Lefthand's Synthetics from Scratch

The tomato formula stage 1 in veg is already showing some issues. Maybe y’all can help me confirm, but these are lower leaves and that looks like K deficiency.

No surprise I guess, since the formula has lower than normal K and higher than normal Ca (antagonist). Not ideal from the get.

I’ve just done transplant and have started them on a high K diet just ahead of flowering.

150-60-275-160-60 at 2.0ec are the stats for the next 2 weeks for the last of veg and heading into flower. I also have the 2ppm of boron going. I’m sticking with the high Ca concept and a bit of a compromise between their 3/4 stage recipe. We’ll see what goes wrong next.

13 Likes

Those are pretty good numbers and close to what I’d normally use (maybe a little more Ca and a little less P). The problems I see most often are Ca deficiency in some strains and K deficiency at late flower. However recently I’ve been growing a lot of Lebanese and it’s been damn near impossible to keep them from P deficiency in early flower. I think they transition and onset buds so quickly that they have short, acute demands for it. Sometimes I wonder if a slow progression to 12/12 might significantly improve things…

I used to really stick to the idea of a 4:2:1 to 3:2:1 ratio of K:Ca:Mg. However, I’ve also read in some literature that magnesium just needs to be kept in a certain range (usually 50-75 ppm) even if the other cations are increased. I guess the newer concept is that the exact ratios aren’t as important as people used to think unless one nutrient is really skewed too far out of proportion.

I don’t really know, but I’m willing to try new things for science! :radioactive:

13 Likes

Lefthand 2/2/2 (ultraminimal high calcium polyphoshate blend)

Just for fun, I thought it would be nice to show a dirt simple transition from jacks to grow clean. If you thought 321 was easy, try this:

image

That’s right - 2/2/2 (as 2.4-2.4-2.4) and done. More P, more Ca. Add a little potassium sulfate later in flower.

Here’s the ppm’s:
image

And for comparison here’s a standard 3/2/1(as 3.6-2.4-1.2) - using a 5-11-26 base
image

This would be a great option for anyone growing in coco as well. Using the calcium prime, you get a lot more Ca in the mix. Plus you can purchase epsom, cal prime and grow clean in equal amounts.

Note: Calprime is in short supply right now, but you can get “Pure Cal” which is the plant prod version. Use 3.1g to get the same targets.

10 Likes

Bookmarked! Great resources and information; thank you!

1 Like

Could PH be affecting your P uptake?

I used to have more Ca MG issues running 5.8. Running around 6.2 really helped. Not sure about P.

7 Likes

I’ve been running hydro with a milwaukee pH controller. I’ve just been running the recommended range of ~5.7-6.1 but sometimes the controller goes 5.6-6.2. From what I’ve read though, it’s “good” to let your pH swing in order to hit all optimal parts of the uptake. Not sure how true that is, but I really haven’t messed with changing the range too much.

But I also don’t think that’s the problem. I generally don’t have P deficiency. I’ve mostly been struggling with it in landrace strains from the Lebanon region (which I’ve been growing a lot recently).

The main reason I’m starting from scratch comes from a belief that commercial nutrient solutions really haven’t been optimized for cannabis. Instead, they use it to push overpriced supplements – and I have a LOT of complaints about that.

The main one is that agriculture isn’t done that way. You can’t arbitrarily apply huge amounts of some nutrient and not cause impacts to the rest of your formula. You can maybe get by with doing that for short periods of time or alternatively, they’re just selling snake oil that doesn’t do much of anything but also doesn’t cause nutrient interactions either.

So-called bloom boosters to me are an artifact of not supplying enough phosphorous. And maybe you don’t need them for a lot of strains, but once you hit a P hungry strain, suddenly you’re bought in to the supplement market. Or “cal-mag”? Has anybody ever seen calcium toxicity in cannabis? Maybe we should always just be supplying more from the start. Instead of walking a tight rope between sufficiency and deficiency, why not just give it a little more than it needs. There’s no calcium toxicity until you start locking out K or Mg.

