Please help me understand the FAQ charts

[Opie Yutts]

So, if I understand the FAQ chart correctly, I have not been letting my plants get any Phosphorus or Manganes because my PH is below 5.8. How is this possible? Wouldn't my plants be dead or extremely sleepy? I thought they needed that stuff. Am I reading the chart wrong?

Also, I thought I remember posts about people keeping their PPM below 3000, but the charts say not to go above 1400. Is this what you guys do? Will they fry above 1400?

Oh yeah, I'm growing in hydro.

[Opie Yutts]

Hmmm...

No one wants to help Opie, sniff.

Or does no one know?

[stinkyattic]

I'm going to take a stab at this one- a real stab in the dark.

Hydro is different because there is such an excess of water and chemical components remain dissociated into their respective ions. Plus the water is supposed to be oxygenated by a bubble stone. RedOx chemistry is different.

In soil, especially cold, wet, nonporous soil, since there is not that water matrix plus there is too little oxygen, chemical components behave differently. That is why when you see pH problems in your soil-look at the FAQ to confirm this- most nutrient lockouts are exacerbated by poorly-draining soil.

I'm not familiar emough with the behavior of fertilizer component mixtures in water to really explain this properly.

[stickyinsalem]

opie...i wish i could help you out man...but i dont even know what your talking about...and im sober...lol...sorry man...

[bongerstonerd00d]

That start is simply showing you at what pH your plant most efficently uptakes the proper nutes. You know you start clones your pH is 5.5 for example, and once rooted I see most here shoot for around 5.6-5.8 for rest of grow.

As far as PPM, you increase the PPM as the plants grow it gets more mature and as it is in different phases of its life it requires different nutes. Remember, N makes it grow, P and K are needed for flower/bud. And yes, 1400 ppm is max I have ever seen recommended in video/print material. And, some strains dont even like it that strong apparently. I guess all that comes from growing a particular strain over and over and gettin to know its tweaks.

Here is another chart that might help you understand further.
http://boards.cannabis.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=21554&d=1121829097


Hope that helps, and next time post in hydro bro.


b0nger

[Opie Yutts]

opie...i wish i could help you out man...but i dont even know what your talking about...and im sober...lol...sorry man...

I am talking about this chart in the faqs
http://boards.cannabis.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=21560&d=1121829312

The one that says my plants should be dead because I am growing in hydro and my PH is below 5.8, thus making it impossible for my plants to get phosphorous.

[latewood]

That chart just shows the optimum ph for the uptake of different nutrient elements for a plant...If you fall too far out of range it will be harder to uptake certain elements...

In flower I drop from 5.8 to 5.4 in the 4th week, then 5.5 in the 5th week followed by 5.6 in the 6th week followed by 5.7 in week 7

Some growers find that their ph raises a little throughout the week, so they start low...i.e.5.4ph, and let the ph swing upward to 5.8-6.0ph by the end of the week.

You can run your hydro nutes from 5.4 to 6.0ph with no problems, and most of the time if you are staying in that range then you won't see anything more than a slight deficiency from time to time at worst. peace

[Opie Yutts]

Thanks Latewood that helps if you are right. I guess it's just optimum nutrient availability and not exactly "nutrient availability" like it says. It shows exactly none for P below 5.8, so to me thats said none was available below 5.8. Little misleading or confusing or something. Maybe it should be a gradual bar on there instead of one solid one ending at 5.8.

[bongerstonerd00d]

I guess Op has me on ignore. This is the second post I have tried to help and he/she/it always thanx next person after my post. Thats life.....





b0nger

[Opie Yutts]

bonger I am not ignoring you. I am sorry, I should have responded. Thank you but I already saw that chart. It's just that I thanked Latewood because he offered a somewhat decent explaination and cleared things up a bit for me. I have a standing "thank you" to anyone who responds to my questions, but I know I should try to thank individuals. Just so damn busy...