Confirm what Im thinking. 2 Problems.

Iv been growing 4 indoors under a LED light with the intent of SOG them once they get a bit older.
This is my 4rd grow but 1st under a LED. Previously 2 under a HPS and 1 outdoor.

They all went fine other then out door being really tall and fluffy instead of dense. And first indoor under HPS having a bug problem.

I sprouted these 4 (well 5 but killed off smallest one since only allowed to have 4 plants) out doors, Which was at 15 hours light, Sprouted them out there for 3 weeks until had decent set of real leaves.
They are now 6 weeks on and been under the LED for 3 weeks. Had been working my way up a extra hour of light each week so im on 18 hours at the moment which is where it will stay until they get big enough to reach SOG net then will work my way back down to flowing time.

--

First problem seems to be a PH problem which im working on at the moment since only got PH meter 4 days ago when I started to see some colour going from the lower leaves. PH was at 7 on the best looking plant while 7.4 on the worse looking one. Iv been unable to find any PH down product so been mixing lemon juice with my water to make the water PH 6. Run off waters coming out at 7. After 3 days of this water soil has improved by about 0.2, Loss of lower leave colour has slowed from what iv seen so far but need more time to access.

Second problem which is the main one that has me confused.
The biggest of the lot which is about twice the height looks to be showing male signs already.





Light is 40cm about them to give a nice spread of light.
My PH tester has a light meter on it as well. Im unsure of the scale but in the middle of the light which is where this plant was reads 1800, The outer edges which the other plants are in are 1400-1600.
Out door direct light measures 2000, and on rainy days which it is today measure 400.

been feeding in the same method as last grows. Which seemed to work. Same type of soil which is just a pre-mix from the shop.

---

So what should I do with this plant, Let it grow some more and wait and see, Or just cut it down now.

Seeds are just mix bag which are about 4 years old and the same seeds iv used in all previous grows.
So they have done quite well.

Cal-Mag, Silica, and enough Nitrogen for those lighter lower leafs. Forget the PH as long as your between 5-7 PH your fine. It will stunt the growth if out of that range.
How many watts? Oh, don't tell me equivalent to a 600 or 400 because thats a load of crap. If you can, return those leds and get a HPS. Seriously, have you ever heard someone say "hey check out this massive yield I got from my overpriced LED's". The answer is NO. They are better now than they were but still not worth the cash.
As for the dick in the box. From what I can see it looks like balls at the top. Unless you want some seeds, kill it.

Thanks for confirming what I feared. I guess ill stick it out side for another week or two just to see what it does and let the rest of the ladys get better light.
I find it strange its managed to show with 18 hours light.

Its a 900W LED. 150LED with each advertised as 6W.
From the wall it pulls 600W.
My HPS was advertised as 650W and pulled 700W from the wall. So not much power saving really. Its the heat thats the main thing I wanted to get get away from.
Needed to run AC with the carbon filter in there to just keep them around 36C while light was on. Now with just a fan they are staying at 30-32C.

PH 5-7
Thats why im trying to bring PH down to 6 - 6.5 since right now the lowest one is at 6.8 with worst at 7.2 from testing just now after having given them 3 waterings with PH6 water. Tap water comes out at dead on PH7.

The feed im giving them is high in N not sure on the others tho, and has worked well in the past. At the moment they get feed once a week as per the instructions on the back of it. And in two weeks time (8weeks old) should be changing to twice a week. While at 10 weeks old your recommend every 2nd or 3rd day.

I wasn't a believer in LEDs until my mate had success with the model down that I got last season while I was using HPS both on the same seeds at the same time.
He had the 600W model which has 200LEDs at 3W each. Never measured at the wall but if its like mine would be guessing 400W from the wall.
With 2 plants and got 1/4 of what I got with 4 plants and 650W HPS.
Difference being his plants were 1/4 the height but twice as dense and ready 5 weeks earilyer (altho he could of left them another week or two IMO). There was no room between the buds sites while mine had lots of stretch.

Im not after a massive yeid id be happy with 1/2 of what I was getting on the HPS with the trade-off of easier heat management and slightly lower power bill since im not having to run the AC 24/7.



Here is what his looked like.


And mine at the same age.