Once I grew 2 different strains on the hydroponic reservoir using a 3/2/1 formula. One had calcium deficiency, the other had phosphorus deficiency. I’d rather just make some mistakes for some grows and eventually land on something that does neither of those things.

An interesting thing I’ve seen about Lebanese strains (and also Afghans) is that they let the plants die and dry in place. I didn’t used to think much of it, but it turns out that in plant lifecycles, this actually returns phosphorous to the earth. Fascinating stuff. One thing that I’ve noticed is – and a major problem with running high P cycles – is that it inhibits micronutrient uptake (specifically Fe, Zn and Cu). How interesting that plants that are grown in the region of the dead sea may be deliberately harvested in a way that increases phosphorus in the soil.

Part of the difficulty of growing this plant is that it has adapted to grow all over the world. I wonder how many tricks like this farmers have used, and what impacts that has to plant nutrition.

Anyway, what I’m really looking for is a formula in a better “sweet spot” than generic hydroponic formulas. Minimize the additives, boosters, etc. Just a better formula is all. I don’t care what the individual components cost, because they’re all cheaper than a can of rebranded MKP/K2S bloom booster.

13 Likes

I’ve really been getting interested in the trace elements recently. In particular, the plant prod micronutrient mix is actually not very well proportioned for cannabis.

Browsing around online turns up this leaf tissue sample

Other parts of the plant probably do have different ratios, but let’s dig into this a little more.

Everything I’ve read and in my own experience, Fe is best supplied around 3-3.5ppm. So if that is the optimal range to provide 150ppm to the leaf, what does that say about the other elements?

Just doing a simple proportion using the sufficiency range and 3.5 / 150 gives:
Boron - 1.3 to 2.5ppm
Copper - 0.12 to 0.27
Manganese - 0.95 to 2.2
Molybdenum - 0.012 to 0.035
Zinc - 0.56 to 1.2

There are reasons why these might not be completely accurate, but it’s probably a better place to start than using generic micronutrient mixes. Boron and zinc in most formulas are potentially being critically undersupplied in the first place.

7 Likes

Let’s look at micros of a few formulas

Jacks 5-12-26 as 3.6-2.4-1.2
image

Yowza, nice high zinc. You don’t see that in other formulas. Boron, Mn maybe low?

Southern Ag 5-11-26 as 3.6-2.4-1.2
image

Fascinating… More B, less Zn. Probably too much Cu, not enough Mn?

Peters 5-11-26 as 3.6-2.4-1.2
image

Very low Zn.

Lucas Formula as 8ml FloraMicro 16ml FloraBloom
image

This one delivers the Mn, but not so much the B.

Master Blend 4-18-38 as 2.6-2.4-2.2
image

BAM there’s some B and Mn. Zinc still low?

In summary these have:
Fe - 2.1 to 2.8
Zn - 0.14 to 0.95
B - 0.2 to 1.4
Mn - 0.48 to 1.4
Cu - 0.14 to 0.48
Mo - 0.017 to 0.095

Of these, B, Mn and Zn seem to vary substantially and are probably the farthest from the leaf tissue ratios, while Cu seems like it could be the most commonly oversupplied.

Also to consider – what’s in your water?

11 Likes

@lefthandseeds , what are your go to books for more reading? Digging the thread!

3 Likes

Thanks @Cbizzle! I don’t know of any books, but I might start to try and hunt one down. Mostly I’ve been poking around in research articles (or articles about research) in hemp and cannabis, and also I’ve been trying to analyze and understand common nutrient formulations for a few years.

I just like technical subjects. I see a lot of people talking about the nutrients they use, but not a lot about what makes a formula work well for this plant. So that’s my quest. At this point I have half of customhydronutrients catalog, so I’m pretty well equipped to start making mistakes. :joy:

13 Likes

I like what you’re doing. I’d like to do more reading and start eliminating some of the guesswork out of things. This thread helps as a primer for sure. I have a few college chem classes from way back in the day so getting more into this aspect only makes sense as I continue the hobby.

