ProdigalSun
Well-Known Member
I was able to PM admin for the sticky request, but potroast doesn't seem to be taking PMs now, I couldn't find the correct icon.
Stop blaming "issues" on pH people! aka "ah cant take no mo'!
- Thread starter Uncle Ben
- Start date
Uncle Ben
Well-Known Member
Good point, it's very confusing and will make a neurotic out of you. I've explored the pH effects of various salts like urea vs nitrates and tried different "stuff". Now I just don't worry about it anymore and the plants are going nuts. I'm not growing cannabis any more at least haven't for a year or two due to security issues, but I am growing tropical fruit trees. My soil mix is about as scientific as tossing a coin in the air and hoping it comes up heads, BUT, I know what basics to start with and end up where I want to go. Depending on what I have around here I will or might use horse manure, compost, builders sand, coarse vermiculite, dolomite, peat, pine bark mulch and mix it up in bulk using the bucket of my tractor to scoop from this pile and that. Add to that bone and blood meal, muriate of potash, alfalfa meal, etc. What's been a real treat is the use of Polyon, a 12 month slow release food and yes, I've found that cannabis does extremely well regarding bud production with a high N food used exclusively. Here's the label -
From TX A&M - "Alkalinity is a buffering property caused by the presence of bicarbonates and carbonates calculated based on the concentration of calcium and magnesium.
Uncle Ben
Well-Known Member
Based on his position he's chosen to not be pestured.
Cat Jockey
New Member
I appreciate you sharing those, pd. I obviously am not a fan of The Lucas Formula, but think what he and that concoction brought to the table for conversation was awesome for the Sweet Lady Jane farming folks. So, regardless of our individual opinions, hopefully someone new to growing will go through this thread, see those links, and expand their horizons of subjects and topics they need to research as they focus on trying to maximize the results of their grows, crop after crop.
Before I discuss specific elements of the other paper, my overall impression of the first one, after further digestion, is that the elements regarding what he recommends as the proper substrate pH of 5.8-6.2 for container growing are not necessarily contradictory of my claim, at all. He points out 3 other plant species, other than orchids, the paper's focus, that prefer pretty much the exact same substrate pH range I am advocating. My contention is that he could add Sweet Lady Jane as plant species number four to the list of those preferring a more acidic substrate. You are free to disagree with that contention, of course, but I don't feel this paper resolves the issue, either way. He mentions five different plant species and describes a range, based upon species, of 5.2 - 6.8 for proper container substrate pH.
Clear as mud. We just don't know where this PhD fellow would place our gal, were he to study her. One of the advantages of the University of Hard Knocks - we get to design our own study paths and curriculum. And smoke weed in class and during Final Exams.
As for PPV in 5ga Homers, I get the concept of the nutrient solution affecting the pH, in some cases, or not in other cases. What I am suggesting is that there are key differences in what the Good Doctor and I are doing in our container grows. Some in-depth, some not. How we garden. And the amount of perlite, and time frames of certain events as well.
So, wherever this discussion may go, these are obviously issues that require some reading, thinking - and a lot of words to talk about, 'cause the shit is a bit more complex in nature, what is being discussed here. How 'bout I break up some of that text with a few more pics from that 10,000W Mother Room.
Sometimes things could get a lil' shady down at the grow. Best to bring a couple savage creatures for defense, ya know to always be keeping a real, real sharp eye out for trouble. My grow op is not the only thing no longer with me. RIP you two awesome Mountain Doggies. I could sure use you two right now dealing with the two young, crazy idiots I got to replace ya:
Nah, no good. Can't keep an eye on things like that, better change positions. Oh yea, that's much better:
Bubba Dog, making sure everything is running smooth with the RO filter:
In addition to all these words I have thrown out there in a few posts, about the only thing I can do in an effort to support my case is to provide, what I can, as 'evidence'. So, more pics of the girls from that room, being fertilized as I have indicated. Keep in mind that the pics were taken with a phone camera, in a room that usually had one or more vertical, unshaded thowies kickin', sometimes HPS, sometimes MH, sometimes both, so 'true' color is not accurate in most and none of those plants were as deep, dark, over-N'ed looking in person:
Another row on the buckets:
And some baby pictures of those bucket gals. Ahh, how cute:
A PPV mix momma I contend should be treated as hand watered drain to waste hydro, concerning nute regiment and pH:
Another one. You can see a different structure to the plant here. The above plant was grown from the git go for that room, whereas this one spent a few years in a closet, under a 27 Watt CFL, bonsai'ed in a 6 inch pot, never taller than 18", including pot, with a few other strains, feeding anywhere from a 600W flower room to a 4000W room throughout a few years time. Then I grew her out and shoved her in a Homer for that room:
Again, not more dick waving, just one of the few pillars to support my case I can really throw out there, providing ya'll trust me when I say those are all different strains you are looking at, too. In the next post, I will drown, whomever has the stomach or interest for it, with some more words getting into the longer pdf in more detail and how I feel there may be some applicability issues.
