Deficiency or nute burn?

MustGro

Well-Known Member
everything is stable as a big rock, havent seen any drift in pH since many weeks which is really bad as normally ph should increase
Carbonates and bicarbonate in your source water will buffer ph and keep it from moving. Your tap water is probably high in at least one of them. They aren’t supposed to be super good for yield, that’s why people run reverse osmosis, but it’ll be fine for us now. The co2 could go off too, like @rkymtnman said. We’ll keep simplifying things until she gets healthy. Give us the pic of that fourth bottle and how about the name of the nutes. There’s got to be a web site we could check for mixing ratios.
 

shortarker99

Well-Known Member
Carbonates and bicarbonate in your source water will buffer ph and keep it from moving. Your tap water is probably high in at least one of them. They aren’t supposed to be super good for yield, that’s why people run reverse osmosis, but it’ll be fine for us now. The co2 could go off too, like @rkymtnman said. We’ll keep simplifying things until she gets healthy. Give us the pic of that fourth bottle and how about the name of the nutes. There’s got to be a web site we could check for mixing ratios.
This is C.

Let me find the instructions and translate them
 

Attachments

rkymtnman

Well-Known Member
here is some homework for you:

here is your target goal in ppms. 100N-100P-200K-60Mg

there is a nute calculator at the bottom of this: fill in your %'s of NPKMg etc and try to come close to the 100/100/200/60

 

shortarker99

Well-Known Member
Let me say it I consider these instructions pretty useless

Pretty self explanatory:
Seedlings : 300 - 750 ppm
Vegetative: 750 - 1200 ppm
Flower: 750 - 1500 ppm

This ranges are fucking high in my opinion
1631230898621.png

Then, it says how to put each nutrient:
Basically shake and put 5 ml / 2 l water (which is a lot, i put 30 ml A for 60 liters)

1631231032579.png

Finally:

In seedling, 50% recommended dosage
Vegetative: A+B+D
Flowering: A+C+D
1631231120826.png
 

MustGro

Well-Known Member
wow! those numbers would melt the leaves on my plants. that's crazy high 3EC in flower????? no way.
Some nute companies are like that. When I ran the gen hydro line they got up to 1650 ppm in week 5 of flower (3.3ec). With the FloraNova as a base I used to run up as high as 1750 in flower and never burned a tip. Stupid I know but some companies call for real high numbers in their charts.
 

rkymtnman

Well-Known Member
Some nute companies are like that. When I ran the gen hydro line they got up to 1650 ppm in week 5 of flower (3.3ec). With the FloraNova as a base I used to run up as high as 1750 in flower and never burned a tip. Stupid I know but some companies call for real high numbers in their charts.
i'm at high elevation so i can't run anywhere near those #s. (8800 ft/ about 2900m)
 

MustGro

Well-Known Member
i'm at high elevation so i can't run anywhere near those #s. (8800 ft/ about 2900m)
I don’t do it anymore either since I got myself educated on RIU. Waste of money and the plants are happier without it.
Right at sea level though so I guess that helped.
 

shortarker99

Well-Known Member
try that nute calculator out. something like B and C you might need only like 0.5mL per gallon of water.
Did my homework
First table is 1-1-1-1 relation
Second table is with adjusted factors to match this ratio: 122-99-171-68
1631235334355.png

So the factors are 0.6 - 0.15 - 0.2 - 0.5 which translates into 4 A/1 B/ 1.33 C/ 3.33 D. Seems legit?
1631235137546.png

Below the pictures of the calculator. Put 3.78 ml to convert to liters, Cant get used to gallons even though I work in oil and gas lol
Part A
1631235437997.png
Part B
1631235478377.png
Part C
1631235486352.png
Part D
1631235495422.png
 

Attachments

rkymtnman

Well-Known Member
what I mean is if the amount of calcium and sulfur that results from that combination is OK (orange column)
View attachment 4983712
well done!!

that should be a really good ratio of everything. you want about a 2:1 ratio of Ca;Mg so you are close. Su should be fine too.

let's see what happens with that mix. and keep your CO2 at 400 for now. it will take a few days but you should start to see improvement soon.
 

shortarker99

Well-Known Member
Holy shit, it seems those % were really bad and that the seller doesn't know the difference between quantity and concetration.