No way to duct in some cold air from outside?

You need to get that heat down. Do whatever you can!

There is no such thing as silica deficiency.

No way to duct more air in since they are in cupboard in middle of the house.
Everything iv read says 25-35C is the recommended temp range while vegging. And they are running at 30-32c while its mid summer here with air temps of 28C during the day and 19C at night.
If I wanted lower would have to start using the AC again.

They run during afternoon and night. I guess if I have to lower temp a little bit I could change the light schedule a little bit each week so they start late afternoon and light off late morning.

32C is fine if not perfect... and sativas would love that and higher.

What soil are you using? Looks like too much bark and not enough perlite. You aren't gonna change the soil ph by watering, unless you get runoff. Flushing properly would though. If your soil has too much barky woody material it would probably be too wet as well as mess the ph.

Potting mix is all they call it on the bag. Testing some fresh stuff out of the bag and its PH 6.8.
Not much bark and wood in it. Its just that its sunk down and left the bark and wood on the top layer.

Testing the PH of the pots again. And worst ones back to 7.4 PH with best one at 6.8, They are all looking healthier tho and some colours come back into the lower leaves.
Been getting lots of run off when watering with lower PH water. Put about 1L though each one and got about 800ml back out as run off which I tested.

Waters going in at PH6 and coming out at PH7 so it must be doing something.

Im thinking I might just be better off getting some better soil and repotting them since they have all sunk down quite a bit.

Just a update.
Have continued watering with PH adjusted water. As of today, worst ones at PH7, Best ones at PH 6.7. All are looking much happier.
In 2 weeks time ill repot them with some better soil.

The male plant iv left outside at the edge of the section and its gone hermy. Has started to show female hairs coming out on the lower branches.
Mates offered to take it since he isnt growing this season so he will leave it out side his house and hopefully get some seed from it.

Now just need to track down a clone to get my plant count back to 4, which is the legal limit for where I live.

Thanks for every ones help.

churchhaze said:

There is no such thing as silica deficiency.

Click to expand...

Who said Silica deficiency. If your referencing me, I am speaking about nitrogen uptake. Silica is essential for nitrogen uptake. So if your feeding good N and not seeing a result, and haven't added silica then that can be part of the issue.

That's just not true though. Silica is not essential for nitrogen uptake, in fact there is no correlation. There is very little evidence in the grand scheme of things that silica does anything at all.

You will never solve a plant problem using silica. It's always going to be something else because like i said, there's no such thing as silica deficiency. The plant does not use it for anything.

SheepsBlood said:

Silica is essential for nitrogen uptake. So if your feeding good N and not seeing a result, and haven't added silica then that can be part of the issue./QUOTE]

Click to expand...

churchhaze said:

That's just not true though. Silica is not essential for nitrogen uptake, in fact there is no correlation. There is very little evidence in the grand scheme of things that silica does anything at all.

You will never solve a plant problem using silica. It's always going to be something else because like i said, there's no such thing as silica deficiency. The plant does not use it for anything.

Click to expand...

"Silica also assists in the uptake of Nitrogen..." (http://www.regyp.com.au/silica/)

Well, I guess I stand corrected. *not*

Though you can see that every element is essential. I could go as far to say,
Silicon, acting as a beneficial element can help to compensate for toxic levels of manganese, iron, phosphorus and aluminum as well as build a barrier against zinc deficiency . (http://www.cannaversity.com/cannaversity/article.php?id=101)

churchhaze said:

That's just not true though. Silica is not essential for nitrogen uptake, in fact there is no correlation. There is very little evidence in the grand scheme of things that silica does anything at all.

You will never solve a plant problem using silica. It's always going to be something else because like i said, there's no such thing as silica deficiency. The plant does not use it for anything.

Click to expand...

AGAIN, DID I SAY "silica deficiency"? NO. End of debate.

The first link you posted is the product from the manufacturers website. That is not a credible source. It also mentions the results observed were from feeding calcium silicates. Calcium is an essential nutrient with very little doubt about what it's used for. A plant deficient in calcium will show significant improvement with the deficiency corrected.

