoff ppms aren't showing much buildup, I'm targeting even stronger: 480ppm (last feeding was 442ppm). I'm going to do NPK ratio 1-1-1 because I know SeaGrow (by itself) is mild. If it's too much, I would expect to see the runoff ppms rise (and reach lockout/acidity in the soil). I wouldn't expect to see immediate burning.

GrowMore Sea Grow All Purpose (16-16-16). Want 480ppm​
GrowMore Amber Humic. 1.2mL/L (medium dose per label)​
Starting water = 134ppm created with:​
69ppm tap & RO​
42ppm gypsum​
23ppm epsom​
Rolling the dice AGAIN on considerably stronger
While mixing I made another impromptu decision to err even more on the stronger side (ended up: 518 instead of the targeted 480). This is 17% stronger than the last feeding. (The prior feeding was 14% higher than the one before it.). So, it sounds like big numbers. But, as a percentage, it's not bad.​
Now that it's in the 4th week flower, I don't have a lot of time to make small changes.I feel like I'm chasing a moving target because adding lights (watts) causes the plants to eat more. Since the runoff PPMs didn't go too high last time, I think I have some room to go higher.​

Added 1.204g/L GrowMore Sea Grow All Purpose for 518ppm increase​
Added 1.2mL/L GrowMore Amber Humic for 31ppm increase. Total increase over water: 518ppm (or 549 counting Amber Humic). Total ppm: 683​
Added pinch (1/16tsp/gal) sugar (for the soil microbes).​
Runoff: 1320ppm (4% runoff).​
Note: No change from the previous 1300ppm runoff. That makes me glad I fed substantially stronger this time. I don't think this feeding will be too strong. (If the runoff were 1500, I'd worry this one could be too much.). I'll probably feed this same strength next time. I might mix more volume for more runoff, if necessary (i.e., I'd pour 4-5% runoff. If it's 1600, I'd pour more for 10% runoff and help reduce that going too much higher.).​
Actual NPK ratio (based upon the actual PPMs created): 1-1-1 (518 ppm)​

LIGHTS
I made the LEFT top-fixture all "wide surface" bulbs:

5. lights flower wk4.png


I was thinking of doing all wide-surface, but all 3000k. I feel like the cooler 5000k A19s have been helping. The "wide-surface" bulbs come in 5000k. So, I thought I'd mix those in as shown (left side).

The RIGHT side remains unchanged. Depending on how the left side does, I might make the right side all "wide-surface" too (but all 3000k).

I still think the plants like these "wide surface" bulbs better. I think its because the light is more evenly distributed. More angled coverage. If/when I do this again, I'd actually like to put the "wide surface" all around the side (leg mounts) too. The only question would be how much 5000k to mix in (if any).

I'll probably take & photos tomorrow
 
az2000

az2000

Nov 6 (DAY 70)
Feeding

The last feeding was 480ppm (the one before that was 442ppm). I'm going to boost N & K again, ratio 1.35-1-1.65. I'm going to aim for a similar strength as last feeding. But, I'm also using kelp (again), and Liquid Karma (instead of Amber Humic).

That makes it a little confusing because the kelp & LK products have guaranteed analysis which contributes to the calculated PPMs. (They also add more PPMs than the label calculates to, especially LK.). Normally when I grow, don't measure them after adding to the water because I don't add them for their ppms. I add them for their kelp & fulvic acid. So, I'm aiming for 480 (again) without counting these two products -- or 507 counting those two products (but those they -- especially LK -- will come out higher ppm I add the targeted volume of those two products. Whatever ppms they add, I don't care. I only use those products for their kelp & fulvic acid, not the ppms.). This is a confusing topic to convey. I'm trying to document what I'm doing. But, when I normally grow, I don't look at these ppms (even though I calculate their labels as part of what I'm targeting).

Targeting 1.35-1-1.65 (507ppm)​
Potassium sulfate (0-0-50). Want 88ppm​
GrowMore Sea Grow All Purpose (16-16-16). Want 320ppm​
Pennington Alaska Fish (5-1-1). Want 72ppm​
Pennington Alaska Kelp (1-0-4.62). 2.0mL/L. Should be 21ppm per label, but I don't try to achieve this number. I add the volume Whatever it comes out to be, that's what it is.​
Botanicare Liquid Karma (0.1-0.1-0.5) 1.0mL/L. Should be 5ppm per label, but will be higher. Like kelp, I let it be what it is. I don't pour just enough for 5ppm. I pour the stated volume.​
Starting water = 132ppm created with:​
103ppm tap & RO​
21ppm gypsum​
8ppm epsom​
Added 0.13g/L potassium sulfate for 88ppm increase​
Added 0.742g/L GrowMore Sea Grow All Purpose for 325ppm increase​
Added ?.?mL/L AK Fish for 70ppm increase​
Added 2.0mL/L AK Kelp for 24ppm increase​
Added 1.2mL/L Liquid Karma for 40ppm increase. Total increase over water: 483ppm (or 547 counting kelp & Liquid Karma). Total ppm: 679​
Added pinch (1/16tsp/gal) sugar (for the soil microbes).​
Runoff: 1380ppm (10% runoff).​
Note: Not much change from the previous 1320ppm runoff. I'm concerned this higher volume will cause the next runoff ppms to be lower (too much of a flush). I think I'll feed stronger next time. I'm not seeing any problems. The nutrients don't seem to be building up in the soil too much. I'd like to see it be 1600'ish. Depending on how the plants look tomorrow, I'll probably mix something 20% stronger. (I feel like I'm way too strong. But, it's not building up in the soil.).​
Actual NPK ratio (based upon the actual PPMs created, feeding those back into the spreadsheet): 1.32-1-1.79 (549 ppm)​
Nov 7 (DAY 71)
24 hours after feeding

Top:
day 71 - top.JPG


Plants 1-3:
day 71 - 1-3.JPG


The left side seems to like the 5000k "wide surface" (top-fixture's front & back arms). The buds directly under those bulbs are doing well.

Plants 4-6:
day 71 - 4-6.JPG


There's still a definite difference between left side and right. The left side's buds look good. But, overall it's not as populated with buds. I still think it was transplant shock (set them back four days before I flipped to 12/12 flower.

The plants seem fine with the heavy feedings. I'm going to go 20% stronger again next feeding. I'll go back to Sea Grow by itself this next feeding. So far, the runoff ppms indicate the plant isn't leaving a lot of nutrients behind. It's not rising badly. I think I'm in the good range for feeding. But, I'd like to see how it works with stronger. I've overfed Sea Grow before. It's not bad (unless it builds up in the soil without being noticed). The way I'm not seeing much sign of that happening, I think there's some room to go stronger. The risk is minimal. Everything I've seen so far shows I've been underestimating how much to feed. So, I might as well keep going higher. If the ppms go to 1500, I'll be more cautious (pour more runoff volume). If it goes over 1600-1800, I'd cut back on strength.

