Why does it seem there is such a difference in nutrient strenghts between the growing community?

[kmog33]

I like the growth I get between 500-600 ppm. Around week 5-7 I may hit hem harder once at like 900. But never need to go higher than that in my setup. Plants seems to grow faster with too much water in a solution than they do with too highly concentrated nutrients Ime.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mr sunshine]

EC @ 1.7-1.8
In a coco blend:
GG#4, 7 weeks from flip
View attachment 3649460

How many lights in that room? Are they De fixtures? If so , how far away from the canopy for you keep them?.. I see the trays are on the ground, where do they drain to?

 

[Jimdamick]

You should lower your EC in constant contact systems (DWC, RWDC, aeroponics etc).
You should raise your EC in coco, peat moss and soil. You should also raise your EC in "intermittent feeding systems".



Luckily our system does all that for you!


Aerono, thats right where we recommend our EC for peat moss. Your plants look great! Here is one of our customers' Sour D plants at week 6 of flower with an EC of about 1.7:

He's nuts. Raise your PPM in soils? Ha Ha Ha.
Go sell a seed

 

[Jimdamick]

All I know, which is not much actually, is that when I grow in a recirculating drip I can push the numbers pretty high, depending on strain. I start at around 1000 ppm at 4 weeks, and at week 8, I'm at 1500 with no problems, for 90% of my plants. I got a Grape LA now, which does not like anything above 1000 ppm, but also have a Green Crack, which raises it's leaves in celebration at 1600. I try to stay in the middle. like around 1400 ppm. Never had a problem with burns.

 

[PerfectGrower]

He's nuts. Raise your PPM in soils? Ha Ha Ha.
Go sell a seed

Your EC levels in soil and peat moss should be around the same. Soil will become inert after time. A 1.6-1.7 EC in soil is just fine. This is what I was referring to about "raising". DWC and RDWC systems should have a slightly lower EC than soil, peat moss and coco.


If that's not how you feel, I understand. We study nutrient profiles when we grow

 

[PerfectGrower]

All I know, which is not much actually, is that when I grow in a recirculating drip I can push the numbers pretty high, depending on strain. I start at around 1000 ppm at 4 weeks, and at week 8, I'm at 1500 with no problems, for 90% of my plants. I got a Grape LA now, which does not like anything above 1000 ppm, but also have a Green Crack, which raises it's leaves in celebration at 1600. I try to stay in the middle. like around 1400 ppm. Never had a problem with burns.

When you report PPM's its difficult to understand. PPM is derived from EC....so if you're going to report a PPM we're going to need a conversion factor to "derive" your EC value. Are you referring to a .50 conversion?

 

[PerfectGrower]

A plant can take a higher EC as long as the proper ratios are in place. As most know, higher EC's aren't always better.

NO3:NH4
N:K
N:Ca
P:S
K:Ca
K:Mg
Ca:Mg
Fe:Mn


These do make a difference and every nutrient company has a slightly different take on it. My hope is more growers learn about nutrient profiles

 

[Aeroknow]

How many lights in that room? Are they De fixtures? If so , how far away from the canopy for you keep them?.. I see the trays are on the ground, where do they drain to?

The trays in that bloom room are actually 16" up off the floor. Ten foot high ceilings in there
I try to allow 3' in between the lights and the plant canopy, when plants are mature.
I have DE's in rooms that are 8'high ceilings. The trays in those rooms are just up high enough to put an elbow on 1" drainage tubing. The drainage tubing is plumbed out of the room(through the exterior wall)

 

[mr sunshine]

The trays in that bloom room are actually 16" up off the floor. Ten foot high ceilings in there
I try to allow 3' in between the lights and the plant canopy, when plants are mature.
I have DE's in rooms that are 8'high ceilings. The trays in those rooms are just up high enough to put an elbow on 1" drainage tubing. The drainage tubing is plummed out of the room(through the exterior wall)

Thanks bro.

 

[kmog33]

I like how every grower who posts about high ec states,
"My plant can 'take' up to xxx ec"

So what, you could give your plant .1 ec the whole run and it'd probably survive. A plant in a healthy ppm range, NOT pushing the limits of what the plant can take, Ime grows a lot faster than a plant pushing tox all over the place. How do you know what your plants can "take" unless you have pushed them to the limit of what they're willing to? And after you have pushed them to that point, how do you not think you've stressed them more than them having a little less than they can "take" the whole run, happily growing with no inhibitions due to the fact that your nutrient solution is balanced?

Unless you stick in 1.4ec or 2.0 ec or whatever in and then when you swap your water it's 0. Your plants still haven't used all the nutrients in that water so the still have nutrients to use if they needed them. Granted the ratios won't be as good as when it's fresh, but the nutrients are still there if you're still reading some ec higher than 0.