The second link you posted says "has been found to". This is important, because it means there is only anecdotal evidence. That anecdotal evidence usually comes from people using products based on potassium silicate, which is very high in potassium, an essential element. A lot is known about potassium and plants so much so that it's one of the 3 elements in NPK ratings. Because they see stronger stems, and healthier growth, they assume the silicon made the difference, when abundant levels of potassium are very well documented to do exactly that.

Silicon will not compensate for toxic levels of manganese, iron or phosphorous, or aluminum, and will not help with the uptake of nitrogen. That's all a load of shit. It won't make a damn difference. If you've got yellow leaves, silicon isn't going to do shit.

SheepsBlood said:

"Silica also assists in the uptake of Nitrogen..." (http://www.regyp.com.au/silica/)

Well, I guess I stand corrected. *not*

Though you can see that every element is essential. I could go as far to say,
Silicon, acting as a beneficial element can help to compensate for toxic levels of manganese, iron, phosphorus and aluminum as well as build a barrier against zinc deficiency . (http://www.cannaversity.com/cannaversity/article.php?id=101)

Click to expand...

churchhaze said:

The first link you posted is the product from the manufacturers website. That is not a credible source. It also mentions the results observed were from feeding calcium silicates. Calcium is an essential nutrient with very little doubt about what it's used for. A plant deficient in calcium will show significant improvement with the deficiency corrected.

The second link you posted says "has been found to". This is important, because it means there is only anecdotal evidence. That anecdotal evidence usually comes from people using products based on potassium silicate, which is very high in potassium, an essential element. A lot is known about potassium and plants so much so that it's one of the 3 elements in NPK ratings.

Silicon will not compensate for toxic levels of manganese, iron or phosphorous, or aluminum, and will not help with the uptake of nitrogen. That's all a load of shit. It won't make a damn difference. If you've got yellow leaves, silicon isn't going to do shit.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I can agree on that. Once the leaf is affected, there is no going back.
As for the simple examples of silica and its role. I could find more scholarly examples if you like but it's really not what we started debating. Well at least that is not where I intended to go.
My beef with you is because you started arguing that I was stating it was a silica deficiency. I am done debating this. Adding silica will not hurt, it will only benefit.

As for a manufacturer website not being a credible source, I can somewhat agree. Where I stand on this is that you buy some company's nutrient line so you obviously feel they are credible. So what makes them more credible than this manufacturers statement???

My beef with your advice is that it you took a "throw parts at it till it works" approach. Silica was in your list of things the OP should add to fix his problems. The OP does not have a silica deficiency.

What makes one manufacturer more credible than another? I've been designing my own hydro nutes from calcium nitrate, potassium nitrate, monopotassium phosphate, magnessium sulfate, iron sulfate, sodium borate, sodium molybdate for over 5 years now. I don't care what manufacturers say. I don't use silica in my formulas because all it does is get glass in your weed. The plant can not do anything with the silica. When something doesn't do anything but is taken up anyway, it's normally considered toxic.

SheepsBlood said:

Yeah, I can agree on that. Once the leaf is affected, there is no going back.
As for the simple examples of silica and its role. I could find more scholarly examples if you like but it's really not what we started debating. Well at least that is not where I intended to go.
My beef with you is because you started arguing that I was stating it was a silica deficiency. I am done debating this. Adding silica will not hurt, it will only benefit.

As for a manufacturer website not being a credible source, I can somewhat agree. Where I stand on this is that you buy some company's nutrient line so you obviously feel they are credible. So what makes them more credible than this manufacturers statement???

Click to expand...

Why didn't Hoagland and Arnon include silicon in the Hoagland formula in the 1930s? Were they just too stupid, or is silica salts a new invention that happened post 30s?

Why is it that only in the last few years people have finally started the think dissolved glass might help improve their crops? MARKETING! They need new products!

You're telling me that all this time, scientists have finally discovered now that plants eat silicon? How many scientific studies can you find on the effects of different phosphorous levels on plants, or how phosphorous effects genetic expression? You will find hundreds if not thousands of conclusive, consistant results, dating back hundreds of years. How many conclusive studies have their been on the effects of silicon over the last few hundred years? Under 10, and they're all recent!

wow i don't even remember who or what the question was after that debate did anyone answer the dudes question