It doesn't seem like I'm near that yet. The soil's different than what I normally use. I'm worried that will make my experience with runoff ppms be inapplicable. (Maybe something about this soil's lower CEC.). But, so far it's working out (going stronger).

LIGHTS
I think I will replace the right side's top-fixture's front & back arms (which are A19 bulbs 2700 & 5000k) to both 3000k wide surface. I think the plants like the more-even coverage of those bulbs. The A19s are more focused/intense. That's not bad for a plant growing in a normal (round/vertical) shape. But, this flat growth might like the flatter light surface of those "wide surface" bulbs.

If I do that, the only difference between right & left sides will be that the left has two 5000k wide-surface (front & back). The right side will have all 3000k (on the top fixture). All the tent legs will remain 2700k. So, I'm nervous the right side wouldn't have as much blue light. But, maybe in a week it won't need as much, being that late into flower. Maybe I'll wait till week 5 or 6 to do it. Maybe it would like warmer light that way. Or, two 2700ks on the right side's front/back arms. Not a 5000k & 2700k, as it is now.
 
az2000

az2000

Nov 8 (DAY 72)
Feeding

The last feeding was 483/547ppm (depending on whether you count the kelp & Liquid Karma. I don't typically.). The feeding before that was 518ppm (not counting the Amber Humic). The nutrients don't seem to be building up in the soil (the runoff ppm doesn't show it).
I'll go stronger this feeding, targeting 1-1-1 (540ppm. Part of me feels I can/should go even stronger.).
GrowMore Sea Grow All Purpose (16-16-16). Want 540ppm​
GrowMore Amber Humic (none) 1.2mL/L. No labeled strength. Typically produces 20-25ppm. I just add the amount. I don't try to get a specific ppm.​
Starting water = 135ppm created with:​
135ppm tap & RO​
0ppm gypsum​
0ppm epsom​
Added 1.458g/L GrowMore Sea Grow All Purpose for 545ppm increase​
Added 1.2mL/L Amber Humic for 52ppm increase. Total increase over water: 545ppm (or 597 counting Amber Humic). Total ppm: 732​
Note: I don't know why Amber Humic produced so many ppms. Sometimes it seems volatile that way. I ignore it.​
Added 1/2tsp/gal molasses (for the soil microbes).​
Runoff: 1220ppm (5% runoff).​
Note: As I suspected, the previous (larger) 10% runoff washed out the soil again. That tells me I can/should feed stronger. I feel like I'm already feeding strong. I'm nervous about going stronger. Maybe something about this soil (lower CEC than what I normally grow in?) might not work the way I expect it to.​
Actual NPK ratio: 1-1-1 (545 ppm)​
Nov 9 (DAY 73)
Feeding

The previous feeding's runoff (1220, after the prior 1390 with larger runoff) tells me I'm still not feeding strongly enough (or, that I could feed that strong, but not do as large of runoffs). Based upon how I usually grow (in a different soil), I feel like I'm not replenishing the ppms in the soil fast enough (strongly enough). I should be able to do 10% runoff, and not have a big drop (or take time to rebuild) in the soil ppms. I think it should be coming into the soil faster. (Or, I shouldn't do as much runoff. My style is going the other way: more runoff and stronger. I don't think I'm strong enough to replenish what that larger runoff washes away.).

In this feeding, I'm going 15% stronger (targeting 626ppm. Last feeding was 545.). Also, I can't make it to the next morning to feed. Feeding sooner (more frequently) is a form of feeding stronger too (more food over time).

I partially fed before lights out. I will feed the remainder the next day. (The last time I did this, the soil wasn't dry enough until an entire day elapsed. It might take that long again. I have the nutrient solution aerating with an aquarium pump & air stone in the bucket. I don't know if that's necessary. But, it's easy to do and ensures the nutrient solution won't turn bad.).

GrowMore Sea Grow All Purpose (16-16-16). Want 626ppm​
GrowMore Amber Humic (none) 1.2mL/L. No labeled strength. Typically produces 20-25ppm.​
Starting water = 132ppm created with:​
132ppm tap & RO​
0ppm gypsum​
0ppm epsom​
Added 1.518g/L GrowMore Sea Grow All Purpose for 628ppm increase​
Added 1.2mL/L Amber Humic for 21ppm increase. Total increase over water: 628ppm (or 649 counting Amber Humic). Total ppm: 781​
Added 1/2tsp/gal molasses (for the soil microbes).​
Runoff: 1390ppm (6% runoff).​
NOTE: This feeding didn't end until two days later. The runoff ppms were after two pours that sat for 24-36 hours & no runoff. The third pour produced the runoff.​
I think the way this went back to 1390 (where it was two feedings ago, after dropping to 1220 the last feeding with 10% runoff), I think I'm pretty close now to a good strength. Maybe a little stronger and 10% runoff every feeding would keep it in this 1390 range. (Maybe a little stronger and see how it looks at 1600). (Based upon what I see in a different soil, I think I have that headroom. Stronger nutrients, and larger runoff, staying in the 1400-1800 range.).​
Actual NPK ratio: 1-1-1 (628 ppm)​
Nov 10 (DAY 74) -- FIFTH WEEK OF 12/12 BEGINS TONIGHT
Feeding continued

Poured more before lights out (24 hours after previous pouring, which was intended to tide the plants over till morning).

I still have more to pour tomorrow (and keeping it aerated with an aquarium pump & stone). I don't usually feed this way. But, it could be useful now to get more ppm buildup in the soil. The soil has seemed to be too light (or too easily washed out with runoff for the strength I've been pouring in.). I want to err towards stronger feeding & and less runoff (to get the soil ppms higher, to what I usually see in the soil I usually grow in).

So, I wasn't planning to do yesterday's feeding this way (stretched over two days). But, now that I think about it, it lets the soil ppms rebuild with this higher-strength feeding.

Nov 11 (DAY 75)
Feeding continued (pour remainder of feeding from two days ago)

Before feeding more, I took these photos:

1-3:
day 75 - 1-3.JPG


4-6:
day 75 - 4-6.JPG


All:
day 75 - all.JPG


LIGHTS:
Nothing's changed. However, (on the LEFT side), the buds beneath the wide-surface 5000k (front & rear arms of the top fixture) are doing really well. I should have taken a closeup. They're very dense. I would't read too much into that because:
  1. The way I oriented the plants, and tucked the topped growth stems, the best buds ended up at the front & back of the tent. (They're the heaviest growers anyway.)
  2. The left side has been strange (stunted from a rough transplant). These buds could look better due to an optical illusion (everything around them not looking as good, compared to the right side of the tent).
But, these buds beneath that cooler light definitely look good. It's not hurting them. I wonder if it would be better to rotate those (every day) so the buds beneath them get both lights.

