In the end the nitrate/ammonium ratio is perhaps one of the biggest weapons you have in controlling how your plants change the pH of your nutrient solution....
My friend I don’t know why you think I was telling people anything, other people like to throw nonsense in as I said all the thread asked was for coco brands. Other people jumped on it with the usual fact less based comments. Peace
The statement that "runoff pH is useless" is going around RIU. It seems to be a statement which clearly states 100% lack of usefulness.
I have an open mind about runoff pH. While I don't use Hydrobuddy, I do use a spreadsheet and make my nutes from scratch. It's a PITA, tedious and time consuming, and requires concentration to avoid mistakes. I've been able to successfully alter runoff pH by altering the nute's nitrate:ammonium ratio. I didn't discover this, instead read about it. I thought it common knowledge that ammonium sulfate (AMS) was acidifying, but maybe that knowledge was due to my lawn-care background. Manipulating the ratio of nitrate:ammonium in my nute formulas seems to change runoff pH in predictable ways. Therefore, the statement "runoff pH is useless" is false. You can certainly argue its usefulness, but useless means it lacks any usefulness.
For those who buy their nutes in easy-to-use nutrient bottles and who are not trying to change the manufacturer's designed nitrate:ammonium ratio, maybe tracking runoff pH is useless. I don't know. Here's one RIU post which may explain the rationale behind the statement "runoff pH is useless":
Hello everyone! I'm into my 2nd grow and have some issues with the measuring of pH-value. I can't understand whether to measure it directly from the soil or to measure the run-off water. I have tried both and get different values, and I'm not sure which one to go by. Because there are...
www.rollitup.org
The poster said that a soil slurry test is preferable to runoff pH. Maybe it is, for measuring potting mix pH. Is that the same thing as runoff pH? Taking a small core of potting mix which has a plant actively growing in it will likely damage some roots.
The scientists who wrote the following report used runoff pH as a data point:
Floating treatment wetlands (FTWs), a modified constructed wetland technology, can be deployed in ponds for the treatment of nursery and greenhouse irrigation runoff. The pH of nursery and greenhouse operation irrigation water varies from 3.3 to 10.4 across the United States. Water flow rate...
journals.ashs.org
It is my belief that since I can alter runoff pH by altering the nitrate:ammonium ratio, I should set runoff to a pH value which cannabis plants are known to like and where good mineral absorptions occur. Will it make any difference in the overall performance of my grows? I don't know.
For those who believe "runoff pH is useless," would you mind pointing to any peer-reviewed journal reports which make that assertion?
well I test runoff fir EC. usually you run a 15% overflow to keep the EC within 50% of feed EC..usually for carbon based media feed is 1200 Us ( 1.2 EC ) with runoff up to 1800 Us ( 1.8 EC) . ph is usually not an issue in carbon based media . rockwool I run 1700 Us feed 2400 Us runoff .
The statement that "runoff pH is useless" is going around RIU. It seems to be a statement which clearly states 100% lack of usefulness.
I have an open mind about runoff pH. While I don't use Hydrobuddy, I do use a spreadsheet and make my nutes from scratch. It's a PITA, tedious and time consuming, and requires concentration to avoid mistakes. I've been able to successfully alter runoff pH by altering the nute's nitrate:ammonium ratio. I didn't discover this, instead read about it. I thought it common knowledge that ammonium sulfate (AMS) was acidifying, but maybe that knowledge was due to my lawn-care background. Manipulating the ratio of nitrate:ammonium in my nute formulas seems to change runoff pH in predictable ways. Therefore, the statement "runoff pH is useless" is false. You can certainly argue its usefulness, but useless means it lacks any usefulness.
For those who buy their nutes in easy-to-use nutrient bottles and who are not trying to change the manufacturer's designed nitrate:ammonium ratio, maybe tracking runoff pH is useless. I don't know. Here's one RIU post which may explain the rationale behind the statement "runoff pH is useless":
Hello everyone! I'm into my 2nd grow and have some issues with the measuring of pH-value. I can't understand whether to measure it directly from the soil or to measure the run-off water. I have tried both and get different values, and I'm not sure which one to go by. Because there are...
www.rollitup.org
The poster said that a soil slurry test is preferable to runoff pH. Maybe it is, for measuring potting mix pH. Is that the same thing as runoff pH? Taking a small core of potting mix which has a plant actively growing in it will likely damage some roots.
The scientists who wrote the following report used runoff pH as a data point:
Floating treatment wetlands (FTWs), a modified constructed wetland technology, can be deployed in ponds for the treatment of nursery and greenhouse irrigation runoff. The pH of nursery and greenhouse operation irrigation water varies from 3.3 to 10.4 across the United States. Water flow rate...
journals.ashs.org
It is my belief that since I can alter runoff pH by altering the nitrate:ammonium ratio, I should set runoff to a pH value which cannabis plants are known to like and where good mineral absorptions occur. Will it make any difference in the overall performance of my grows? I don't know.