And well, who doesn't like to show off their doggies?
Gotta go fire a bowl and let the new doggies out for a bit ...
Before I discuss specific elements of the other paper, my overall impression of the first one, after further digestion, is that the elements regarding what he recommends as the proper substrate pH of 5.8-6.2 for container growing are not necessarily contradictory of my claim, at all. He points out 3 other plant species, other than orchids, the paper's focus, that prefer pretty much the exact same substrate pH range I am advocating. My contention is that he could add Sweet Lady Jane as plant species number four to the list of those preferring a more acidic substrate. You are free to disagree with that contention, of course, but I don't feel this paper resolves the issue, either way. He mentions five different plant species and describes a range, based upon species, of 5.2 - 6.8 for proper container substrate pH.
Clear as mud. We just don't know where this PhD fellow would place our gal, were he to study her. One of the advantages of the University of Hard Knocks - we get to design our own study paths and curriculum. And smoke weed in class and during Final Exams.
As for PPV in 5ga Homers, I get the concept of the nutrient solution affecting the pH, in some cases, or not in other cases. What I am suggesting is that there are key differences in what the Good Doctor and I are doing in our container grows. Some in-depth, some not. How we garden. And the amount of perlite, and time frames of certain events as well.
So, wherever this discussion may go, these are obviously issues that require some reading, thinking - and a lot of words to talk about, 'cause the shit is a bit more complex in nature, what is being discussed here. How 'bout I break up some of that text with a few more pics from that 10,000W Mother Room.
Sometimes things could get a lil' shady down at the grow. Best to bring a couple savage creatures for defense, ya know to always be keeping a real, real sharp eye out for trouble. My grow op is not the only thing no longer with me. RIP you two awesome Mountain Doggies. I could sure use you two right now dealing with the two young, crazy idiots I got to replace ya:
Nah, no good. Can't keep an eye on things like that, better change positions. Oh yea, that's much better:
Bubba Dog, making sure everything is running smooth with the RO filter:
In addition to all these words I have thrown out there in a few posts, about the only thing I can do in an effort to support my case is to provide, what I can, as 'evidence'. So, more pics of the girls from that room, being fertilized as I have indicated. Keep in mind that the pics were taken with a phone camera, in a room that usually had one or more vertical, unshaded thowies kickin', sometimes HPS, sometimes MH, sometimes both, so 'true' color is not accurate in most and none of those plants were as deep, dark, over-N'ed looking in person:
Another row on the buckets:
And some baby pictures of those bucket gals. Ahh, how cute:
A PPV mix momma I contend should be treated as hand watered drain to waste hydro, concerning nute regiment and pH:
Another one. You can see a different structure to the plant here. The above plant was grown from the git go for that room, whereas this one spent a few years in a closet, under a 27 Watt CFL, bonsai'ed in a 6 inch pot, never taller than 18", including pot, with a few other strains, feeding anywhere from a 600W flower room to a 4000W room throughout a few years time. Then I grew her out and shoved her in a Homer for that room:
Again, not more dick waving, just one of the few pillars to support my case I can really throw out there, providing ya'll trust me when I say those are all different strains you are looking at, too. In the next post, I will drown, whomever has the stomach or interest for it, with some more words getting into the longer pdf in more detail and how I feel there may be some applicability issues.
And well, who doesn't like to show off their doggies?