POSSIBLE REMAINING CHANGE: I have two more warm (3000k) wide-surface which I could put on the RIGHT side's front/rear top arms. Those are 5000k (rear) and 2700k (front) A19s right now. That might be an interesting comparison for the rest of the flowering. (All 3000k top light on the RIGHT side. The LEFT side would remain as is -- with the two 5000k mixed in with the three 3000k).

NEXT FEEDING:
The new leaves look great to me. Maybe even a little too leathery/thick/heavy. I'm starting to see some shine on the surface of the leaf.

I think I'm where I need to be with nutrient strength, maybe reaching the top limit. The runoff rebounded back to 1390, which is what I consider to be the good range, a little low.

I'm planning to mix the next feeding 15% stronger. I don't feel I'm in a danger zone. The runoff ppms aren't high enough to cause me concern that the plant is leaving nutrients behind (at such a rate that it's building up badly). The new sugar leaves are looking good (heavy, thick, leathery, dark green). I could be approaching too much. The runoff ppms tell me I'm not there yet.

I'm going to try stronger again. (I'll probably boost N & K again, and supplement with kelp again).
 
az2000

az2000

Nov 13 (DAY 77)
Feeding

They seem happy again after that last (stronger) feeding. The way the runoff "ppm vs volume" is working (seems to be reaching the plateau I like to be in with my usual soil), I'm going to feed another 15% stronger (with more runoff too). I think I'm in the right range to do both now. If I'm going too strong, the runoff will guard against build up in the soil. If I'm not feeding too strong, then the added strength will replenish the washed out ppms. I don't have a lot of time left. I'd like to test this more aggressively.

I'm going to boost N & K, and add kelp again. Targeting 1.42-1-1.62 (725ppm. That's 15% stronger than last feeding's 628).

Potassium sulfate (0-0-50). Want 138ppm​
GrowMore Sea Grow All Purpose (16-16-16). Want 448ppm​
Pennington Alaska Fish (5-1-1). Want 126ppm​
Pennington Alaska Kelp (1-0-4.62). Want 21ppm (I just pour the volume 2mL/L and get whatever ppms I get. I don't try to get 21ppm.).​
GrowMore Amber Humic (none) 1.2mL/L. No labeled strength. Typically produces 20-25ppm. I just add the amount. I don't try to get a specific ppm.​
Starting water = 136ppm created with:​
101ppm tap & RO​
21ppm gypsum​
14ppm epsom​
Added 0.187g/L potassium sulfate for 132ppm increase​
Added 1.119g/L GrowMore Sea Grow All Purpose for 461ppm increase​
Added ?.?mL/L AK Fish for 113ppm increase​
Added 2.0mL/L AK Kelp for 22ppm increase​
Added 1.2mL/L Amber Humic for 16ppm increase. Total increase over water: 728ppm (or 744 counting Amber Humic). Total ppm: 880​
I didn't add any sugar or molasses this time.​
Runoff: 1390ppm (20% runoff).​
Note: I think the strength is pretty close now. The last runoff was also 1390 (6% runoff. The one before that was 1320 with 5%). Next feeding, I think I'll feed this same feeding with 10% runoff. (If runoff is still in the 1390 range, then I think I can feed 10% stronger with 10-20% runoff depending on how the runoff ppms track feed to feed.).​
Actual NPK ratio: 1.37-1-1.62 (728 ppm)​

Nov 14 (DAY 78)
Next feeding (couldn't make it 48 hours again, fed a little before lights out)

Still looking happy after that last feeding. This feeding will be the same strength, but go back to 1-1-1 ratio (but with kelp again). I use some kelp in flower to cause more bud development, thickening. In veg, it seems to cause stretch. In flower, I think it does the same thing (cause growth), but in the bud. Sea Grow has kelp in it too. So, my experience supplementing kelp could be related to my base fertilizer having it too. (You might use kelp if your base fertilizer is different.).

Targeting 1.01-1-1.04 (722ppm. Same as last feeding, but more balanced NPK).​
GrowMore Sea Grow All Purpose (16-16-16). Want 701ppm​
Pennington Alaska Kelp (1-0-4.62). Want 21ppm (I just pour the volume 2mL/L and get whatever ppms I get. I don't try to get 21ppm.).​
GrowMore Amber Humic (none) 1.2mL/L. No labeled strength. Typically produces 20-25ppm. I just add the amount. I don't try to get a specific ppm.​
Starting water = 139ppm created with:​
107ppm tap & RO​
16ppm gypsum​
16ppm epsom​
Added 2.204g/L GrowMore Sea Grow All Purpose for 702ppm increase​
Note: Something went wrong here. I think I had a problem with the ppm pen. Or, I'm reaching a strength where I should be calibrating the pen to 1000 (not 342. It's not in range now?). When I was adding GrowMore , it took more than expected to get the ppms. I expected to use 10% less. I may not have measured the water volume accurately. That could explain it. (The following two items came out a little lower than expected too. If the water volume was larger than I thought it was, it would make sense.). I'm worried I fed more ppms than I thought. The volume used would suggest I did.​
Added 2.0mL/L AK Kelp for 17ppm increase​
Added 1.2mL/L Amber Humic for 17ppm increase. Total increase over water: 719ppm (or 736 counting Amber Humic). Total ppm: 875​
Added 1/4tsp/gal molasses (for the soil microbes).​
Runoff: 1420ppm (10% runoff).​
Note: I like this runoff ppm (the way it's been the last couple feedings). This is more what I expect. I wouldn't mind seeing it go above 1600-1800. This is how I normally grow, where I like to see it be. (I would get here earlier in flower if I did this again.).​

Next feeding I will boost N & K again, and go 10% stronger still. I'll do 10% runoff.​

Actual NPK ratio: 1.01-1-1.04 (719 ppm)​

Nov 15 (DAY 79)
18 hours after partial feeding


I took these photos before pouring the remainder of yesterday's feeding:
day 79 - all.JPG


1-3:
day 79 - 1-3.JPG


4-6:
day 79 - 4-6.JPG


Quite a few older/lower fan leaves are shedding. (To me, that's another good sign that the nutrients are in the right place. The plant's not maintaining leaves as stores of food. The leaves are limp and pale, not dried and squeezed of their last remaining nutrient.).

Feeding continued
I poured the remaining from 18 hours earlier. Runoff 1420ppm (10% runoff).

