effexxess
- 70
- 33
Can you tldr it for us?Medical Cannabis recommended N, P, K levels from Volcani Center research:
N veg: Response of Medical Cannabis to Nitrogen Supply Under Long Photoperiod (2020)
P veg: Response of medical cannabis genotypes to P supply under long photoperiod: Functional phenotyping and the ionome (2021)
K veg: Response of Medical Cannabis Genotypes to K Supply Under Long Photoperiod (2019)
N flower: Nitrogen supply affects cannabinoid and terpenoid profile in medical cannabis ( Flowering phase 2021)
P flower: The Highs and Lows of P Supply in Medical Cannabis: Effects on Cannabinoids, the Ionome, and Morpho-Physiology (2021)
K flower: Effect of Potassium (K) Supply on Cannabinoids, Terpenoids and Plant Function in Medical Cannabis (2022)
Just started looking. Sounds like bloom nutes and flushing are a good thing again.Medical Cannabis recommended N, P, K levels from Volcani Center research:
N veg: Response of Medical Cannabis to Nitrogen Supply Under Long Photoperiod (2020)
P veg: Response of medical cannabis genotypes to P supply under long photoperiod: Functional phenotyping and the ionome (2021)
K veg: Response of Medical Cannabis Genotypes to K Supply Under Long Photoperiod (2019)
N flower: Nitrogen supply affects cannabinoid and terpenoid profile in medical cannabis ( Flowering phase 2021)
P flower: The Highs and Lows of P Supply in Medical Cannabis: Effects on Cannabinoids, the Ionome, and Morpho-Physiology (2021)
K flower: Effect of Potassium (K) Supply on Cannabinoids, Terpenoids and Plant Function in Medical Cannabis (2022)
So this is from the first paper:
We report that the morpho-physiological function under long photoperiod in medical cannabis is optimal at 160 mgL−1 N supply, and significantly lower under 30 mgL−1 N, with visual deficiency symptoms, and 75 and 25% reduction in plant biomass and photosynthesis rate, respectively.
View attachment 1282294
That's interesting info, although I have not read the whole study(s)
160 mg/L = 160PPM, right?
Not sure what the -1 means after the L in the paper. It’s a -1 exponent. Never seen it expressed that way.I checked and you’re right, 1 mg/L = 1 ppm
A negative exponent shows that a base is on the denominator side of the fraction line. In other words, the negative exponent rule tells us that a number with a negative exponent should be put to the denominator, and vice versa. For example, when you see x^-3, it actually stands for 1/x^3.Not sure what the -1 means after the L in the paper. It’s a -1 exponent. Never seen it expressed that way.
Dont take this as fact… its only my best guess that the low N leads to smaller buds and more concentrated cannabinoids. I have never posted this thought before but i do (as off the wall as it sounds) feel like the environmental stress of crop steering, UV etc. excluding PGRs that show an increase in cannabinoids is due to the tighter more compact and smaller buds as a result we see this increase."The plants were grown under five N treatments of 30, 80, 160, 240, and 320 mg L−1 (ppm) under environmentally controlled conditions. The results revealed that N supply affects cannabinoid and terpenoid metabolism, supporting the hypothesis. The concentrations of most cannabinoids and terpenoids tested were highest under the deficient concentration of 30 mg L−1 N and declined with the elevation of N supply."
HAHA i never take anything as fact man. More N should absolutely make bigger buds. Just saying, the articles seem to support bloom nutes and flushing. I haven't read it all yet.Dont take this as fact… its only my best guess that the low N leads to smaller buds and more concentrated cannabinoids. I have never posted this thought before but i do (as off the wall as it sounds) feel like the environmental stress of crop steering, UV etc. excluding PGRs that show an increase in cannabinoids is due to the tighter more compact and smaller buds as a result we see this increase.
like i said until now i kinda kept this to myself as i have 0 evidence of such but i just cant seem to shake that gut feeling
lol i know ya don’t… thats why i pay close attention to information and the observations you post. its one of the best sources of anecdotal evidence on the site because its just as you see it. Honestly you and Mimed who hasent been around in some time are the 2 best sources of observation i see. Not that there is not a shot load of others also but you too really just call it the way you see it and it sticks out to me is allHAHA i never take anything as fact man. More N should absolutely make bigger buds. Just saying, the articles seem to support bloom nutes and flushing. I haven't read it all yet.
I'm just too old to care who agrees or not. hahalol i know ya don’t… thats why i pay close attention to information and the observations you post. its one of the best sources of anecdotal evidence on the site because its just as you see it. Honestly you and Mimed who hasent been around in some time are the 2 best sources of observation i see. Not that there is not a shot load of others also but you too really just call it the way you see it and it sticks out to me is all
Nitrogen, Veg Cycle.Can you tldr it for us?
Why no just write it ml/L then? So 160 mgL-1 is 160 mg/L, right? Is this a European thing or something like that?A negative exponent shows that a base is on the denominator side of the fraction line. In other words, the negative exponent rule tells us that a number with a negative exponent should be put to the denominator, and vice versa. For example, when you see x^-3, it actually stands for 1/x^3.
That really depends on what you are putting in already.Asuming that these scientist were right with their findings, is the use of PK Boosters in flower superflous? (Or has it always been even before that study?)
Asuming I would use the amounts they conclude in the study (for flower): N160-P60-K60..... PK Boosters would add a serious quantity to those amounts of P and K in the study and therefore contradict their study.That really depends on what you are putting in already.
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?