3 Likes

Since the plant prod micros really aren’t great, especially for a high P formula… here’s some things I’m going to try instead

Option #1
image
image

Mix Peters STEM and PP Chelated for better ratios. Add boric acid for B.

Disadvantages – plant prod doesn’t seem to go well into stock mixtures. But it might work in the phosphates/sulfates mixture.

Option #2
image
image

Weirdly low Mo makes me uncomfortable, but everything else would probably be good here.

Option #3
image
image

I think copper is lower than I’m comfortable with.

Option #4
image
image

Throwing everything at it is obviously going to give the most flexibility, but is annoyingly complex. On the other hand, maybe I’ll just make a bulk mix and see how it goes.

#1 is the most simple and is likely ‘good enough’.

8 Likes

I’m currently running customhydronutes chelated micro mix at 0.2 grams per gallon. The bottle say 0.1 grams equals 2.1 ppm of Fe but, when I ran the numbers through hydro buddy it was different. I trust hydro buddy more than nute labels so I went with those numbers instead. 0.2 grams per gallon nets me
Fe -3.68
B - 0.68
Mn -1.05
Mo -0.03
Zn - 0.02
Cu - 0.05
Probably low on a few elements but one of the commercial growers I speak with said it would do and is not toxic. He stays mum on quite a few things and let’s me screw up all the time but, he did say proper balancing of micros is the key to hitting 30+ % THC consistently.

8 Likes

I think the calculation is right. It’s the same as what you’re showing if you use 0.113g per gallon (which is 3g per 100L like they show on the page).

(0.113 / 0.2) * 3.68 = 2.1ppm

But like I was saying, I suspect the chelated micro mix doesn’t have a good balance for cannabis. It’s better if you blend it with a little Peters STEM. It might work in some recipes, but it seems like the Zn and probably also the Cu and B is too low (especially for high P formulas).

That’s interesting that they’re finding that having correct micros are really important. I did read a plant nutrition paper somewhere that said something to that effect for hemp as well – but basically in reverse. Because if you have too much of one thing and not enough of another, then you screw up your CBD crop because it causes too much THC to form.

9 Likes

I’m honestly thinking about buying a used precision scale and just weighing out my own micros.

5 Likes

I was going to try doing a couple oz mix today. It at least makes it easier, but you can’t un-mix them if it’s bad lol. And if you’re just mixing like a few gallons of nutrients some of them are like 0.01g of zinc edta or whatever. Not a lot of margin for error unfortunately!

4 Likes

This is where I was thinking of batches of something like intended for a 100 gallons. Should be a large enough batch to run a couple plants to finish and be able to test a theory or a mix.

@lefthandseeds the Biog Cytoplus is a liquid it looks like. That is a kelp extract

Guaranteed Analysis:
Boron (B)…0.25% Manganese (Mn)…0.8%
Soluble Potash (K2O)…7.5% Cobalt (Co)… 0.035%
Molybdenum (Mo)…0.05% Copper (Cu)… 0.13%
Sulfur (S)…3.25% Iron (Fe)…0.9%
Zinc (Zn)…0.5%
Contains non-plant food ingredients: 25% Seaweed Extract, 40% Humic Acid(s)

edit-

Kelp, seven micronutrients critical for plant success and our humic acid(s) powder are complexed as part of an innovative manufacturing process that leads to increased absorption and efficacy.

6 Likes

I believe that’s actually a powder.

4 Likes

Yea, you’ve got me thinking about TM7, because I have that too. And it does have recommendations for hydroponic rates. Actually, it complements the plant prod better than the STEM.

Recommended rates for TM7 are 0.5-0.75g/gal, and plant prod 0.1-0.2g/gal. This is a pretty good split…

image
image

9 Likes

The TM-7 does make for an easy enough mix and not hard to measure. High on molybendum looks like…

2 Likes