Gotta go fire a bowl and let the new doggies out for a bit ...
skunkd0c
Well-Known Member
I used phosphoric acid at a rate of 10ml per 100L with pH checks to keep a constant 6.2 for the first few years of growing
6.2 was the popular recommended pH level at the time (1992) for NFT systems
a few years later the popular pH was 5.8 then it became 5.5 , after this i did not keep up with pH fashions anymore
With the desire to remove anything unnecessary from the system i found keeping constant pH checks and adjustments to be of no benefit
to the overall health of the plants, the growth rate or the end results
growing using multiple individual NFT systems with individual reservoirs
i was able to allow some of the systems to fluctuate between 7.2-5.5 while others were kept constant at 6.2
the constantly managed pH systems were not showing any advantage over the fluctuating systems
so i decided to ditch pH management this was around 1995-96
peace
6.2 was the popular recommended pH level at the time (1992) for NFT systems
a few years later the popular pH was 5.8 then it became 5.5 , after this i did not keep up with pH fashions anymore
With the desire to remove anything unnecessary from the system i found keeping constant pH checks and adjustments to be of no benefit
to the overall health of the plants, the growth rate or the end results
growing using multiple individual NFT systems with individual reservoirs
i was able to allow some of the systems to fluctuate between 7.2-5.5 while others were kept constant at 6.2
the constantly managed pH systems were not showing any advantage over the fluctuating systems
so i decided to ditch pH management this was around 1995-96
peace
topshelf_sac
Well-Known Member
I use DynaGro Foliage Pro, I used to use Dynagro Grow. I've grown many great plants with my tap. They look, smell and taste great. My RO grown plants just burn better and burn to a white ash. The thing that sucks is that I get deficiencies sometimes with the RO water unless I use Protekt to raise the ph (at least doing that prevents the problems).It's the total salts that is the issue. The application of ultra hard water without any plant food can burn roots and induce the common symptoms of high salts over time - leaf tip burn, margin burn and/or cupping. See my Plant Moisture sticky in Plant Problems. If I want to push my plants with plant food I always use rain water. You want to start off with a water source that has little to no salts, and rainwater is the perfect solution. There's a reason why plants love it....it's all they've known.I recently installed a rainwater collection system on both the house and greenhouse. A greenhouse gutter drops into a 305 gal. tank and a cheap 120V Wayne pump is used to deliver water to my tropicals using a convenient water hose. Thinking about installing a Dosatron for salts injection.
BTW, 10 grains is considered "hard" by TX A&M. What's your primary salts?
UB
I don't get why I have to raise ph if its not important for a peat based grow.
Uncle Ben
Well-Known Member
Peat comes in at a pH of 4.5. It has to be buffered.
Cat Jockey, fine garden, great doggie friend. I just rescued an abused German shepard Heeler mix. She's a wonderful friend. Sons a bitches had her chained up under a leafless live oak tree with the only overhead shelter being a chicken A frame tin roof....this in 100F heat. These heartless types need to taken out and shot.
UB
Cat Jockey, fine garden, great doggie friend. I just rescued an abused German shepard Heeler mix. She's a wonderful friend. Sons a bitches had her chained up under a leafless live oak tree with the only overhead shelter being a chicken A frame tin roof....this in 100F heat. These heartless types need to taken out and shot.
UB
topshelf_sac
Well-Known Member
I suspect that in peat based medium with dolomitic lime that a too low ph can cause problems. I've never had any issues from a higher ph, but have had deficiencies when the ph is lower (5.5).
This is my personal observation and maybe it isn't because of the ph. I obviously will do what works best, but I'm trying to understand the science behind what is happening.
This is my personal observation and maybe it isn't because of the ph. I obviously will do what works best, but I'm trying to understand the science behind what is happening.
Cat Jockey
New Member
Here is my take on that second pdf, as it relates to my assertions, specifically treating PPV as drain to waste, and applicability with indoor Sweet Lady Jane farming. To begin with, I don't think this guy takes a rooted orchid cutting, throws it under an HID for a month, having transplanted at least once and up to a five gallon container within 1.5 months from being cut from the mother plant, flower for 8-10 weeks, and then choppy, choppy, smokey, smokey.
