Plant

Thank you so much for everybody ☺️🙏🏽

typographical error: " the facts of the issue are **not** the where he starts. he starts with "bruh science" a..." that "not" was important to that sentence to make proper sense.

No info on nutes. the people answering questions go out of their way to help, you shouldn't expect them to have to dig and type and find the info when you can easily link it to the question and save everyone time instead of just you, who is the one asking for help and should be willing to do the small things to make it more convenient. 120s 60 180+ 100+ 50-80 100ish N/P/K/Ca/Mg/S, respectively. Compare to what you are doing and the answer as to why this happened to your plants will become obvious. It doesn't matter if you are using sphagnum peat moss or coco coir or hydroton... this is the rough ratio and concentration you should start near as best you can with the products you have. 6-ish pH is fine. There is no reason to tightrope at 5.8 and leave yourself with vertially no room for error onlow side -- this will lock out Ca if you go much lower. coco and peat are virtually the same thing. in fact bruce bugbee's research shows plants grow even better in 50/50 sphagnum peat than using coco coir as a base. More important to have 50% perlite or similar with the peat moss and 30% for the coco - these numbers are not randomly drawn out of the hat. they result in same water capacity per volume. Coco holds less water than sphagnum peat. Weighted average ratios of products -- 1-1-2 for NPK and 4-2-1 for K/Ca/Mg at about 1.3-1.5 EC. - This is research based and not "bro-science" . you will find multiple research papers showing the merit of these ratios across several species of plants, including those similar to marijuana. 5 years of personal experience backs that up, too. More importantly are the results from research involve much large samples of plants and more precise control of variables while properly applying the scientific method... This is how we have modern marvels of medical science and for 100k years prior we rubbed camel piss on things and ate useless herbs some retarded shaman made up and passed down as some kind of cruel joke taking advantage of people that don't know any better.. .LOL it should be obvious which information is better to follow and which methods of learning/testing have better results. Your vpd may require an adjustement to the overall concentration. High vpd means the plant is drinking faster and you need a slightly lower concentration of nutes, all other factors remaining the same. If vpd is low, you need a higher concentration of nutes, again ceteris paribus. Mas of building blocks must match mass of growth rate, over time -- Law of conservation of mass. (that is relative to the elemental or molecular form of the various nutrients needed to form cell walls and organelles etc.. plus what isn't used would equal what you fed) Carbon from the air would also need to be measured and tracked for this equation to balance out as i simply stated it. It is more complicated, but it's not magical. don't listen to roberts.. he's just a bot/script bloated profile, of which he may not even be aware. He often saying the wrong things very confidently and with no evidence to support it. You can look back just recently and see 2 questions from same user 6 days apart.. in one he says the concentration is too high, then in the other the concentration is too low, when the same info was provided. This shows that deductive reasoning is not employeed.. the facts of the issue are the where he starts. he starts with "bruh science" and works top-down from there. fwiw, the nutes in that particular question were about half of what you'd want in a soilless context and not even a debate about the conclusion was possible. early on there is great benefit to a wet-dry cycle and it has to do with root growth. If you want to "always keep it wet" later on you still need some sort of minimum dryback or you will cause just as many problems as any other solid substrate that is constantly too wet regardless of soilless or "soil." root rot cares not for coco or soil.. it's simply higher risk in certain situations. Doing this sort of thing blindly is incontravertibly stupid. coco is not magical. it is not special. it does not change the chemistry or biologiy of the plant. The physical substrate itself is not the cause of improved growth rates compared to soil. That is caused by the form of nutrients provided and how it differs. The physical substrate should be though of as a bucket of water. It holds the water. It really shouldn't do much else. Micrboes and stuf in soil carry out necessary reactions, but again that is not the soil and you can mimic that using coco , too, if you wanted to. Soil is not the cause to that effect and you can make soil have the same aeration andn drainage qualities of 70/30 coco, which could be used with hydro nutes in teh same exact way and have the same exact results (plus/minus some irrelevant amount that human senses cannot resolve). The plant still functions the same way and still needs the same stuff in the same ratio and concentration per day to meet needs of what your localenvironmentallows -- light intensity, co2, temps, rh... these dictate how much you can feed but the ratios of each nute will be similar at all levels. 5.8-6.5 is fine. Whateer you use, keep it consistent. That is suprmeley more important that being all anal about 5.8pH. Is a bit lower more optimal? possibly, but again with 10-20 plants you probably cannot measure the difference and normal volatility of all other factors at play will create a fog of war greater than the effect of 5.8pH vs say 6.0pH. Is it worth it to push right up near where Ca is locked out? absolutely not, lol. don't put too much stock into ppl that grow plants that barely put out 5-fingered leaves and often look like the brown pound from mexico when done. Despite 50,000 likes (mostly fabricated), they don't actually know what they are talking about beyond the basics, and even those they fuck up on occasion. They just repeat common beliefs of the peanut gallery. Just figure the entire top portion of that "leaderboard" (measuring nothing related to growing and purely social in origin) is a bunch of insecure people that use a script to boost views and likes. At one point there was a little competition going on and you'd see one account gain 10,000 likes in a a day or two then the other would gain 20,0000 in retaliation.. and that would go on and clearly not correlating to actual site traffic of real, unique individuals, lol.. beacuse it was clearly retaliatory and it went back and forth many times.. the "king" of likes has changed hands a couple times but one person is more adamant about staying on top than the others and outlasts them. BWAhahaha. once the escalation pauses, the rate of likes stops... it is manufactured and unnatural.. tied to the person's insecurity and a reaction to others doing the same thing, lol.. viscious cycle. Before the 'script/bot' code made its rounds, groups/cliques of people would boost each others likes unnaturally, too. so it was more about having enough insecure people that would agree to bombard each others diaries and comments with views and likes, lol.. it's a total sham and fucking laughable behaviour. To watch it unfold is slightly entertaining. Like i said, the unnatural rate of accrual that oscillates primarily in reaction to others passing them by on the "like leaderboard" ... it was clearly the cause to the astronomical gains that come and go like the wind if not paying attention to who just passed whom. Roberts may just be a unwitting pawn. He may not be aware of the artificial boosting done on GD. He was not part of what i just explained, but he is most likely a bloated account, nonetheless.. View counts of diaries makes no sense.. 80-90% of those likes are from liking comments back and forth from people giving empty praise to each other. It's kinda grotesque, lol. I once saw a diary of mine with zero brand names, nothing anyone would search for, a brand new account with no following... and magically i went from zero view to 1800-2000 in a matter of days. This was almost certainly "fake" traffic. Shady shit happens here. don't trust the numbers as far as who to listen to and who to not listen to.. the popular accounts are mostly shills for products they get for free. often ignoring any negative thing about them while selling people a pipedream and perpetuating ignorance for some free, often trashy, products.

