Modified Jacks 321 schedule
- Thread starter TerpHound420
- Start date
-
- Tags
- jacks 321
haze010
Well-Known Member
I never said you had to run at anything. You are running a completely different nutrient line and a different strain.
Enjoy sniping and bitching at each other, just like last time it will probably be another 3 years before you see me again.
I use jacks at 100% every other watering and house and gardens coco a/b every other watering between the jacks at 75% with Neptune's harvest 0-0-1, growers recharge, humic acid, house and gardens aminos, tribus grow or bloom bacteria, golden tree, house and gardens root Excelurator and have seen phenomenal growth.
Flowki
Well-Known Member
There's a lot of wrong blanket assertions here becasue there are multiple ''correct'' angles.
For example what ppm are you guys even talking about?. There are 3 different types that I am aware of from a ''meter'' reader and then there is one other type called ''elemental ppm''. All of them will give a different reading of the exact same nutrient solution. For you to say 800 is my max could mean 600 to somebody else on a different scale. Also I would imagine not all ppm meters are the same, what error rate do they have and are you actually calibrating them properly and consistently?.
EC isn't much better. That will change depending on your water and even solution type, it also gives you no understanding of what the plant is using more of. Basically your own EC reading will only be a ball park figure and it likely won't be much use to somebody else. If you start at 0.3 ec water, 0.3 ec consisting of what?. It could mean you personally need less or more calcium than the next person. To simply advise somebody to use 1.6ec because it works for you is vague as fuck.
Aside from EC/meter ppm your environment has a big effect on what levels you can run. PH is a good one, if you let it get out of range then say more N becomes available and then you have to lower N. If you consistently let ph swing from res fill to res fill you will tailor a N ppm specific to your swing. If you then give this N figure to another person it could well be wrong, if they hold a more steady ph.
Humidity also directly dictates nutrient uptake. As renf said he can use 2.0, fair enough.. but that might be with a sustained RH above 60% where the plant transpiring at a slower rate. Essentially the plant is only using 70% of the 2.0 strength (example). If you hold a 45% RH @2.0ec then your plant is transpiring a hell of a lot more and using 90% of the 2.0 ec (again example number) and that then leads to toxicity or nute burn. But again a toxicity or nute burn of what?.. for ren it could be N for you it could be P from your higher level of MKP. But you just say ''well it's nute burn don't use 2.0ec'' or ren could say ''they are defficient use 2.0ec''. Defficiant in what?. Maybe you don't need 2.0 ec, maybe raising it to 2.0 ec is the easy way of giving the plant more P at the expense of giving it more of other stuff it doesn't need. I'm not saying that's the case but you must see how messed up it is to just talk in EC values, or even in meter ppm values.
Light intensity also factors in to the level of nutrient strength you use. If your flower intensity is 600W (in simple terms) over a 4x4 it will be fine with X amount. If you use 200W in a 4x4 it won't be fine with X amount. The edges of the canopy will start building N tox as a first warning.
The truth of it is that Elemental PPM is the most accurate form of understanding nutrient strength. If we are to get into any great detail about sharing nutrient values we all need to be using elemental ppm. The other key thing is to mention what RH and light intensity you are running, broken down to a 4x4 since it's a very common foot print. It would really help all of us.. I find it almost impossible to get info from other people around here because everybody is litterally speaking in different languages of ppm/ec.
For example what ppm are you guys even talking about?. There are 3 different types that I am aware of from a ''meter'' reader and then there is one other type called ''elemental ppm''. All of them will give a different reading of the exact same nutrient solution. For you to say 800 is my max could mean 600 to somebody else on a different scale. Also I would imagine not all ppm meters are the same, what error rate do they have and are you actually calibrating them properly and consistently?.
EC isn't much better. That will change depending on your water and even solution type, it also gives you no understanding of what the plant is using more of. Basically your own EC reading will only be a ball park figure and it likely won't be much use to somebody else. If you start at 0.3 ec water, 0.3 ec consisting of what?. It could mean you personally need less or more calcium than the next person. To simply advise somebody to use 1.6ec because it works for you is vague as fuck.
Aside from EC/meter ppm your environment has a big effect on what levels you can run. PH is a good one, if you let it get out of range then say more N becomes available and then you have to lower N. If you consistently let ph swing from res fill to res fill you will tailor a N ppm specific to your swing. If you then give this N figure to another person it could well be wrong, if they hold a more steady ph.