He would probably suggest there is no need for a 5 gallon container that soon after rooting, that most of my nutrients and additives are unnecessary, etc.., too. Looking at his nutrient chart, and how heavy it is on grainular ferts, heavy in ammonical nitorgen, well, he and I gots us some different ideas about indoor cropping. Been there with folks like this. These are pics from a 5 acre greenhouse business, in business successfully for 25 years with employees, trucks, etc., doing tomatoes and house plants - lot's of big cool house plants, too. He decided to try to get into the medical industry in Colorado, legally, and a mutual friend put us in contact a few years ago so I could help him out. I met him while his first crop was in flower. Dig the blackout shading in the one pic for year round 12/12:
Pretty cool standing next to 9' tall bushes. Too bad that was some shitty, shitty weed. Walk in there now, you will find tomato plants and/or house plants ' cause this guy couldn't cut it as a weed farmer. This guy had a College Degree in Botany, 25 years experience operating his own greenhouses, has read way, way more of those types of pdfs than I care too, yet, when it came to Sweet Lady Jane and he tried to apply all of these 'known scientific' methods and facts, as described in this paper and others like it, he met with failure. Followed maybe 10-15% of my advice, if that - couldn't break through his academic paradigms.
This is an annual plant. Yet, we have all seen some outdoor giants. Sweet Lady Jane is capable of explosive growth rates, relative to most other plants, and certainly orchids. I doubt this guy uses any real root zone conditioners, and has no idea what watching roots the size of bean sprouts grow by the day in a RDWC with vertical thowies is like. Nor do I guess he maximizes his plant's metabloism like I do with CO2, A/C, occisllating fans, dehumidifiers, etc.
All of which changes what is going on in the rootzoone, certainly, at least, the effects of some of the issues outlined in that paper, in addition to the short time frame our girls spend in a container, never encountering some of these issues, or to significant degrees in our crop cycle.
I am sure he would watch me fertilze to large runoff (personally, I never do less thatn 20%-25%) and say I was being wasteful, or if he saw me mix a hydro res with the exact same stuff, and then dump it when it hit 6.0, that I was being wasteful to, that there was still life in the res and to adjust it, top off, etc. Without ever seeing the results, he would look at a vertically lit RDWC room and probably tell me I am being wasteful with light, etc.
Some of the time frames are different, way different. Growth rates are different, etc. For all we do not know in the botanical sciences arena, collectively as weed farmers, there are some smart mofos among us and we know, as a group, how to maximize our crops for our environmetns, unlike any other. Few other groups of farmers, specializing in one crop, has drawn on the variety of resources we have. In fact, I think there are probably some things the academic types could learn from us, us students, graduate students, research professors, Deans of Studies of Sweet Lady Jane Farming Department of The University of Hard Knocks, both indoor under artificial lighting and outdoor.
Now, all of that said, for sure, high nitrate based nutes with acidic peat. I have sampled and used a couple others, and defintiely sampled and used many different additives of different mfgs that definitely kickass, but I have never found a reason to stray too far from GH 3-part as the base from which I build a nutrient regime. I have no idea what the results would be, were one to use an a ammonium heavy nitrogen source, and all of the ferts he charts are higher than GH. Plus urea. I don't include that - I'm an ex snowcat operator/snowmaker. My only real experience with urea is spreading it on ski race course to ice them up and make them faster.
I am also specific in high runoff of at least 15% (I do more), and a good heavy perlite mix. Like adding in perlite in to your exsisting based mix to make it even more airy. There are obviously plenty of other details, like the proper pot size at the proper growth stage for the proper root/substrate ratio for control over container moisture level, the assumption of healthy, vigorous plants, at least two flushes with something like Clearex 2-3 times, etc. And those details are not done just so I can deal with a lower pH nute mix, but because it is a part of drain to waste normal maintenace throughout the crop cycle. Compared to people using Cal/Mag as a bandaid so they can deal with a higher pH nute mix.
My suggestion on treating PPV as I do is based upon the uniqueness of our crop and our methods, as well as a couple other things. I definitely agree with those that suggest mj can handle a wide variety of growing conditions and be a relatively healthy plant producing decent bud, and if you are outdoor container farming for a full season, instead of a 3.5 month one, absolutely I agree that the issues in the paper, while using PPV, are things that one needs to pay attention to and potentially have to work around or with. You can approach PPV as you and the Orchid Dr. suggest, and have success. Personally, I obviously feel it is not the best way, best for ultimate quality and quantity of harvest for your genes and growing space, though. I think the plants respond better, grow faster and produce better bud, indoors on a typical indoor crop cycle using my methods.