For those who believe "runoff pH is useless," would you mind pointing to any peer-reviewed journal reports which make that assertion?
The EC meter I had, which I bought at ebay (maybe a year ago) and which recently broke, measured EC in microS/cm (µS/cm), and by using a mode switch, it also measured PPM. Most of the folks on this board use an EC figure based on milliS/cm (mS/cm), which according to Wikipedia is not the traditional measure. As an example only, 1 mS/cm = 1000 µS/cm, both are basically equivalent EC measurements. I'm not sure why folks on this board use mS/cm, when the inexpensive tools available measure in µS/cm, it's possible that more expensive tools measure in mS/cm, I'm not certain. When using the related scale PPMs, as the tool I had measured it, 500 PPM = 1000 µS/cm. Fucking confusing, yes?
To confuse matters even further, there are two other common PPM to EC conversions. The following table appears to use mS/cm scale for their EC numbers.
So, here was the basis for my prior question, and I believe I took the calcium and magnesium hydroponic PPM values from Smart Fertilizer:
element
PPM, low
PPM, high
calcium
80
140
magnesium
30
70
Totals
110
210
Therefore, I'm wondering how you only add 0.2 EC to get those PPMs? The only thing that makes sense to me is you're using the EC scale mS/cm, because 110 PPM = 220 µS/cm = 0.2 mS/cm, but you'll note that's the low end of the range.
Damn, that was a lot of typing and thought, and it is certainly possible I've made a mistake somewhere.
The EC meter I had, which I bought at ebay (maybe a year ago) and which recently broke, measured EC in microS/cm (µS/cm), and by using a mode switch, it also measured PPM. Most of the folks on this board use an EC figure based on milliS/cm (mS/cm), which according to Wikipedia is not the traditional measure. As an example only, 1 mS/cm = 1000 µS/cm, both are basically equivalent EC measurements. I'm not sure why folks on this board use mS/cm, when the inexpensive tools available measure in µS/cm, it's possible that more expensive tools measure in mS/cm, I'm not certain. When using the related scale PPMs, as the tool I had measured it, 500 PPM = 1000 µS/cm. Fucking confusing, yes?
To confuse matters even further, there are two other common PPM to EC conversions. The following table appears to use mS/cm scale for their EC numbers.
So, here was the basis for my prior question, and I believe I took the calcium and magnesium hydroponic PPM values from Smart Fertilizer:
element
PPM, low
PPM, high
calcium
80
140
magnesium
30
70
Totals
110
210
Therefore, I'm wondering how you only add 0.2 EC to get those PPMs? The only thing that makes sense to me is you're using the EC scale mS/cm, because 110 PPM = 220 µS/cm = 0.2 mS/cm, but you'll note that's the low end of the range.
Damn, that was a lot of typing and thought, and it is certainly possible I've made a mistake somewhere.
The EC meter I had, which I bought at ebay (maybe a year ago) and which recently broke, measured EC in microS/cm (µS/cm), and by using a mode switch, it also measured PPM. Most of the folks on this board use an EC figure based on milliS/cm (mS/cm), which according to Wikipedia is not the traditional measure. As an example only, 1 mS/cm = 1000 µS/cm, both are basically equivalent EC measurements. I'm not sure why folks on this board use mS/cm, when the inexpensive tools available measure in µS/cm, it's possible that more expensive tools measure in mS/cm, I'm not certain. When using the related scale PPMs, as the tool I had measured it, 500 PPM = 1000 µS/cm. Fucking confusing, yes?
To confuse matters even further, there are two other common PPM to EC conversions. The following table appears to use mS/cm scale for their EC numbers.
So, here was the basis for my prior question, and I believe I took the calcium and magnesium hydroponic PPM values from Smart Fertilizer:
element
PPM, low
PPM, high
calcium
80
140
magnesium
30
70
Totals
110
210
Therefore, I'm wondering how you only add 0.2 EC to get those PPMs? The only thing that makes sense to me is you're using the EC scale mS/cm, because 110 PPM = 220 µS/cm = 0.2 mS/cm, but you'll note that's the low end of the range.
Damn, that was a lot of typing and thought, and it is certainly possible I've made a mistake somewhere.
BAFA678B-4970-4FD2-AC1E-4ACFC36BA5F8.png
109B9BCC-FD61-4C59-806C-5F748A2A4323.png
BA6A62FC-0F46-43CD-A574-6498EB89D395.png
ECA380BC-6656-4184-A950-8F6AB7982C2D.png
BDE73922-1B81-4476-8600-A3FE06995315.png
28BAE1CB-F1FA-45AA-BAFB-AE0461A17978.png
C12006AC-C702-4DD5-9A93-660128823D50.png
19413B5A-4B1A-4B0D-9BC3-B9ADF4ACC249.png
B18F2466-9AFA-44F3-BF29-1B12A5E83D7E.png
A4991F91-DBFA-4D5F-B227-368AFC48E84F.png