This feels better to me now. The ppms in the soil feel more like where I'd expect them to be (in the soil I usually grow in). They're remaining through 10% runoffs.

Next feeding: 10% stronger (with 10% runoff). The runoff ppms don't suggest I'm in a bad place. The plants seem to like it.

If this works like the soil I'm used to growing in, I should be able to have 1800ppm runoff. I hover at that range. 2000 would be the point I'd pull back. Lockout occurs in the 2200-2500 range.

So, I think I can go 10-20% stronger before this is over. I'd like to see 1600 runoff ppms, maybe 1800. It seems less risky now that I'm at 1420. I think I'm in that range where I can balance strength and runoff volume to be in the 1400-1800 range. A little stronger, I think.
 
az2000

az2000

Nov 16 (DAY 80)
Feeding (24-36 hour cycles now)

It's drinking faster now. It's been 30 hours since I last fed. It looks very good after that last stronger feeding. I'm going 15% stronger this time (795ppm not counting Amber Humic. Last time was 719).

I'm going to bump N & K higher (as a proportion). This might be the last time I bump N. I'd like to bump K even higher once. Maybe even P & K. A 1-2-2 ratio "booster." I don't think "boosters" do anything. But, sometimes I do it. I'm feeling like doing it this time.

Targeting 1.66-1-1.79 (795ppm. That's 15% stronger than last feeding's 719). Wetting the soil two hours before lights out. Pour remainder next morning.​
Potassium sulfate (0-0-50). Want 166ppm​
GrowMore Sea Grow All Purpose (16-16-16). Want 410ppm​
Pennington Alaska Fish (5-1-1). Want 190ppm​
Pennington Alaska Kelp (1-0-4.62). Want 21ppm (I just pour the volume 2mL/L and get whatever ppms I get. I don't try to get 21ppm.).​
GrowMore Amber Humic (none) 1.2mL/L. No labeled strength. Typically produces 20-25ppm. I just add the amount. I don't try to get a specific ppm.​
Starting water = 141ppm created with:​
108ppm tap & RO​
21ppm gypsum​
12ppm epsom​
Added 0.259g/L potassium sulfate for 178ppm increase​
Added 1.136g/L GrowMore Sea Grow All Purpose for 410ppm increase​
Added ?.?mL/L AK Fish for 225ppm increase (oops, added too much.)​
Added 2.0mL/L AK Kelp for 7ppm increase​
Note: I'm not sure why the kelp came out 1/3 the ppms it usually does.​
Added 1.2mL/L Amber Humic for 16ppm increase. Total increase over water: 820ppm (or 836 counting Amber Humic). Total ppm: 997​
1/4tsp/gal molasses (for the soil microbes)​
Runoff: 1550ppm (15% runoff, the next morning after lights were on 3 hours. I diluted nutrient strength 10% before pouring remainder for runoff.).​
Note: The last runoff was 1420 (the one before that was 1390. 1320 before that). I feel like I'm in the right range (strength poured in; runoff volume; and the persistence of ppms in the soil.). I wouldn't mind seeing 1600-1800. But, I wouldn't push it much now. (I think it should get there on its own. Or, would if I had fed stronger sooner; dialed it in sooner.).​
FEEDING STRENGTH: I think this feeding was too strong. The next morning, one bud (on #3) had some funky appearance. Like mixed deficiencies & burning. All the others looked fine. #3 has been more compact, dainty. Maybe it's hitting a limit with this amount of nutrients. Or, maybe night temperatures falling might be bringing out genetic colors. It was just one smaller bud (see next-day photo).​
I diluted the nutrient strength 10% lower (using RO water) before pouring the remainder. I also poured more through #3 in case it's getting more buildup in the soil.​
NEXT FEEDING: I think 720ppm (last feeding, not counting amber humic) to 750 might be a good place to be. I think 820 (not counting amber humic) is too much (or will be as it builds up in the soil faster with each feeding.). I think 720-750 will be a good place to be until the end, and using runoff volume to control it.​

One thing to keep in mind: I'm feeding more frequently now, which essentially is feeding stronger (more nutrients over time). 820ppm might have been ok when I was feeding every 48 hours.​

Actual NPK ratio: 1.72-1-1.83 (820 ppm)​


Nov 17 (DAY 81) -- SIXTH WEEK OF 12/12 BEGINS TONIGHT
Feeding continued....

As mentioned in the "runoff" section of the feeding yesterday (which didn't occur until this morning), one bud (on #3) looked unhealthy (mixed deficiencies, burning, overfed):
day 81 - 3 bad bud.JPG


That's a small bud from a lower branch which stretched up. (If I hadn't scrogged, it would be a popcorn bud. Scrogging made it more of a real bud. But, it's still small.). The other buds around it look better. I do have some tips showing stress, but I've seen that for awhile (more thoughts about that below).

When I saw that 12 hours after feeding (820ppm not counting Amber Humic; 15% stronger than the prior feeding 720ppm not counting Amber Humic), I thought that was evidence I was overfeeding. But, that's the only bud showing it The others show some mild tip stress.

Note about tip stress: I've wondered for awhile if I'm seeing some K def. The tips have been mixed signals concerning feeding strength. Lately I've wondered if it's due to the three different soils I planted into. (Seedling was very sandy and dried way too fast. The next pot up was improved, but still too-fast drying. The next pot up was heavier/slower drying. But, it only added 1" of soil to the bottom, and 1/4-1/2" around the sides.).​
I was thinking maybe the soil is drying unevenly. As the moisture reduces, the nutrients in the soil are stronger (less water in the soil to dilute into). I'm thinking that's why I've been having tip burn while the plants clearly wanted more food.).​

That bad bud could be genetics. #3 has always been compact and less vigorous. Maybe it eats less and has more salt buildup in the soil.

I've been having 10-degree drops in night temps (down to 68 degrees). Maybe that's bringing out some genetic colors (along with the age of flower).

But, I feel like I see mixed deficiencies in that bud (like K & P, and N). That sounds like soil acidity, ppms building up.

But, it's just that one bud (on that one plant.). I start to think it's K toxicity. That feeding bumped K up to 1.8. Googling that topic, some of what I see looks like it. But, other things don't. I've had tip stress for awhile which might indicate K def. But, I fed more K this time. It shouldn't have made the problem worse.

I settled upon the likely culprit being feeding too strongly. That's really the only thing that stands out. Next in line would be nighttime temps, and genetics (along with age of the flower). K def/tox is hard to determine when the tips have been showing signs for awhile. (I think what I've been seeing in that regard is the soil drying at different speeds (the core drying fast while an outer layer keeps it moderately wet longer. That would make the nutrients in that core strong, less dilute, for a longer time.).

