Jacks 321 Nitrogen Toxicity Week 2 Flower Help

Kassiopeija

Kassiopeija

Well-Known Member
Wastei said:
Since I only talk nonsense?
Click to expand...
where did I say that? :confused:
are you in a bad mood today Sir or what's up?
that troll crew above (Not: you) throws emoji's cross-forum wide to just about anybody and even get people banned so I don't know why everybody is instantly so butt-hurt when I have to laugh when I read some complete garbage

just dont take it personal
I'm more concerned about newbies reading up on these threads being led astray
 
twentyeight.threefive

twentyeight.threefive

Well-Known Member
Dr.Strain said:
I can say that iv seen a lot of plants push through nitrogen toxicity during flower but it has always resulted in stunted growth and smaller buds. Nitrogen will reduce or lock out the amount of potassium and calcium n your plant and from there more problems could arise if the issue isn't correct or balanced

can you reduce the strength of the nutes to 1/2 after a flush? You might notice positive results.
Click to expand...
Nitrogen doesn't lock out calcium.
 
twentyeight.threefive

twentyeight.threefive

Well-Known Member
Currently feeding Jack's in early flower and have been since late veg at 87.5% of full strength and 3.15/1.9/1.54 ratio. I've had to lower Part B and increase Epsom Salts for these plants requirements.

Every strain and/or pheno is going to have varied nutritional requirements and you will have to adjust you feed based on it's needs.
 
lusidghost

lusidghost

Well-Known Member
Kassiopeija said:
@lusidghost
View attachment 5107630

You always believe the crap they write on Amazon :lol:
Click to expand...
I’m not arguing that point. I’m saying you’re a try hard with no substance other than to troll and feel intelligent in the name of noob herding or whatever.

Dude is boosting his plants with “The Mad Farmer’s M.O.A.B. (Mother of All Blooms)” on top of Jack’s. You don’t need to call Lady Cleo to figure that out.
 
Wastei

Wastei

Well-Known Member
Kassiopeija said:
where did I say that? :confused:
are you in a bad mood today Sir or what's up?
that troll crew above (Not: you) throws emoji's cross-forum wide to just about anybody and even get people banned so I don't know why everybody is instantly so butt-hurt when I have to laugh when I read some complete garbage

just dont take it personal
I'm more concerned about newbies reading up on these threads being led astray
Click to expand...
Agree to disagree, you got a lot of things coming out of your ass without any proof, anecdotal evidence or real world data to backup your claims. That's talking garbage out of your ass if anything.

I can post an article but I'm in no sense supporting any data without my own experience or work in the subject matter. You read an article and think you're an instant expert of the subject, that's why people can't stand your rhetoric.

I advice you to leave and come back when you got some real experience and something positive to contribute to the community. You only talk in theoretical terms which tells me you lack real world experience.
 
bk78

bk78

Well-Known Member
Wastei said:
@Kassiopeija is the forum troll who doesn't grow. Take anything he says or post with a grain of salt.

He seems to think he's above everyone else. He must have no personal hobbies or interest when he posts everyday on a growing forum without actually growing himself. He's not helping anybody out by doing theoretical guess work.
Click to expand...

I think it’s a she
 
Kassiopeija

Kassiopeija

Well-Known Member
xtsho said:
It seems odd that there isn't any N in that NPK as monoammonium phosphate is listed in the ingredients and ranges from 10-12% N levels. 0-52-32 is straight monopotassium phosphate. Monoammonium phosphate is usually 12-61-0. Something seems off with that label.
Click to expand...
yeah the one declaration takes the NPK from MAmP and the other from MPK, but
both are just ingredients.
it hints at having some micros though that could be impurities, as well as toxic heavy-metal ones which MPK is famous for.
typical grower fake product can't even mount an own lab analysis
though most of it should be P & K, these alone can throw a well-balanced mix out of bounds and locked plants display both def & tox symptoms
 
G

goroth

Member
lusidghost said:
Also it says only use the MOAB for the first week.

When you say 2-2-2, do you mean as the ratio for Jack's? I've been considering something like that. Maybe 2-3-1 for the first week of flower. I'm thinking if I cut the calnit, the excess nitrogen will get used during the stretch. Then resume with something like 2-2-1 until harvest. The nitrogen "2" would mostly be for the calcium. 321 seems ideal for veg though.
Click to expand...
Yes 2-2-2 + 1.2 MPK is a Green Gene formula. I used MOAB at the recommended dose instead of straight mpk. Maybe that is where my problem came from
 
G

goroth

Member
PJ Diaz said:
Skip the MOAB. Jacks 321 is a proven recipe from veg all the way through flower. No need to mess with what works. PK boosters cause more problems than benefits in my experience. If you really think you need a bloom booster, just get some MKP.
Click to expand...
Yeah it seems like that is the general consensus. I guess I learned a valuable lesson from this grow. Should have kept it simple
 
PJ Diaz

PJ Diaz

Well-Known Member
Wastei said:
Agree to disagree, you got a lot of things coming out of your ass without any proof, anecdotal evidence or real world data to backup your claims. That's talking garbage out of your ass if anything.

