rkymtnman
Well-Known Member
yep.Hes basing everything off the hoagland solution which is a general solution for a ton of types of plants, not cannabis in particular
yep.Hes basing everything off the hoagland solution which is a general solution for a ton of types of plants, not cannabis in particular
In there though it says the way around using floranova grow is to use extra micro with bloom. You seem to ignore the micro entirelycheck this out for the why behind the Lucas formula. GH wasn't stupid, they realized lots of MJ growers were using it with their Flora series so they crafted a nute based on Lucas and voila, FloraNova Bloom.
has a nute calculator at bottom too
http://www.angelfire.com/cantina/fourtwenty/articles/profiles.htm
it's the flora grow. it's the original lineup from GH: flora series grow, bloom, micro.In there though it says the way around using floranova grow
Yeah that always fucks me up. I shouldve noticed it said flora series and not floranova. My badit's the flora grow. it's the original lineup from GH: flora series grow, bloom, micro.
now there is flora nova and flora duo series too.
kinda sorta. i do drain to waste so i only check it when i mix up a batch. i'm at high elevation 9000ft so my ppms are pretty low since things just don't grow as fast here. usually 0.3 Ec to 1.0 EC max depending on plant stage of growth.Btw do you monitor your ppm?
Yeah I guess I made a mistake there. It should be 80. I said 2 mls/L as an example, but the label recommends 2.5 so that's what I used. 2.5 x 8 is 20, x 0.4 is 8. The ppm is 10 times that so 80 ppm. But they also recommend 3.75 mls/L for "max strength for rapidly growing plants", which would definitely be too much. Even 80 is on the high side and has been known to reduce growth in other plants. You really want 20-40 ppm for max growth. So probably 1 ml/L. You'd probably be low on K and N though, at least K. But if you used the Grow version you'd probably be right in the proper range.Uhm actually you say you multiply by 20 to get the ppm at 2ml per gallon.. 8x20 is 160. Multiplied by .4 would be 64 ppm assuming everything you said was correct
Do you have any pics of your plants using these nutes you could conveniently post? Id love to see your results this way. Bob keeps coming over here trying to say this nute ratio is off, that itll cause a deficiency of this and an issue with that, but one thing that cant be argued with is results. Im honestly not certain whos right at this point. Its really confusing getting 2 people at odds on thiskinda sorta. i do drain to waste so i only check it when i mix up a batch. i'm at high elevation 9000ft so my ppms are pretty low since things just don't grow as fast here. usually 0.3 Ec to 1.0 EC max depending on plant stage of growth.
Even 80 is on the high side and has been known to reduce growth in other plants. You really want 20-40 ppm for max growth. So probably 1 ml/L. You'd probably be low on K and N though, at least K. But if you used the Grow version you'd probably be right in the proper range.
sorry but i don't do pics. you'll just have to take my word and that of others too.Do you have any pics of your plants using these nutes you could conveniently post?
i think thousands of users of floranova bloom are better proof that it works than your hyperbole.I simply showed what the normal levels are supposed to be
Its really not that hard and if you did youd find its not the right solution to be following for cannabis..A scientist named Richard Hoagland. He's a scientist, you're a stoner, which would I believe? How hard is it to type "hoagland solution" into google? From what I read, 60 ppm is where it starts getting bad, 80 is where roots start getting brown and stuff, 20-40 is optimal, 20 is the best of all.
i don't understand his endgame? if he used floranova and it didn't work because of multiple deficiencies, then i'd understand. but to have never tried it and claim that it wont' work seems weird.Its really not that hard and if you did youd find its not the right solution to be following for cannabis..
Took me a couple minutes to check on wiki and figure that out after you brought it up lol
You were saying?A scientist named Richard Hoagland. He's a scientist, you're a stoner, which would I believe? How hard is it to type "hoagland solution" into google? From what I read, 60 ppm is where it starts getting bad, 80 is where roots start getting brown and stuff, 20-40 is optimal, 20 is the best of all.
Yeah i kinda got that when he said "from what i read"sorry but i don't do pics. you'll just have to take my word and that of others too.
https://www.thcfarmer.com/community/threads/gh-flora-nova-bloom-thread.30961/
https://www.growery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/330477
not to discredit bob but from what i've read of his posts on this thread, he's guessing and estimating and surmising without any experience with it.
Not the best approach if you're trying to learn something. But yeah ill never stand down on an argument until i see some clear facts presented against me. Thats why i had to search out that erik birksa piece for bob. Plus i got really tired of seeing the words hoagland solution. I dont understand how he stands by it so adamantly when if hed done any research before following it he probably wouldve understood it wasnt right for this purpose from the start.I saw this at a gun show on a t shirt 25 years ago and it still sticks with me:
Admit nothing, Deny everything, Make counter-accusations.
If the FN bloom wasn't good, there'd be plenty of posts on every grow site about it. most people rave about it for how good a one part nutrient it is for cannabis.