These are the photos of the remaining buds:
day 81 - all.JPG


If you zoom in on the above photo, some of those yellowing fan leaves (especially top left area) look like K def to me. They are bright yellow from the edges to a bright green center. That makes me feel like I might do a PK boost next feeding. (The bad bud on #3 has hints of P def too. Purple edges.).

I don't mind the fan leaves fading out now. That's not bad, relatively normal. But, these look different to me. They don't look like the plant casting them aside as no longer beneficial. I feel like I see K def.

1-3:
day 81 - 1-3.JPG


4-6:
day 81 - 4-6.JPG


YESTERDAY'S FEEDING CONTINUED......
I diluted the remaining nutrient solution 10%. That makes it about like the last feeding strength. I poured more through #3 in case it's eating less, and having a soil buildup problem.

The runoff ppms were 1550 (15% volume). That looks good to me. I feel like the 720-750 ppm range is probably a good place to be (not counting Amber Humic). Feeding that strength, runoff volume would control how much it builds up in the soil.

I wouldn't mind touching 1600-1800 runoff ppm. I think lower runoff would cause it to get there in 2-3 feedings. But, the way the runoff ppms (and volume) are working, it feels like how I normally grow in my soil. Pushing a little on the strong side with more runoff to keep the soil in the 1400-1800 range. (I'm just nervous that the soil's different, and this one problem bud might be the first sign that it's not working the same way.).

NEXT FEEDINGS:
I'm going to be in the 720-750 range (not counting Amber Humic). Probably not experimenting with strength anymore.

I'd like to do mild bloom booster with NPK ratio 1-2.5-2.5. I was wanting to do that next, since this feeding was high N. (Then a 1-1-1 feeding -- Sea Grow only -- would replenish the nitrogen again. But, since that one bud looks odd, I'm nervous about doing anything unusual. I may feed 1-1-1 next, then the "boost" after that. (If I'm doing too much K, I hate to give more after this feeding was higher K.).

I'll see what it looks like tomorrow. I'll probably have to feed at lights out tomorrow (again, 36 hours. Which means I'm feeding stronger in terms of ppms per day. I need to keep that in mind too. That might be a reason to stay closer to 720ppm, or even less.).

HARVEST: I harvested the last experiment at 5 weeks plus 4 days. I did that deliberately early because I wanted to sample what's reported to be a more heady/uplifting high (when the trichomes are clear). Usually, I err on the side of waiting too long (too much amber). Last time I deliberately erred the other direction.

Last night was 5 weeks of 12/12. I imagine I'll harvest this one late 7th week, mid 8th. I probably have 5-8 feedings left.
 
Last edited:
az2000

az2000

Nov 18 (DAY 82)
Feeding

I've been thinking about doing a "bloom booster" feeding. To me, that would be NPK ratio 1-2.5-2.5 (fairly mild to many "lineup" schedules). I thought that might be safe since the last feeding was high N. That N would carry it through.

I've never really thought boosting P does anything. I do it sometimes, thinking it might. Over the past 3-4 years, I think I've seen an increasing consensus that plants need more N through flower, and K is good through the entire grow. P isn't what people think it is (with 0-50-30 "boosters" heavy P) . I've seen the Apogee meter guy (Bruce Bugsby?) say 2-1-2 ratio is good through the entire grow. But, I think he grows soilless. I've seen other things saying 1.2-1-2 is a good ratio in flower.

I've been doing 1-1-1.7 in veg, often varying it up to 1.8-1-1.7. In flower I'll do 1-1-1.7. K is always elevated that much. And then I play around with N as I see a need for more. I don't have a fixed ratio. I often add some Sea Grow Flower & Bloom (4-26-26) to boost P a little toward mid flower. Like 1-1.5-1.7. (K is always a constant). I might end at 1-2.1.7.

Anyway, I was reading more about this today (google) and saw ratio 1.16-1-2 recommended <<link. That kind of fits what I think I've seen playing around in the x-1-1.8 range, not seeing P do much. I usually don't go to x-1-2 with K unless I'm boosting P. I vary N because 1-1-1.7 doesn't seem to be enough (1-1-1 works fine through the entire grow. I've done that before. But, when boosting K, the amount of N is reduced proportionally. I've never tried to lock onto a particular ratio. I just add more N at times, but keep K around 1.6-1.8).

So, I think I'll target that 1.16-1-2 NPK ratio, and 715ppm strength (the last feeding was too strong at 820ppm). I think things were going well in the 650-700. 700-750 might be good. The only possible problem is that the plants are rootbound now, drinking fast. I'm feeding more frequently. That is its own form of being "stronger" (more ppms per week).

Potassium sulfate (0-0-50). Want 211ppm​
GrowMore Sea Grow All Purpose (16-16-16). Want 448ppm​
Pennington Alaska Fish (5-1-1). Want 45ppm​
Pennington Alaska Kelp (1-0-4.62). Want 11ppm (I just pour the volume 1mL/L and get whatever ppms I get. I don't try to get 21ppm.).​
GrowMore Amber Humic (none) 1.2mL/L. No labeled strength. Typically produces 20-25ppm. I just add the amount. I don't try to get a specific ppm.​
Starting water = 157ppm created with:​
157ppm tap & RO​
0ppm gypsum​
0ppm epsom​
Added 0.259g/L potassium sulfate for 215ppm increase​
Added 1.136g/L GrowMore Sea Grow All Purpose for 479ppm increase​
Note: I overshot this a little. I wanted 448ppm. I'll use less fish to makeup. The last feeding was higher N. So, there should be plenty available in the soil.​
Added ?.?mL/L AK Fish for 37ppm increase (oops, added too much.)​
Added 2.0mL/L AK Kelp for 5ppm increase​
Note: I'm not sure why the kelp came out 1/3 the ppms it usually does. That happened last feeding too.​
Added 1.2mL/L Amber Humic for 19ppm increase. Total increase over water: 736ppm (or 755 counting Amber Humic). Total ppm: 912​
Pinch (1/16tsp/gal) sugar (for the soil microbes)​
Runoff: 1680ppm (20% runoff.).​
Note: The last runoff was 1540 (the one before that was 1420. 1390 before that).​

I feel like I'm in the right strength (range) now. The runoff ppms are doing what I expect. I'll do 20% runoff again next feeding to make sure I don't overshoot 1800 (which I wouldn't mind seeing). I'm not sure if I need to go below 700ppm nutrient strength to prevent the runoff ppms from going too high (even with 20% runoff). I want to be a little careful right now. I think I'm in the zone where I can balance 700-750 & 20% runoff to stay in the 1600-1800 range. It would have been good to here a couple weeks earlier.​
If the plants look good tomorrow, I'll probably do this feeding again.