So, not telling anyone their way is wrong, and I have been stipulating the nature of my assertions revolving around a typical indoor grow and that time frame. Several methods work, indoor/outdoor crop cycles play a significant role in how you treat yer girls and substrate, but I obviously feel that for even for a 400w flower room, with no more than a 1.5 month veg time, my method is more suitable, hassle free - and the girls like it.
Again, all those pics were not dick waving - they were to show you that doing my method, best or not, you will have healthy, vigorous plants that do not have a Ca def, Mg def or pH issue. And there is not one drop of Cal/Mag used on those 50-60 strains I showed, and they all recieved the same base nute regiment at the same pH. My conclusions of course, and why I am posting in this thread, is that the proper pH range was a big part of achieving multi-strain, no Cal/Mag harmony.
Sorry for all the words, but this can be a deep subject and I can be a wordy bastard. I hope people read those pdfs you linked to, as there is good information in them for sure. I need to stop being a rude dick now that I have tried to lay out some thoughts in a few posts about all of this, and go read what you and others have to say about all of this ...
He would probably suggest there is no need for a 5 gallon container that soon after rooting, that most of my nutrients and additives are unnecessary, etc.., too. Looking at his nutrient chart, and how heavy it is on grainular ferts, heavy in ammonical nitorgen, well, he and I gots us some different ideas about indoor cropping. Been there with folks like this. These are pics from a 5 acre greenhouse business, in business successfully for 25 years with employees, trucks, etc., doing tomatoes and house plants - lot's of big cool house plants, too. He decided to try to get into the medical industry in Colorado, legally, and a mutual friend put us in contact a few years ago so I could help him out. I met him while his first crop was in flower. Dig the blackout shading in the one pic for year round 12/12:
Pretty cool standing next to 9' tall bushes. Too bad that was some shitty, shitty weed. Walk in there now, you will find tomato plants and/or house plants ' cause this guy couldn't cut it as a weed farmer. This guy had a College Degree in Botany, 25 years experience operating his own greenhouses, has read way, way more of those types of pdfs than I care too, yet, when it came to Sweet Lady Jane and he tried to apply all of these 'known scientific' methods and facts, as described in this paper and others like it, he met with failure. Followed maybe 10-15% of my advice, if that - couldn't break through his academic paradigms.
This is an annual plant. Yet, we have all seen some outdoor giants. Sweet Lady Jane is capable of explosive growth rates, relative to most other plants, and certainly orchids. I doubt this guy uses any real root zone conditioners, and has no idea what watching roots the size of bean sprouts grow by the day in a RDWC with vertical thowies is like. Nor do I guess he maximizes his plant's metabloism like I do with CO2, A/C, occisllating fans, dehumidifiers, etc.
All of which changes what is going on in the rootzoone, certainly, at least, the effects of some of the issues outlined in that paper, in addition to the short time frame our girls spend in a container, never encountering some of these issues, or to significant degrees in our crop cycle.
I am sure he would watch me fertilze to large runoff (personally, I never do less thatn 20%-25%) and say I was being wasteful, or if he saw me mix a hydro res with the exact same stuff, and then dump it when it hit 6.0, that I was being wasteful to, that there was still life in the res and to adjust it, top off, etc. Without ever seeing the results, he would look at a vertically lit RDWC room and probably tell me I am being wasteful with light, etc.
Some of the time frames are different, way different. Growth rates are different, etc. For all we do not know in the botanical sciences arena, collectively as weed farmers, there are some smart mofos among us and we know, as a group, how to maximize our crops for our environmetns, unlike any other. Few other groups of farmers, specializing in one crop, has drawn on the variety of resources we have. In fact, I think there are probably some things the academic types could learn from us, us students, graduate students, research professors, Deans of Studies of Sweet Lady Jane Farming Department of The University of Hard Knocks, both indoor under artificial lighting and outdoor.
Now, all of that said, for sure, high nitrate based nutes with acidic peat. I have sampled and used a couple others, and defintiely sampled and used many different additives of different mfgs that definitely kickass, but I have never found a reason to stray too far from GH 3-part as the base from which I build a nutrient regime. I have no idea what the results would be, were one to use an a ammonium heavy nitrogen source, and all of the ferts he charts are higher than GH. Plus urea. I don't include that - I'm an ex snowcat operator/snowmaker. My only real experience with urea is spreading it on ski race course to ice them up and make them faster.