Humidity also directly dictates nutrient uptake. As renf said he can use 2.0, fair enough.. but that might be with a sustained RH above 60% where the plant transpiring at a slower rate. Essentially the plant is only using 70% of the 2.0 strength (example). If you hold a 45% RH @2.0ec then your plant is transpiring a hell of a lot more and using 90% of the 2.0 ec (again example number) and that then leads to toxicity or nute burn. But again a toxicity or nute burn of what?.. for ren it could be N for you it could be P from your higher level of MKP. But you just say ''well it's nute burn don't use 2.0ec'' or ren could say ''they are defficient use 2.0ec''. Defficiant in what?. Maybe you don't need 2.0 ec, maybe raising it to 2.0 ec is the easy way of giving the plant more P at the expense of giving it more of other stuff it doesn't need. I'm not saying that's the case but you must see how messed up it is to just talk in EC values, or even in meter ppm values.
Light intensity also factors in to the level of nutrient strength you use. If your flower intensity is 600W (in simple terms) over a 4x4 it will be fine with X amount. If you use 200W in a 4x4 it won't be fine with X amount. The edges of the canopy will start building N tox as a first warning.
The truth of it is that Elemental PPM is the most accurate form of understanding nutrient strength. If we are to get into any great detail about sharing nutrient values we all need to be using elemental ppm. The other key thing is to mention what RH and light intensity you are running, broken down to a 4x4 since it's a very common foot print. It would really help all of us.. I find it almost impossible to get info from other people around here because everybody is litterally speaking in different languages of ppm/ec.
Last edited:
newbplantgrower420
Well-Known Member
tap looks interesting. heres a comparison to 5-12-26 and 15-5-20 jacks.
i like the npk but since its missing sulfur ill pass and just stick to dynagro foliage for veg since it has every micro and macro. they really couldnt figure out a way to add some sulfur to avoid deficiencies? weird.
some calmag and epsom and it should be solid but that ends up being 3 nutes like jacks 321. so it defeats the purpose of simplicity for me.
let us know how it goes though.... whatever im saying is all on paper.
Last edited:
waterproof808
Well-Known Member
Do any of you lower the calnit in late flower?
Jaybodankly
Well-Known Member
Jacks schedule for those that dont have it
Lil pebble
Member
Made an account here just to say thank you for being the beacon of truth amongst the bullshit. You seem very knowledgeable and actually tied up a few things I was thinking in my head but felt they were too dumb to ask mainly ppfd being one of the main driving factors for ec need and transpiration.
rkymtnman
Well-Known Member
just saw this post from you:
so here's a question for the jacks 5-12-26, if there is 6.3% of mg, what % of Ca do you get when you add the cal/nit? if you go by the 2:1 rule for ca/mg, it "should" be 12% roughly.
and i made up for the lack of Sulfur by using a powdered kelp mix. (once i got the RO formula dialed in)
newbplantgrower420
Well-Known Member
I remember tint saying its a 2:1 ratio without epsom so it should be around 12%
I like the one part better already than the 321. Mixing 1/2 powder vs 3 everytime is good enough for me. Had problems with 321 and I feel like it just overcomplicates things.
Sofa King Smoooth
Well-Known Member
Called Jack's a few days ago, the lady I spoke with sent me an email with a feed chart for the RO 1 part formula and it includes the use of Epsom in the chart. The one part formula only takes the place of the part A and part B. That is according to Jack's feed schedule. For what its worth.
jonnynobody
Well-Known Member
Running jack's for about 3 weeks now. I started at full strength 3.6g jack's, 2.4g calcium nitrate, and 1.1g epsom per gallon using RO water. PH adjust to 5.8. 1.8 EC. I've so far seen calcium deficiencies, magnesium deficiencies, and tip burn. I adjusted the mix after seeing significant Ca deficiencies on several plants. Rusty spots and rusty leaf margins on a few of my largest fan leave closest to the light. I omitted the magnesium sulfate. I reduced the jack's to 3g. I left the calcium nitrate at 2.4. The PPM (didn't do EC for some reason) was about 700. I added some seaweed extract that brought it to 724PPM. The plants all look healthy and the Ca deficiency seems to have disappeared. The quirks are a bit frustrating though. I don't like seeing tip burn on my plants at all and I do not ever like to see deficiencies. I'm going to Increase the calcium nitrate to 3g/gallon on the next mix with 3.6g jacks. If all is right with the world I'll keep running it. If it doesn't clear up completely then I'll have to experiment another time and get the garden back on maxi. Aside from being unable to keep a holding reservoir I never had a single issue with deficiencies running maxi. Never. I'm hoping the next mix takes care of business. I really want to love jack's, but it has to at least perform as well as maxi to be a viable replacement for me. I'll snap some pics. Maybe the issues aren't as bad as I think. I hate change.
jonnynobody
Well-Known Member
It looks like the problems seem to have resolved since adjusting to 3g jacks and 2.4g calcium nitrate. I really didn't see much to photograph. After looking at the pictures I don't think there was a deficiency of any kind. I think full strength just burned them plain and simple.
Girl scout cookies. Looks pretty darn healthy I suppose. Maybe I overreacted?
Ghost train haze looking healthy also.