Nov 20 (DAY 84)
Feeding

That last feeding did well. I'm going to target the same 1.16-1-2 NPK ratio, but less strength (690ppm. The last feeding was 736ppm. That seemed like a good strength. But, I'm feeding more frequently because the plants are drinking more. And, the runoff ppms are rising, and approaching my limit for when I would reduce nutrient strength and/or pour more runoff to "flush" a little more. I'm making this feeding a little weaker in case the runoff ppms are going higher than I'd like.).

Potassium sulfate (0-0-50). Want 199ppm​
GrowMore Sea Grow All Purpose (16-16-16). Want 432ppm​
Pennington Alaska Fish (5-1-1). Want 39ppm​
Pennington Alaska Kelp (1-0-4.62). Want 21ppm (I just pour the volume 2mL/L and get whatever ppms I get. I don't try to get 21ppm.).​
GrowMore Amber Humic (none) 1.2mL/L. No labeled strength. Typically produces 20-25ppm. I just add the amount. I don't try to get a specific ppm.​
Starting water = 125ppm created with:​
108ppm tap & RO​
12ppm gypsum​
5ppm epsom​
Added 0.312g/L potassium sulfate for 210ppm increase​
Added 1.087g/L GrowMore Sea Grow All Purpose for 425ppm increase​
Added ?.?mL/L AK Fish for 38ppm increase​
Added 2.0mL/L AK Kelp for 11ppm increase​
Added 1.2mL/L Amber Humic for 22ppm increase. Total increase over water: 684ppm (or 706 counting Amber Humic). Total ppm: 831​
Pinch (1/16tsp/gal) sugar (for the soil microbes)​
Runoff: 1540ppm (16% runoff.).​
Note: The last runoff was 1680 (the one before that was 1540. 1420 before that.).​
I still think this is a good strength range (690-740). The runoff ppms are staying high with large'ish runoff volume. They didn't continue higher after the last feeding (the runoff volume cleared it out). I think 720-740 would be good.​
Actual NPK: 1.15-1-2.05 (684ppm)​
I'll probably do this feeding again next time.

Nov 21 (DAY 85)
24 hours after feeding

Plants 1-3:
day 85 - 1-3.JPG


Plants 4-6:
day 85 - 4-6.JPG


All:
day 85 - all.JPG


I think they have a week or two left. I'm still thinking about hitting them once with NPK ratio 1-2.5-2.5 (my idea of a "booster," mild compared to some feeding schedules which do get up into the 1-5-4 range).

The nutrient strength in the 690-740 range seems correct. The runoff ppms are hanging around the 1400-1600 range now (with amble runoff not washing it away too much). The soil is drying faster now. I'm feeding more frequently. So, the strength is increasing that way (in terms of ppms per week). But, 720 seems good. As long as there's 10% runoff (more if the runoff ppms climb above 1800).

Red leaf edges
Back on Day 81<<link I posted a photo of a bud on plant #3 with red leaf edges.

Googling about that, I saw some examples which looked exactly like it, and were said to be molybdenum deficiency. Probably due to soil pH being too low, locking out that mineral. The pH is probably too low due to #3 being diminutive the entire grow, probably not eating as much, and unused nutrients accumulating in the soil more than the other plants.

This is a photo of it today. You can see it better than four days ago. (If anyone wants to use this on a diagnosis page, examples of deficiencies, etc, they're more than welcome to):
day 85 - bad bud.JPG


Some of the other buds for that plant (only) have it now. I'm not worrying about it. I'm going to pour more runoff through #3 next time. One site suggest that Mo deficiency could be related to not enough P. That's what's caused me to think about doing a mild "booster" once.

Next experiment grow
This grow should be done within 2 weeks. I'm going to do another:
  • 2x2 tent
  • One feminized Northern Storm Auto
  • 3gal container.
  • SunGro Black Gold Natural & Organic potting mix (Espoma Bio Tone mixed in, for its bacteria stuff. Seems to be loaded.).
  • Jack's Classic (20-20-20).
  • Summit 150 CMH light.
I've never used that soil (nor the tone), nor the fertilizer, nor the light. I want to see how that works. (I don't think I'll fool around with NPK ratios. I'll just feed the 1-1-1 ratio all the way through, unless it has deficiencies.). I'm doing some pH and dry-time tests with the soil now.
 
Last edited:
az2000

az2000

Nov 21 (DAY 85) continued...
Feeding

I had to feed again before lights out (and the remainder the next morning.). This feeding was essentially the same as the last one. Actual NPK ratio came out: 1.16-1-1.96 (720 ppm made from water: 153; K2SO4: 211; Sea grow: 457; fish: 47; kelp: 5ppm. Amber Humic added another 17.).

Runoff: 1820ppm (20% runoff. This was the next morning.).​
Note: The last runoff was 1680 (the one before that was 1540. 1420 before that.).​
At this point, I would start backing off the nutrient strength. Especially if I did 720'ish ppm strength again with 20% runoff, and the runoff ppm went higher. If it went above 2000, I'd go to half-strength and 20% runoff (or more).​

However: I poured more of this feednig's runoff through #3 (the plant showing some Mo deficiency). That could be where the higher ppms came from. That plant has been smaller, compact. I suspect it's not eating as much as the others & getting more buildup in the soil (which would acidify the soil, causing Mo to be locked out, among other things.). I used my soil pH probe when I first saw the red leaf edges. It looked to be in a good range.​

So, I still think this is a good strength range (680-730) with 10-20% runoff volume. I need to see what the next runoff ppm is (maybe this one flushed it out better, and it will go back to 1600'ish). I'll make the next feeding closer to 680 and 20% in case the runoff comes out higher again.​

Nov 22 (DAY 86)
Feeding continued...

I completed yesterday's feeding. Runoff 1820ppm (20% volume).

Nov 23 (DAY 87)
Feeding

Since the last feeding's runoff touched 1800ppm, it seems like this would be a good time to try the mild "booster." (If the plants don't want the higher PK, there should be amble N in the soil to tide it over to the next feeding.). I'm going to target 1-2.36-2.44 NPK ratio, a little weaker (701ppm. The last feeding was 720ppm and NPK ratio: 1.15-1-2.05.).

