Modified Jacks 321 schedule

It's funny to me that they would make such a determination, when the data they post seems to indicate a 10% increase in TCH @ 100mg/L vs 25mg/L..

View attachment 4820164
You can see the error bars at the end, can't you? Do you know about standard deviation? They are both within these range so you can not say it is a 10 percent increase. Also do you see a 10 percent increase for CBD? It is a high-CBD, low-THC variety so at such small differences of 0,03 % points (!) you have always measurement errors or deviations etc that have more impact than they would have for maybe a 10 % THC variety etc.
 

PJ Diaz

Well-Known Member
You can see the error bars at the end, can't you? Do you know about standard deviation? They are both within these range so you can not say it is a 10 percent increase. Also do you see a 10 percent increase for CBD? It is a high-CBD, low-THC variety so at such small differences of 0,03 % points (!) you have always measurement errors or deviations etc that have more impact than they would have for maybe a 10 % THC variety etc.
I guess what you're saying is that a study on hemp isn't applicable to our high THC "drug-type" strains. Noted.
 
You can see the error bars at the end, can't you? Do you know about standard deviation? They are both within these range so you can not say it is a 10 percent increase. Also do you see a 10 percent increase for CBD? It is a high-CBD, low-THC variety so at such small differences of 0,03 % points (!) you have always measurement errors or deviations etc that have more impact than they would have for maybe a 10 % THC variety etc.
In hope to make it a bit more clear what i mean by standard deviation:
So for a simplified example you want to weigh out 1 gram of a substance with a scale that has 0,1 g readout. At 0,95 g the scale will show 1 g and at 1,04 g it would also show 1 g.
(Besides the fact that it could also show 1 g while it actually being 0,9 g etc because of the given accuracy/measurement repeatability, but to simplificate this example it should not matter here).
That is a deviation of +4/-5 % and you can not for sure say it is 0,95 or 1 or 1,04 g or anything between. It MAY be that it is but it may also be not. That is measurement uncertainty.
If you want to weigh out 10 g on that same scale it could be 9,95 or 10,04 which corresponds to +0,4/-0,5 %, a much smaller deviation in relation to the weight. Because of this you use more precise scales for measuring tiny amounts to have an adequate accuracy btw.
For sure they don't have such inaccurate scales in their lab, but there are many other factors that play a role for the end result like the accuracy of the gas chromatograph, which part and how much of a plant was used, how accurate the growing environment is and so on. There are many things playing a role that all have possible deviations by nature or instrumental errors that sum up or influence the final accuracy of the resulting data.
As a serious scientist you have to give these deviation values because they are important for the end result. To get more certainty you have to repeat the experiment over and over (and preferably by other research teams, too) and because of this it is not sufficient to only run an experiment once or twice for example because the results are just too uncertain to be significant.
This is statistics, often complex to calculate (while there are programs doing that after you input all the data), but this is how science works.
So while it COULD be that THC is 10% higher, it could also be lower according to the error bars.
To be honest i don't know how many replicates they have done but remember those people are professionals who know what they do and i don't think they would draw such conclusions without feeling certain. Sooner or later they will hopefully release their data in a scientific journal and it will get peer reviewed by others.
In the end i would trust scientists like them more than any fertilizer company that only make wild claims without showing any data or research to back up their claims. Why oh why do they not? Either they haven't done any or their data doesn't show what they claim.
Whatever, to this day i haven't seen ANY SOLID SCIENTIFIC data from a cannabis nutrient company that shows evidence. If PK boosters (or even flowering nutrients) would really have such a benefit as they say, it should be nothing to back up their claims through research and showing solid data. WHY ARE THERE NONE? NOT A SINGLE ONE !
(Besides some marketing-painted fantasy scaled pretty diagrams lol)
 

rkymtnman

Well-Known Member
In hope to make it a bit more clear what i mean by standard deviation:
So for a simplified example you want to weigh out 1 gram of a substance with a scale that has 0,1 g readout. At 0,95 g the scale will show 1 g and at 1,04 g it would also show 1 g.
(Besides the fact that it could also show 1 g while it actually being 0,9 g etc because of the given accuracy/measurement repeatability, but to simplificate this example it should not matter here).
That is a deviation of +4/-5 % and you can not for sure say it is 0,95 or 1 or 1,04 g or anything between. It MAY be that it is but it may also be not. That is measurement uncertainty.
If you want to weigh out 10 g on that same scale it could be 9,95 or 10,04 which corresponds to +0,4/-0,5 %, a much smaller deviation in relation to the weight. Because of this you use more precise scales for measuring tiny amounts to have an adequate accuracy btw.
For sure they don't have such inaccurate scales in their lab, but there are many other factors that play a role for the end result like the accuracy of the gas chromatograph, which part and how much of a plant was used, how accurate the growing environment is and so on. There are many things playing a role that all have possible deviations by nature or instrumental errors that sum up or influence the final accuracy of the resulting data.
As a serious scientist you have to give these deviation values because they are important for the end result. To get more certainty you have to repeat the experiment over and over (and preferably by other research teams, too) and because of this it is not sufficient to only run an experiment once or twice for example because the results are just too uncertain to be significant.
This is statistics, often complex to calculate (while there are programs doing that after you input all the data), but this is how science works.
So while it COULD be that THC is 10% higher, it could also be lower according to the error bars.
To be honest i don't know how many replicates they have done but remember those people are professionals who know what they do and i don't think they would draw such conclusions without feeling certain. Sooner or later they will hopefully release their data in a scientific journal and it will get peer reviewed by others.
In the end i would trust scientists like them more than any fertilizer company that only make wild claims without showing any data or research to back up their claims. Why oh why do they not? Either they haven't done any or their data doesn't show what they claim.
Whatever, to this day i haven't seen ANY SOLID SCIENTIFIC data from a cannabis nutrient company that shows evidence. If PK boosters (or even flowering nutrients) would really have such a benefit as they say, it should be nothing to back up their claims through research and showing solid data. WHY ARE THERE NONE? NOT A SINGLE ONE !
(Besides some marketing-painted fantasy scaled pretty diagrams lol)