So, apparently these are the good PPM for each component
1631286041236.png
I play a bit with some salt components to try to recreate the salts they use to double check the PPM table they provide.

Using this picture and the table below:
1631285730778.png

NameNombreFormulaMolar massNitrogenPhosphorousPotassiumMagnesiumCalciumSulfur
Calcium NItrateNitrato de calcioCa(NO3)2164.088 g/mol
28​
40​
Ammonium nitrateNitrato de amonioNH₄NO₃80.043 g/mol
28​
Epson SaltSulfato de Magnesio (Epson)Mg SO₄·7H₂O.246.48 g/mol
24​
32​
Pottasium NItrateNitrato de PotasioKNO3101.1032 g/mol
14​
39​
Potassium monobasic phosphateFosfato MonopotasicoKH2PO436.086 g/mol
31​
39​
Potassium dibasic phosphateFosfato dipotasicoK2HPO4174.2 g/mol
31​
68​
Potassium sulfateSulfato potásicoK2SO4174.259 g/mol
68​
32​
Diammonium phosphateFosfato diamonico(NH4)2HPO4132.06 g/mol
28​
31​
A: is Calcium Nitrate for sure and it matches the ratio

B1 & B2: I have no idea, i suspect they use Potassium nitrate & Potassium Monobasic but i cannot match the 425 ppm potassium, so im not really sure those numbers are OK

C1 and C2: potassium Sulfate (As there is present sulfur) and a mix of Potassium Monobasic/Dibasic Phosphate (To match K quantity)

D1: Epson salt for sure (matchs Mg/S relation) D2: rest of microcomponents which is not high priority for me right now

Upper table are the PPM of the solutions, lower table the factors to reach the golden ratio. Cannot get P higher as C

--

So, with these new numbers, these are the new factors, it seems difficult to get high P. As B has lot of K it goes beyond 200 easily so no sense on using it.

1631286427419.png

Really different from the other calculation and now I realize why I had nitrogen toxicity in previous runs during flowering.

I will wait if the seller wants to give me the recipe he used for B.

Your thoughts? Really appreciate your help guys, thank you
 

Attachments

shortarker99

Well-Known Member
If i simulate with those number the relation 1A-1B-1D i was using this are the results
1631287480966.png

So this appear to be very low P, which should't be a big concern in veg but also low K

Looking for K deficiency:


1631287550256.png
1631287562674.png

-----------------------------------------------------
Look again at my baby

1631287596839.png

And this is a coco one of mine, which has same problems

1631287710465.png


Maybe those PPM numbers are OK and i have K deficiency?
 

MustGro

Well-Known Member
If i simulate with those number the relation 1A-1B-1D i was using this are the results
View attachment 4983992

So this appear to be very low P, which should't be a big concern in veg but also low K

Looking for K deficiency:


View attachment 4983993
View attachment 4983994

-----------------------------------------------------
Look again at my baby



And this is a coco one of mine, which has same problems




Maybe those PPM numbers are OK and i have K deficiency?
I see what you’re saying, but those pics don‘t look K deficient to me. The leaf edges usually get burnt looking, not the whole leaf. You’d see a K deficiency in the new growth too. Here’s a pic of a K deficient plant of mine.
 

Attachments

rkymtnman

Well-Known Member
If i simulate with those number the relation 1A-1B-1D i was using this are the results
View attachment 4983992

So this appear to be very low P, which should't be a big concern in veg but also low K

Looking for K deficiency:


View attachment 4983993
View attachment 4983994

-----------------------------------------------------
Look again at my baby

View attachment 4983995

And this is a coco one of mine, which has same problems

View attachment 4983996


Maybe those PPM numbers are OK and i have K deficiency?
i'm still almost positive it was nute burn which led to nute lockout.
 
Top