GrowMore Sea Grow All Purpose (16-16-16). Want 280ppm​
GrowMore Sea Grow Flower & Bloom (46-26-26) Want 400ppm​
Pennington Alaska Kelp (1-0-4.62). Want 21ppm (I just pour the volume 2mL/L and get whatever ppms I get. I don't try to get 21ppm.).​
GrowMore Amber Humic (none) 1.2mL/L. No labeled strength. Typically produces 20-25ppm. I just add the amount. I don't try to get a specific ppm.​
Starting water = 147ppm created with:​
122ppm tap & RO​
11ppm gypsum​
14ppm epsom​
Added 0.707g/L GrowMore Sea Grow All Purpose for 280ppm increase​
Added 0.96g/L GrowMore Sea Grow Flower & Bloom for 390ppm increase​
Added 2.0mL/L AK Kelp for 12ppm increase​
Added 1.2mL/L Amber Humic for 17ppm increase. Total increase over water: 682ppm (or 699 counting Amber Humic). Total ppm: 846​
1/2 tsp/gal molasses (for the soil microbes)​
Runoff: 1810ppm (18% runoff.).​
Note: The last runoff was 1820 (the one before that was 1540. 1680 before that.).​
I still think this is a good strength range (690-740). The runoff ppms are staying high with large'ish runoff volume.​
Since runoff is staying at 1800+, I might do 650-670 next time. I'm a little nervous that plants 1-3 might not be eating as much as 4-6. They might have higher runoff (which would acidify their soil, reducing nutrient availability). I think I'll go a little weaker and pour more runoff through them next feeding. (I should put individual saucers under them to check their actual runoff. If I weren't lazy, I would.).​
Actual NPK: 1-2.35-2.4 (682ppm)​

Nov 24 (DAY 88) -- SEVENTH WEEK OF 12/12 BEGINS TONIGHT
Feeding continued...

Finished pouring yesterday's "booster." Runoff was 1810 ppm (18% volume).

I feel like the "booster" (NPK ratio 1-2.4-2.4) did something. I think I see a burst of white pistils again. I've also been smelling more sulfur/terpine odors.

Nov 25 (DAY 89)
24 hours after feeding.

I took these photos 24 hours after that last pour. Plants 1-3:
day 89 - 1-3.JPG


Plants 4-6:
day 89 - 4-6.JPG


All:
day 89 - all.JPG


Again, the left side isn't as stellar. There are a couple large buds. I think #2's two main colas are what I see as trophy-quality. There's one in the back that is gigantic. (You can't see it in that last photo. It's seen in the first photo.).

Buds under the net
Back when I changed to 12/12 lighting, I was tucking the stretch. The last tuck (or two) I mentioned how I was worried I wouldn't know when to stop tucking. A few days later I posted that I felt some significant buds were tucked under, and didn't stretch up.

Yesterday I was laying on my back looking for dead lives ready to remove from the bottom of the plants. I saw some of those buds that I tucked and left under the net. They're pretty large. I can't get a good look. They're in the back. Those will be interesting to harvest. They haven't had much light, but have grown a lot.

Defoliating under the net
Back when I decided to scrog this grow (halfway in veg?), I thought I read some things saying all growth beneath the net should be removed. I cringe at that sort of thing. I didn't remove anything.

Looking back on that (1st day of week 7 of 12/12 lighting; maybe a week or two to go?): if I did this again, I think I would defoliate beneath the net. There are quite a few bud sites under the net which aren't going anywhere, and probably sapping the more productive bud sites.

I have cut off a few the past week or two, to sample/smoke. But, there's still a lot there. (I think it's been too late to defoliate for the past 4-6 weeks. The stress now of cutting off a lot might hurt more than help.).

PPMS (again)!
I've been using five meters during this grow, comparing their readings:

1. HM EZ-TDS calibrated to 1000 NaCl. I use that for runoff. But, been reading the water/nutrient solution too for comparison to other meters.
2. Worldoor (ASIN: B007VK4YY0). This is an inexpensive no-name pen. I've used it for 2-3 years. It holds its calibration very well. Very stable/reliable. However, when the strength starts reaching 400ppm, the readout tends to jump in units of 4ppm. At 600ppm, it jumps 20ppm. Very coarse measurements at higher ppm levels.
3. HM TDS-4. I'm not liking that one much.
4. Membrane Solutions (ASIN: B07R58VQWJ on Amazon). This is really a fantastic bargain! $10USD and it displays microsiemens (conductivity).
5. HM COM-100. This is a different league than the above ($55). I like it. It seems to cover a larger range of PPMs while remaining accurate (as it goes further from the calibration level. All but #1 are calibrated 342 NaCl. They start to under-report ppms when they reach 500-600. (#1 over-reports at the lower levels. But, it's calibrated for 1000ppm. That's a different scenario.).

Anyway, my favorite two are the Membrane Solutions (MS) and the COM-100. They both display microsiemens conductivity.

The MS meter stands out as a fantastic bargain, considering that it displays conductivity for 1/5th the price. They both track each other fairly closely until 450-500ppm. The MS starts under-reporting. But, compared to #2 & 3, it doesn't deviate nearly as much. The deviation isn't as pronounced as #2 & 3 as the solution strength goes to 700-800. It appears the MS meter has some intelligence in it, or a non-linear scale. (Again, a bargain for $10USD.). I was thinking I'd buy two. Calibrate them to 342 & 1000. Use them both, see how their *average* could be used to balance each other (in between those two ends of the strength spectrum).

My next grow, I think I'm going to use just those (HM COM-100, and the inexpensive MS), and track conductivity only. That would be interesting to develop a sense of how each fertilizer product adds conductivity (in terms of 1g/L, or 1mL/L).

I calculate the expected PPMs based upon the "% of weight" info on the fertilizer label. The only thing that's really accurate is the conductivity that results from producing [some amount of] calculated PPMs. The meters displaying PPMs is hogwash. They're converting conductivity to some perfect world "if the solution were entirely NaCl... it would be this many ppms for conducivity I'm seeing." I don't really need that. It's a layer of innacuracy. Depending which meter you use, you'll see a different lie. (Calculating PPMs isn't exact either. The "% of weight" info is a minimum guarantee. It's not exact. But, there's no reason to add another layer of guessing to the measurement of the mixed solution. The only thing that's relatively accurate is the microsiemens. That can be correlated to a product's calculated ppms. Tracked in a spreadsheet to understand a "conversion factor" for that particular product.).

So, I'm adding a microsiemens value to my spreadsheet (with the calculated PPMs). I'm going to focus more on that the next grow, see how the calculated microsiemens compare to measured. Maybe have a custom "factor" for each product I use based upon what I measure over time. Eventually I could say "this much product mixed in this quantity of water should produce this (calculated) PPM, and this (observed) conductivity. I could get out of the whole PPM measurement nonsense (which is exactly what it is), but still have a guide for making sense of combining products. Be able to talk in terms of PPMs (calculated), and what that relates to in terms of observable conductivity.
 
Last edited:
az2000

az2000

Nov 26 (DAY 90)
Feeding.

That last feeding was a mild 1-2.4-2.4 ratio "bloom booster." It might have helped. It definitely didn't hurt. I was able to go almost 48 hours before feeding again. They didn't seem to drink as fast after that "booster" feeding.