post 3 is the pdf. it's actually analysis from AN of all people. it's one of the reasons why i tried a 3-1-4 ratio and love it. also Fatman suggests the 3-1-4 ratio too.
 

post 3 is the pdf. it's actually analysis from AN of all people. it's one of the reasons why i tried a 3-1-4 ratio and love it. also Fatman suggests the 3-1-4 ratio too.
Yes, i'm sure you love it, who once tried such well working ratios (while saving a fortune btw :)) won't go back. And i'm glad that more and more people jump on that train, too. Fatman had common sense but he sadly got much hate for that although he was right. Even the AN analysis shows that P is very low compared to N and K throughout flowering and nitrogen is needed in large amounts till the end. It doesn't harm flower development as many believe, it aids in it and for sure is the most important fertilizer element in veg AND in flower. If not overdoing it for sure. Data shows this and in my experience it also does. 2-1-2 N-P2O5-K2O corresponds to roughly 4,5-1-4 NPK and even that is not too much nitrogen.
It's funny though that AN promotes their P boosters so much although their own data shows otherwise.
Hell, even Uncle Ben was right.
 
It's funny to me that they would make such a determination, when the data they post seems to indicate a 10% increase in TCH @ 100mg/L vs 25mg/L..

View attachment 4820164
Here is a recent paper from the University of North Carolina. It shows that there is no increase in cannabinoid or terpene concentration after increasing phosphorus higher than 11,25-15 ppm.

 

Vonkins

Well-Known Member
I upped my formula from 1.8/1.2/.6 to 2.4/1.6/.8
I noticed I started getting a little bit of this only on a couple plants in veg and my flowering plants 2 weeks in loved it!! My GDP got the same formula and it looks great in veg!!
 

Attachments

boundybounderson

Well-Known Member
Lots of good discussion here, but I'm wondering if anyone has experimented with Jack's canna specific schedule?


The basics of it are to use the A/B or the RO formulation in veg, use the 12/30/20 Bloom formulation for the first two weeks of flower, switch back to A/B or the RO formulation for the bulk of flower, and then use their high K Finish formulation.

According to the chart the PPM over the various stages are: 1150 veg, 950 bud set/stretch, 1150 bulk flower, and 1050 for finish/ripening.

The cynic in me says that this is maybe a way to sell more bags, but maybe they've just refined the basic 3/2/1 and this is a more nuanced feeding program based on their science.

Also, if you watch there mixing video they suggest mixing first part A, THEN epsoms, and finally part B. I hadn't heard that before so maybe that'll be helpful for some people here.
 

lcmon

Active Member
Interesting info. I have been messing with Jack's for years. For me, I also seem to struggle anytime I go much below 1.8ec. I do start out around 1.0 when planting rooted clones, but as soon as I have a decent root mass I do best at 1.7 to 1.9. I run straight Coco. My base formula is 3g Jack's (5 12 26) and 2.5-3.32g calnit (depending on Coco quality, and strain). I read all these forums, and see so many people saying they feed at 1.3 but I just can't imagine doing that. Every time I try to go lower, I get immediate issues. The only considerations I can think of are 1. We do focus on vpd which requires higher nutrient concentration, and 2. We still hand water & generally feed once per day. All that being said, I am always feeling like I could be feeding less. It just doesn't work for me.
 

p0opstlnksal0t

Well-Known Member
Jacks hydro 460g/ gallon
Calcinit 310g/ gallon
Pretty much the same veg through flower using 128:1 dosers. No extra stuff, no epsom unless I run gg4 or another mg hog. Feed 5x per day
 

Vonkins

Well-Known Member
Got the most smelley, massive, frostiest buds I've ever grown. Day 63 today. Jacks is amazing once dialed in. I'm running 3 2 1. I don't know what ec I'm at and don't care one bit. My buds are just crazy!!!!!
1.5
1
.5
For shiz and giggles I wonder what EC I'm running? Wouldn't change a single thing for sure
 

lcmon

Active Member
Got the most smelley, massive, frostiest buds I've ever grown. Day 63 today. Jacks is amazing once dialed in. I'm running 3 2 1. I don't know what ec I'm at and don't care one bit. My buds are just crazy!!!!!
1.5
1
.5
For shiz and giggles I wonder what EC I'm running? Wouldn't change a single thing for sure
you are running only 1.5g per gallon of hydro mix? in coco?
 
Top