I am also specific in high runoff of at least 15% (I do more), and a good heavy perlite mix. Like adding in perlite in to your exsisting based mix to make it even more airy. There are obviously plenty of other details, like the proper pot size at the proper growth stage for the proper root/substrate ratio for control over container moisture level, the assumption of healthy, vigorous plants, at least two flushes with something like Clearex 2-3 times, etc. And those details are not done just so I can deal with a lower pH nute mix, but because it is a part of drain to waste normal maintenace throughout the crop cycle. Compared to people using Cal/Mag as a bandaid so they can deal with a higher pH nute mix.
My suggestion on treating PPV as I do is based upon the uniqueness of our crop and our methods, as well as a couple other things. I definitely agree with those that suggest mj can handle a wide variety of growing conditions and be a relatively healthy plant producing decent bud, and if you are outdoor container farming for a full season, instead of a 3.5 month one, absolutely I agree that the issues in the paper, while using PPV, are things that one needs to pay attention to and potentially have to work around or with. You can approach PPV as you and the Orchid Dr. suggest, and have success. Personally, I obviously feel it is not the best way, best for ultimate quality and quantity of harvest for your genes and growing space, though. I think the plants respond better, grow faster and produce better bud, indoors on a typical indoor crop cycle using my methods.
So, not telling anyone their way is wrong, and I have been stipulating the nature of my assertions revolving around a typical indoor grow and that time frame. Several methods work, indoor/outdoor crop cycles play a significant role in how you treat yer girls and substrate, but I obviously feel that for even for a 400w flower room, with no more than a 1.5 month veg time, my method is more suitable, hassle free - and the girls like it.
Again, all those pics were not dick waving - they were to show you that doing my method, best or not, you will have healthy, vigorous plants that do not have a Ca def, Mg def or pH issue. And there is not one drop of Cal/Mag used on those 50-60 strains I showed, and they all recieved the same base nute regiment at the same pH. My conclusions of course, and why I am posting in this thread, is that the proper pH range was a big part of achieving multi-strain, no Cal/Mag harmony.
Sorry for all the words, but this can be a deep subject and I can be a wordy bastard. I hope people read those pdfs you linked to, as there is good information in them for sure. I need to stop being a rude dick now that I have tried to lay out some thoughts in a few posts about all of this, and go read what you and others have to say about all of this ...
When I have had to supplement with fertilizers, I use mainly the types that have nitrate nitrogen in them when growing in peat. I remember the pH dropping way down to something like 5.1 when I mixed the nutrient and just saying wtf, I'm gonna kill these plants (back in the day) because the pH is so low. Then I ran out of pH adjuster and just watered them. A funny thing happened, nothing went wrong with the plants, and from that day on I never worried about it.
The whole point of these articles and that study was alkalinity in your water, not the actual pH effects what will happen more in your substrate more than anything. Because I have always used a decent municipal tap water source, I never had pH issues in the substrate.
The whole point of these articles and that study was alkalinity in your water, not the actual pH effects what will happen more in your substrate more than anything. Because I have always used a decent municipal tap water source, I never had pH issues in the substrate.
Hey Ben,
I just made a post that will certainly get some ph adjustment advice. Maybe you can give me some input. https://www.rollitup.org/marijuana-plant-problems/748823-please-help-3rd-post-trying.html
I just made a post that will certainly get some ph adjustment advice. Maybe you can give me some input. https://www.rollitup.org/marijuana-plant-problems/748823-please-help-3rd-post-trying.html
Uncle Ben
Well-Known Member
More N?.......
Cat Jockey
New Member
I'm not 100% certain, but I think measuring the pH of organics is not always accurate - could be wrong on that, though. Regardless, I personally classify pure organics as a little different ball game. I know there is some mechanics involved in organics that allows exchange at lower pH too, if I remember correctly. The airier the mix, the less the buffer, too, and the more the pH at the roots is the pH of the nutrient solution. Again, a lot of all of this is based around much less runoff than I promote - that is a big difference with all of this as well.