I don't 100% agree with a PH of 5.8, its on the lower end of a scale, its ok-ish if you can keep your PH in check but if you can't, its asking for a bigger problems should the PH swing. I have no doubt we all have our own personal experiences and we know what works for us but its good to have the science behind it as well to backup that belief. Many things in the cannabis growing community is Bro-science or done without any controls in check. Should your ph swing in any direction +/-, using a more mid range ph like 6.2 give you a larger buffer for error. I've have seen fantastic grows in 6.2-6.4 in coco as well as 5.8. The PH is altered to make nutrients available for the plants and to make the roots comfortable. Cannabis tends to like a slightly acidic medium similar to tomatoes. In soil the microbes make acids and helps achieve this, its not need to PH adjust much in soils. In Hydro we tend to use a PH down products to get it lower then soil for an ideal sweet spot. However, when using liquid nutrition that are chelated, meaning immediately available for plants. the PH is less about nutrient absorption and more about comfort of the medium as long as it is within the orginal range. I see that range as 5.5-7.5, it could be different may want to fact check that, this is the range where plants can live and some plants prefer different PH's on that range its also good to note that PH is a log scale. so moving further away from a neutral PH of [7] requires more +H/-OH https://www.ysi.com/image%20library/blog/hydrogen-and-hydroxide-ion-activities.jpg This image gives a bit of a visual to that. Out side of all this. It looks like your plants are overfeed and this is a buildup, a lot of damage has been done, I say this by how dark and glossy your leaves are and how I did not see the EC level on the feeds your using. I'd suggest getting a EC pen to track that till you know whats up. Good feeds with be PH buffered so you don't need to worry to much about them in the medium, shit feeds less so and you will get PH swings. May need to get a flush in there to stop more damage from happening. Might need to do this over the course of a day. Good Luck!

Please research growing in coco properly. I will happily explain. Autoflowersuck does not understand growing in coco properly. 5.8 ph is optimal for all stages of growth in coco. Coco retains air and by always being wet. It is really hard to burn plants. When it dries out plants fry. Plants thrive in wet coco with high irrigation. I can happily explain it in more details in dm. 6.1 to 6.2 is top end of ph for coco and is more for flowering. I recommend 5.8 the whole grow till you get a feel for right nutrition amounts, and stabilizing your ph with it.

Those plants are fried to a crisp from nutrient burn. I've had hydro gardens end up like that when i got lazy and didn't closely monitor my evaporation rate of my reservoir. H2O decreases via plant transpiration, plus just general evaporation. You nutrients become concentrated and your ppm goes up and the plants fry like yours are. You'll still achieve a crop, but your yield and quality will be severely affected I'm sorry to say. I am at the end of my first time ever growing in Coco. I burnt my plants up some because i was unaware of just how much ppm was in my tap water.....lesson learned. Always know the ppm of what your giving them before you give it to them. It can be the difference between giving them 1500ppm and 2500ppm. First thing you need to do is clean out your soil cuz it's likely toxic. Flush!! and move your pH to 6.2. If you use beneficial microbs then a pH as high as 6.6 is fine and as low as 6.2 is as low as they will be able to tolerate. 5.8 pH is good in pure water culture. I treat my Coco grow as i would a Peat based grow. I fed my Lemon Kush grow once a week (Mondays) and Thursdays they were watered with calmag. Always pH to 6.2 I allow my Coco to dry out between watering and they have responded just fine to that regiment. Constant moisture around the root zone without a ton of oxygen will rot your roots so i don't recommend saturation all the time. Lots of people advocate to keep Coco wet all the time but i don't follow that trend. Coco, like any other substrate, can accumulate salt build up in the medium like anything else. As long as there is some moisture in the medium, i know the plants roots will absorb it. Too me, oxygen is as important as water, so i like an abundance of oxygen at the roots. I've done pure water culture of this Lemon Kush and I've now finished my first Coco grow and the yields are very similar. But the Coco Grow seems a little frostier.

Okay so just taking a shot in the dark from growing in coco for years. So coco is to not be treated anything like soil. Coco is Hydro growing in a potter. It needs to always be wet, but not sitting in run off. You likely have a major ph issue in coco. What is your run off ph and tds? You should have lots of run off every time you feed them, which should be daily to bi daily. Coco is high maintenance, but good reward. Also flowering npk ratio is 1-2-3. Cal mag is always needed with coco grows. The run off ph is very important with coco. Would be my guess from experience with coco. 👍🏻

I'm sorry, but you currently have 7 diaries running in parallel, so if you don't take the trouble to link the right one… ><'