The zero situation is moderately exaggerated. I don't know that it's actually possible for a plant to use all of the nutrients in a solution due to the necessity of ratios of nutrients being in check for working together correctly for the plants processes.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jarvild]

A plant can take a higher EC as long as the proper ratios are in place. As most know, higher EC's aren't always better.

NO3:NH4
N:K
N:Ca
P:S
K:Ca
K:Mg
Ca:Mg
Fe:Mn


These do make a difference and every nutrient company has a slightly different take on it. My hope is more growers learn about nutrient profiles

That's the problem right there. The balance of the nutrient solutions and the balance of you're starting water source.
And from experience I go with ppm's most of the times as a lot of my micro-nutrients only need ran in the 10-50 ppm range.
And in coir I run the same nutrient strengths that I did in DWC.

 

[Jimdamick]

When you report PPM's its difficult to understand. PPM is derived from EC....so if you're going to report a PPM we're going to need a conversion factor to "derive" your EC value. Are you referring to a .50 conversion?

PPM's are what I use in the US. Are you EU? I'm not sure of the ratio, because all the shit I buy has PPM'S for nute ranges.

 

[PerfectGrower]

We are based out of the US.

It's no big deal. Just know that EC is a constant, universal value. "PPM" is derived from EC. Both can be given as long as we know what conversion factor you're referring to. Different pens have different conversion factors, you need to google that information.


Here's a chart to help. On the top of this page you can see the conversion factors (.50 .64 .70). As you can see, all are derived from EC.

 

[PerfectGrower]

I'm guessing most nutrient companies give their target PPM values based on a .50 scale? Maybe someone else can shed some insight on that. In an ideal world we'd all go by EC and PPM would be eliminated.


Good get em

 

[jarvild]

Botanicare uses .7, Mine is.5 but I usually state so because I understand the discrepancy.

 

[kachiga]

I dont really get it. I have used the same nutes for the longest time. From Soil, coco to ebb and flow. My PPMs are through the roof. I max out maybe 75% of whats recommended by my nutes. General Hydroponics. I was at 2,000 PPM, I got a slight nute burn that high, back it down to 1600 PPM, no issues at all.

White Shark

General Hydroponics:
Cal Mag
Armor SI
Rapid Root
Flora blend (tri)

That always confused me. Maybe I should switch readings to EC, see what that says heh.

 

[Sativied]

Maybe someone else can shed some insight on that. In an ideal world we'd all go by EC and PPM would be eliminated.

In an ideal world we'd all go by ppm but from actually ppm meters and know the amount per different element.

The ppm meters we use are EC meters. Even the ones that only display ppm are EC meters.

EC meters measure electrical conductivity, typicall in micro-Siemens.
TDS measures the total dissolved solids in PPM, what's left over after evaporating the water.

TDS/PPM meters growers use ARE actually EC meters. The ppm is calculated, which involves some estimating, based on the EC. Even if it only displays ppm, the difference is a line of code that converts the ec to ppm before displaying.

That's why we should all use only EC.

 

[Jimdamick]

We are based out of the US.

It's no big deal. Just know that EC is a constant, universal value. "PPM" is derived from EC. Both can be given as long as we know what conversion factor you're referring to. Different pens have different conversion factors, you need to google that information.


Here's a chart to help. On the top of this page you can see the conversion factors (.50 .64 .70). As you can see, all are derived from EC.

See, that is my point. All those different manufacturers have between a 100 to 300 ppm difference to the same 1.5 EC. When you use EC, depending on the meter, which mine is a Hanna, I don't get the same EC reading as a Eutectic or Greenlee, which I also have and use, so EC is a variable, for all testers, whereas PPM, is a constant. Does that make sense? I'm stoned, again, so I'm confused

 

[PerfectGrower]

It's cool. Bottom line, EC is the value that everyone can understand. PPM comes from a conversion factor.

Sativied was making the point that what people are calling a "PPM" meter (that derived number) is an "EC meter" as well.

 

[Sativied]

Sativied was making the point that what people are calling a "PPM" meter (that derived number) is an "EC meter" as well.

Yes. And that calling a tds meter a ppm meter is like calling an EC meter a micro-siemens meter, or a speedometer a mile meter. A ppm meter is an EC meter sold as TDS meter.

For an individual grower it doesn't matter that much, but when comparing with other growers EC should be used because the difference between 0.5 factor and 0.7 factor can be quite large.

Here's another good reference for completeness:
http://www.milwaukeetesters.com/pdf/ph-ec_info.pdf