Well, as far as water alkalinity, I don't deal too much with that. To each their own, and I am not criticizing anyone, but my honest opinion is that in 2013, there is no reason to not be using RO water. Those Hydrologic filters can be had pretty cheaply. Let's see here, $500 smart phones that will be outdated in a year, $150.00/month cable/satellite bills, Xboxs, etc. Most weed farmers can prioritize and find the money. It gives you that much more control over your rootzone, which gives you that much more control over your harvest. You take a bottle of whatever nutes you use and dump it into tap water, there are instant chemical reactions occurring. The mfg of that nutrient spent all that time to give you that mix, and you change it, before you ever fertilize with it. The nute mfg didn't use tap water to make those ferts, and if you called tech support complaining that their nutes suck and don't work as advertised, I bet one of their first questions they will ask you is about the quality of water you are using to mix their nutes.
But the manufacturer of that mix pays close attention to the pH of that mix. I am pretty sure Pro-Mix comes from the mfg in the 5.4-5.9 range. Real close to what I am advocating. I personally have not checked the runoff of many mixes, but I ran a hand mixed PPV, and nothing else but PPV, that was in the low 4's. To tie that in to my point about nutirnet pH, I feel that the more airy and the more runoff you use, the more the substrate pH becomes inmprotant, at all, and the focus, what the roots see is mostly what the nute solution is, in a healthy, vigorous, proper size container.
Exhibit A. This is a plant that is in a mix made by a company called Fafard and the blend was 4P, with the P standing for more perlite. I personally would have preferred a bit more P, but it was a great mix, nonetheless. It also had a little bar, a wetting agent and dolomotic lime to deal with the low pH of the peat:
Exhibit B. This is a plant in a PPV mix that I made. Just the three and nothing else. Runoff was in the low 4's. The only reason for the structural difference, the long woody, foilage free stems are because this plant was kept for years, bonsai'ed in a 6" pot, never taller than 18":
What is consistent between those plants is the nutrient regiment pH, not the substrate pH. And it is consistent with 50-60 different strains in hydro and ppv mixes. And a big part of my 'pH case' is that it is done without Cal/Mag precisely because of the nute pH. Mixing up a 100 gallon reservoir is the exact same process as mixing up a washed out 1 gallon milk jug for ppv plants, if you are using a nute that can be used for either.
I mentioned that in a post before reading this too (I made some claims that took some words to back up). Definitely agree on all of this right here. Add a mini flush with every feed on a good airy mix, and all of that stuff can go out the window, for the most part, and the focus becomes what the pH of the solution you feed with.
Or so my knucklehead ass is claiming, of course ...
Cat Jockey
New Member
Thanks for the welcome. I plan on addressing your post and at least one more from someone, then I'll duck out this thread, for I have littered it enough with my opinions, words and pics. If I cannot manage to lay out my full take on all of this in the space I allotted myself, without asking, in this thread, well, that's my fault. After that, I would just be repeating myself, which is annoying. Plus, I need to get off my ass, get some things taken care of and get resupplied to venture away from civilization and internet connections for a couple weeks with the doggies and my Rocky Mountain Gypsy Rig.
But it is a great discussion to take part in and a big world wide web with room for plenty of opinions on issues like these, versus arguments, to be laid out from multiple view points. My knucklehead ass is just another view point, and nothing else - a view point I have just about covered in full, I hope.
I would agree that many plants are tolerant of a pH that ranges from 5.0-7.5, Sweet Lady Jane included. I am so anti-pH adjusters, that I have had fresh nute solutions, where some acidic additive dropped the pH to 4.7, and run it like that, knowing there would still be exchange and the pH would rise over 5.0 in a couple days. But, it wasn't optimal, and I could tell in the response of the plants that it wasn't optimal; therefore, I would also add the next argument that there is definitely a sweet spot. A preferred range where that uptake is optimal - optimal to maximize genetic expression in conjunction with the efficiency of one's growroom and relatively short crop cycle. And I do limit that pH precision to indoor/non-soil/non-organic (non-true, full organics). Although I have dabbled in outdoor and organics, I am in no way experienced enough in those branches of Sweet Lady Jane farming to be making any claims like I am for indoor hydro and indoor PPV farming.
Despite the large range, there are many studied crops that can grow in that wide of range too, but do best in a smaller, more limited range. Those pdfs posted by plague dog are a good example of this. Do you suggest Sweet Lady Jane is unlike many others and has no such sweet spot?