Girl scout cookies. Looks pretty darn healthy I suppose. Maybe I overreacted?
Ghost train haze looking healthy also.
jonnynobody
Well-Known Member
Today I decided to run 3g 5-12-26 and 3g calcium nitrate to see how things shake out. Everything looks good today. Ghost train seems a little finicky still. Doesn't seem to like a strong mix at all. Considering she genetically produces almost no foliage that's not a big shocker. I might start diluting the feed for the GT. Simple as filling my gallon pitcher 3/4 to the top with fertilizer water then adding 1/4 RO 0ppm water. That should drop me from the 1.8 EC / 866PPM to around 1.6 EC. As a whole all of the plants look great today. However, the caveat is that the results I'm seeing today is based on 3g 5-12-26 and 2.4g calcium nitrate. Hopefully the extra calcium nitrate doesn't cause any issues. If so I'll dial back to 2.4g. Looks like the maxi is gonna stay shelved for the time being 
Pics pics and more pics all running on Jack's 5-12-26, calcium nitrate, and zero epsom salt. PH adjusted t 5.8. If the growth gets more lush and green over the next 48 hours then I'll know I've hit my sweet spot. If I get a touch of burn I'll dial back to 3g jack's and 2.4g calcium nitrate/gallon. I'm really enjoying the ability to keep a holding reservoir without the calcium precipitating out.
I have to write this on the wall with a dry erase marker so I remember what I put into the res. I keep 1 full of PH adjusted fertilizer and 1 full of RO water. I can't remember what I had for dinner the night before, so writing down my mix is important
Pics pics and more pics all running on Jack's 5-12-26, calcium nitrate, and zero epsom salt. PH adjusted t 5.8. If the growth gets more lush and green over the next 48 hours then I'll know I've hit my sweet spot. If I get a touch of burn I'll dial back to 3g jack's and 2.4g calcium nitrate/gallon. I'm really enjoying the ability to keep a holding reservoir without the calcium precipitating out.
I have to write this on the wall with a dry erase marker so I remember what I put into the res. I keep 1 full of PH adjusted fertilizer and 1 full of RO water. I can't remember what I had for dinner the night before, so writing down my mix is important
Last edited by a moderator:
jonnynobody
Well-Known Member
I also want to comment about different people having success running different EC values. @Renfro runs 2.0-2.2 if I remember correctly. However, he grows trees. Not bushes. The nutritive intake requirements for a tree are substantially different than a bush. However, I grow small bushes for the most part. I tried 2.0 EC and mildly burned my plants a few months back. Plants of my size love 1.8 EC or about 800-870PPM running RO water. Another thing to consider is grow method. Flood and drain buckets / tables will need a higher EC than deep water culture. Soil? You certainly aren't running 2.0-2.2 EC in any soil plant that isn't the size of Renfro's ladies with the expectation of good results. And finding any indoor plants the size of Renfro's isn't something you're going to see often. As a matter of fact I never have , so his EC values are specific to his garden's needs. How the gardener is growing the plant, which genetics are being grown, and how large the plant is determines the optimal EC value a plant needs to thrive. This is assuming the gardener has the fundamentals in check already such as lighting and ventilation. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. Word to your mother
, so his EC values are specific to his garden's needs. How the gardener is growing the plant, which genetics are being grown, and how large the plant is determines the optimal EC value a plant needs to thrive. This is assuming the gardener has the fundamentals in check already such as lighting and ventilation. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. Word to your mother
rkymtnman
Well-Known Member
runs that for rooted clones. not trees. not bushes.
jonnynobody
Well-Known Member
That sure is awfully hot for clones. If I go over 940PPM I get foliage burn. And this is on large flowering bushes. I'd be interested to know what method that particular gardener is growing in which 2.0-2.2 EC is necessary for rooted clones. And I'd love to see some pictures. I find it hard to believe no tip / edge burn is evident watering a rooted clone with those kinds of EC values.
TintEastwood
Well-Known Member
Plants are looking good.
Fwiw.
For my coco grows, during flower PH of 6 thru 6.2 helps with Ca/Mg uptake to prevent defs.
cobshopgrow
Well-Known Member
a ppm meter, no matter which scale its working with, just measures the EC of a soltion and convert it to PPM.
EC is much better.
"That will change depending on your water and even solution typ" same as it will with a ppm meter, no drawback of a pure EC meter.
basically youre right, this all is confusing and often hard to really compare.
cobshopgrow
Well-Known Member
i think youre doing right going higher with the cal nitrate to jacks ratio, youre on the right track.
i ve calced a lot elemental ppm for a 5-20-30 salt a while back and for veg about 1:1 is fine.
pratically i go even a bit higher with the cal nitrate to my 5-20-30 salt (as also foreseen to do so by the manufacoter btw.), maybe 1.25:1 ratio.