I can post an article but I'm in no sense supporting any data without my own experience or work in the subject matter. You read an article and think you're an instant expert of the subject, that's why people can't stand your rhetoric.

I advice you to leave and come back when you got some real experience and something positive to contribute to the community. You only talk in theoretical terms which tells me you lack real world experience.
Click to expand...

giphy (2).gif

giphy (3).gif
 
G

goroth

Member
So... If MOAB contains N-11 then why isnt it on their NPK label? It seems like I made a big newbie mistake by not researching all compounds in the product and it has potentially ruined my grow. I just assumed it had no N based on the label. Thats why the ratios are posted on horticultural products, Right?
 
austin98

austin98

Member
green gene is kind of an idiot pls don't follow his instructions, particularly regarding full strength all the way through (why???)

he uses numbers provided by the manufacturers which are necessarily incorrect to protect the proprietary blends.
 
Last edited:
F

felis

New Member
I have just switched to Jacks 321 after using GH Flora for a few years. Coco, DTW, fertigations x 3 daily, fulvic, humic, kelp, yucca.

The main reason I have switched, is because I was getting excess N showing in the form of "claw" in every grow, typically early-mid flowering with GH Flora. Yes, I stopped using the green jug at the flip, to little effect.
Having said that, I grow 2 different strains in the tent, all getting the same nute mix, and of course, there is even a notable difference between strain pheno's and their N up-take. Some strains and phenos do not show N excess but yet others do. There is always at least 1 plant in four that do.
BTW, never have I gone beyond an EC of 1.2 and rarely do I go past an EC of 0.9 for the entire period.

Anyway, I have switched to Jacks now, at early-mid flowering.
What is the best way to decrease N when using Jacks 321? Drop the over all EC while keeping the Part A, B and epsom ratio's the same? Or decrease just the Part B?

Again, my total EC is under 1.0 with Jacks and is likely closer to 0.9 with the Part A, B and epsom at Jacks recommended ratio.
 
twentyeight.threefive

twentyeight.threefive

Well-Known Member
felis said:
I have just switched to Jacks 321 after using GH Flora for a few years. Coco, DTW, fertigations x 3 daily, fulvic, humic, kelp, yucca.

The main reason I have switched, is because I was getting excess N showing in the form of "claw" in every grow, typically early-mid flowering with GH Flora. Yes, I stopped using the green jug at the flip, to little effect.
Having said that, I grow 2 different strains in the tent, all getting the same nute mix, and of course, there is even a notable difference between strain pheno's and their N up-take. Some strains and phenos do not show N excess but yet others do. There is always at least 1 plant in four that do.
BTW, never have I gone beyond an EC of 1.2 and rarely do I go past an EC of 0.9 for the entire period.

Anyway, I have switched to Jacks now, at early-mid flowering.
What is the best way to decrease N when using Jacks 321? Drop the over all EC while keeping the Part A, B and epsom ratio's the same? Or decrease just the Part B?

Again, my total EC is under 1.0 with Jacks and is likely closer to 0.9 with the Part A, B and epsom at Jacks recommended ratio.
Click to expand...
I'm currently feeding Jack's in flower at 1.8 EC once daily. They definitely would benefit from multi feeds especially at that EC and my high VPD. I'm only getting the very slightest indications of nutrient burn at the tips. I'm positive multi feeds would fix that issue. Someday I'll get an automated system running.

I also had to alter my ratios as this strain just kept on wanting more magnesium. I'm currently at a 1.3:1 Ca:Mg ratio.

But to answer your question, I personally reduced just Part B. In addition to the increased Mg demand they were showing they were getting plenty of nitrogen so reducing Part B was a good solution.
 
lusidghost

lusidghost

Well-Known Member
twentyeight.threefive said:
I'm currently feeding Jack's in flower at 1.8 EC once daily. They definitely would benefit from multi feeds especially at that EC and my high VPD. I'm only getting the very slightest indications of nutrient burn at the tips. I'm positive multi feeds would fix that issue. Someday I'll get an automated system running.

I also had to alter my ratios as this strain just kept on wanting more magnesium. I'm currently at a 1.3:1 Ca:Mg ratio.

But to answer your question, I personally reduced just Part B. In addition to the increased Mg demand they were showing they were getting plenty of nitrogen so reducing Part B was a good solution.
Click to expand...
I'm in the same boat. This is what I was trying to figure out last summer.

Jack's 321 with RO water = 121 > 221 > 321?

I'm getting mag deficiencies in late veg and it's delaying the flip. So I was thinking should I be running the part B and the epsom salt at full strength from the beginning, and step up the part A as I go? Tap water would have plenty of cal/mag before adding the nutrients, so I feel like keeping...
www.rollitup.org
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top