It is about exchanging the right ions in the right proportions, as you suggest. It is my suggestion, for indoor hydro (which a plant in a mostly PPV mix - add some perlite to help yourself - should be treated as) that there is a sweet spot, where it is done the most efficiently and in the best proportions, to the extent that it can be noticed at harvest. Further, a lot of people use nutes that can be used on ppv or pure hydro. It doesn't matter if it is a 100 gallon reservoir for RDWC, or a one gallon washed out milk jug for ppv plants under a 400W - you are doing the exact same thing, just on a different scale. Treat the whole regiment the same - pH, good runoff, proper root to container ratio for moisture precision, etc.
The reason I advocate that is because you can achieve a more hydro response in PPV that way. One of the benefits of hydro is that the plant is more responsive to everything you do and everything, including growth rates, happen quicker. Part of that is specifically because hydro pH absorption rates are not accurately represented, like real soil kind of is, by a bar graph (providing a much wider range of substrate pH range), and you can fine tune and have precise control over that pH at all times.
As that relates to my view of the importance of pH, and how it is usually too high for both hydro and ppv, Cal//Mag is something I have been pointing to as another exhibit in my case. Both the case that the pH people use in ppv indoors is too high and that not only can you treat ppv as hydro, but that you should. I am drawing a correlation on the plants inability to exchange the proper proportions of Ca and Mg when held, constantly at a pH of 5.8, and the high use and accepted need of Cal/Mag among indoor ppv farmers. And my anecdotal evidence I have experienced supports this, as I have done it both ways.
True soil nutirent uptake relative to pH is much more a bar graph representation. Hydro isn't - there are peaks and valleys corresponding to different pH. The range I suggest optimizes those peaks. Further, although I agree that there is a wide range mj can grow in, in soil, it can't in hydro. You cannot take a res up to 7.5 without doing serious damage to it. Most of the Fe and P will precipitate out and be kickin' it in mineral form on the side of yer res, instead of your rootzone, in a solution. Taking a hydro res over 6.4 starts damaging it and P starts precipitating out. People should, IMO, treat that one gallon milk jug like it should be - a small hydro reservoir. And their ppv mix in a Homer bucket as a drain to waste, hand watered hydro system.
In addition to this stuff still being a ridiculously high priced crop, it has never been subjected to anywhere near the different scientific studies, from as many different angles, as most other crops. Start thinking about how large of a crop marijuana is, globally, and if being a large scale global crop was the only qualifier, well, the world should know more about weed than most other plants. But, 'tis not so and a good portion of what we, collectively as weed farmers, know is anecdotal in nature. Not that being such automatically negates or invalidates it, but it is what it is ...
Soil ain't my thang, but I would agree it is a tremendous buffer.Hell, many are buying cheap pH meters, not calibrating with fresh solutions, and correctly measuring the values of their mediums whether that be water culture or soil. The first person to point out that the pH emotionalism is way out of hand was a hydro grower about 15 years ago.
Like I said before, soil is a powerful buffer and it appears the popular trend is to "water my plants with ph'd water". I say, "knock yourself out. Always used chlorinated water and never adjusted my water's pH...and aint about to start now."
Indeed. Perhaps I sense a shared disdain for pollen chuckers with 3000 watt grows labeling themselves as breeders and charging a bazillon dollars for a, umm, strain that might just help dilute the true genetics over the course of time, if they take over the entire seed supply business?
EDIT: Although I have had my hands on a lot of strains, I personally don't strain chase and never found a need for more than 6 different strains on hand to play with for personal grows, a couple of strains I wouldn't even grow but every fourth or fifth personal crop. I don't need to bounce around from what works and pleases me, and don't want to support the pollen chuckers out there.
I'd give my left nut for a handful of seeds that were nothing but landrace genetics and maybe a couple, three of the well bred classics. That would be the ideal gene bank.
ProdigalSun
Well-Known Member
People have tomato forums?
When they argue, is it considered a food fight?
When they argue, is it considered a food fight?
Pete Jones III
Member
I'm considering using RO Water instead of my tap as all my experiments trying to get my 200-220ppm tap water to not destroy my garden fail. Declorinating , vinegar, sulfuric acid ph down, nothing works