I'm going back to 1.16-1-2 NPK ratio, but less strength (653ppm. The last "booster" feeding was 682ppm, and I got 1800+ runoff ppm. The feeding before that was 720 & 1800+ ppm runoff. [Note: I don't think I accurately filled in that info when posting that feeding's details on Day 84-85]). The 1800 runoff makes me nervous that it could still be going higher. So, I'll target 653, and pour some good volume again. I'd like to see it go lower just to confirm that I have some control over it (not overshooting it).

Potassium sulfate (0-0-50). Want 190ppm​
GrowMore Sea Grow All Purpose (16-16-16). Want 404ppm​
Pennington Alaska Fish (5-1-1). Want 41ppm​
Pennington Alaska Kelp (1-0-4.62). Want 19ppm (I just pour the volume 2mL/L and get whatever ppms I get. I don't try to get 21ppm.).​
GrowMore Amber Humic (none) 1.2mL/L. No labeled strength. Typically produces 20-25ppm. I just add the amount. I don't try to get a specific ppm.​
Starting water = 145ppm created with:​
123ppm tap & RO​
13ppm gypsum​
9ppm epsom​
Added 0.307g/L potassium sulfate for 192ppm increase​
Added 1.092g/L GrowMore Sea Grow All Purpose for 396ppm increase​
Added ?.?mL/L AK Fish for 50ppm increase​
Added 2.0mL/L AK Kelp for 12ppm increase​
Added 1.2mL/L Amber Humic for 19ppm increase. Total increase over water: 650ppm (or 669 counting Amber Humic). Total ppm: 814​
no sugar (for the soil microbes)​
Runoff: 1640ppm (25% runoff. Most of the runoff went through plants #1-3. I've worried they might not be eating as much, and getting more buildup. I poured 20% through 1-3. Maybe 15% through 4-6.).​
Note: The last runoff was 1810 (the one before that was 1820. 1540 before that.).​
I'm glad to see the runoff ppms dip back to 1600+. I'm sure the 700 range of 660-740 is a good place to be, using runoff volume to wash out more/less unused salts.
Actual NPK: 1.2-1-2.03 (650 ppm)​

Nov 27 (DAY 91)
Feeding.

I wasn't able to make it till the next morning. I poured a little 2 hours prior to lights out. The remainder the next morning (2 hours after lights on).

Targetting 1.18-1-2.02 NPK ratio, but a little stronger (693ppm, last one was 650). The last runoff (1640 after the prior two 1800+) makes me feel good that I'm in the right range.​
Potassium sulfate (0-0-50). Want 199ppm​
GrowMore Sea Grow All Purpose (16-16-16). Want 428ppm​
Pennington Alaska Fish (5-1-1). Want 45ppm​
Pennington Alaska Kelp (1-0-4.62). Want 19ppm (I just pour the volume 2mL/L and get whatever ppms I get. I don't try to get 21ppm.).​
GrowMore Amber Humic (none) 1.2mL/L. No labeled strength. Typically produces 20-25ppm. I just add the amount. I don't try to get a specific ppm.​
Starting water = 144ppm created with:​
117ppm tap & RO​
12ppm gypsum​
15ppm epsom​
Added 0.309g/L potassium sulfate for 204ppm increase​
Added 1.200g/L GrowMore Sea Grow All Purpose for 418ppm increase​
Added ?.?mL/L AK Fish for 35ppm increase​
Added 2.0mL/L AK Kelp for 16ppm increase​
Added 1.2mL/L Amber Humic for 16ppm increase. Total increase over water: 673ppm (or 689 counting Amber Humic). Total ppm: 833​
no sugar (for the soil microbes)​
Runoff: 1690ppm (22% runoff. Poured the next morning. I poured more runoff through plants #1-3. I've worried they might not be eating as much, and getting more buildup. The last runoff was 1640 (the one before that was 1810. 1820 before that.).​
Based upon the pms remaining in the 1600-1700 range, I'm sure the 700 range of 660-740 is a good place to be, using runoff volume to wash out more/less unused salts. (Or, feeding lower in that range with less runoff.). That was probably a good range the last 4 weeks. It now has 1-2 weeks left. I bet it will need less food. I may need to be 640-680 with fair runoff from now on. To me, the runoff ppms will tell me. I'll probably stay around 680 for now. See what the runoff is.).​
Actual NPK: 1.14-1-2.06 (673 ppm)​

Nov 28 (DAY 92)
Feeding continued...

Poured the remainder. Runoff 1690ppm (22% runoff).

Nov 29 (DAY 93)
24 hours after feeding

I took these photos:

Plants 1-3:
day 93 - 1-3.JPG


There is an enormous bud in the back, against the back wall (in the center of the photo). It's about 4" wide near the screen.

All the buds at the rear & front are the main two colas (after topping). All the buds in the middle are lower branches that grew up when the main colas were spread out vertically. I'm still unclear about how to scrog. I read that all the lower growth (beneath the screen) should be removed. But, a lot of that grew up and filled the middle of the space.

One thing I've been noticing: The buds at the front and back (and the few that are beneath the screen) look much healthier than the middle leaves. I'm wondering if I've had the lights too close. I was shooting for 600-900 ppfd. The meter said the lights weren't too strong. But, I get the feeling that the buds further from the light don't look as stressed. I'm wondering if I was having light stress.

4-6:
day 93 - 4-6.JPG


I took another photo of the red bud. It's turned maroon:
day 93 - bad bud.JPG


Those maroon areas were rosy when it started. I still don't know if this is genetic, or if is Mo-def from salt-buildup in the soil (due to plant #3 being compact and not eating as much, leading to lockout of that plant more than others.). You can see some of the other buds (same plant) have it a little. They had it a little when I posted the first photo. I don't think it's progressed. It's just "matured," looking deeper red.

HARVEST
Still no amber trichomes. I figure another 7-10 days. I think I'll do another ratio 1-2.4-2.4 "booster." I think the last one helped a little. There seemed to be a burst of pistils after that. Maybe I'll get another burst.

When I harvest this, I'll start my next experiment (using Black Gold Natural Organic potting mix (0.05-0-0); Espoma Bio-tone starter; Summit 150 CMA; Jack's Classic (20-20-20)). The ph of that soil seems stable around 6.2-6.4 (using my Control Wizard soil probe). I'm debating not adding dolomite. I've never not used dolomite. Never had bad experiences using 1-2Tbsp/gal until growing in the cactus mix. Now I'm nervous using it when the BG NO potting mix seems about right. Just worried it won't hold through the entire grow (and worried adding dolomite will raise the pH too much).
 
Top Bottom