Coco with canna nutrients

sure, but with a soilless medium you are better off feeding a good amount fromt he start and not trying to 'boost' it in a nshort period of time. 180-200ppm K from early vege is all you need.. there's no need to drastically change K in flower, in fact studies show even adding 190ppm is overkill, but i definitely run into plants taht will show deficiency signs around then -- could be a slight imbalance in my formula (see: Mulder's Chart). it's hubris to think what we see in our garden is universal, because there are quitea a few moving parts involved that can make one garden different from the next. i've dabbled with increasing my normal P concentration of the formula, and that has an antagonistic effect on K's availabiliy as you raise P.. i may have caused this rare issue with my own choice 2 years ago. So huge spikes in a nutrient is not the best way to apply it. it'll more drastically effect other things than necessary. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8635921/ "The goal of this study was to determine the optimal concentration of N, P, and K in the nutrient solution for the flowering stage of soilless cannabis production using RSM. The optimal concentrations of nutrient solution N and P was predicted to be approximately 194 mg L–1 N, and 59 mg L–1 P, respectively. Based on analysis of the response surface model, it was found N and P were the most important factors in predicting inflorescence yield. Inflorescence yield decreased markedly outside of the range of 160–230 mg L–1 N, and 40–80 mg L–1 P. These findings suggest that drug-type cannabis responds well to nitrogen and phosphorus during the flowering stage. Inflorescence yield did not respond to nutrient solution K concentration within the tested range, indicating the K currently supplied (300–400 mg L–1) by some commercial cultivators are likely too high." These idiots used rain water for an experiement, though, which is retarded beyond belief for anyone with a doctorate. They whimsically and ignorantly added more volatility to their results for absolutely no reason. Also, the N mg/L is elevated because it wasn't readily available nitrogen sources, they do discuss this in the paper why it seems to contradict some previous research regarding optimal N levels. "...factoring in organic N availability of around 60% would put our findings in line with those ...." The other study found a higher level was better at aroudn 212. so 114-126 range is 60% of those values, which is exactly what bugbee and others also have found to be optimal -- ~120 give or take. that's only for soilses/hydro type ingredients for N that are 100% plant available when they dissolve. I do find i need less of this in flower, but that could be from 6 weeks of slightly overfeeding it prior... People always assume cause and effect is the most recent thing done, but with fertilization it often is not. This study has good info. It is not meant to be taken in a 100% literal sense. It is 1 data point of many needed to paint a clear picture. Genetic variety does impact this, but when we see plants struggle with a formula while others do not, it's more often about the esoteric formula than genetics. you can easily find a good formula that works for 95-99% of plants wihtout seeing any deficiencies and even having to dial back a bit, if trying to push the envelope with fertilization. 1-1-2 NPK // 4-2-1 K-Ca-Mg is what the science says. I find i need a bit more Mg than this ratio gives at a typical 1.3-1.5 EC overall concentration of fertilizer. Your mileage may vary. Lots of local variables matter, like what solutes exist in your water before you add anything to it. And, 100-110ppm S, in addition to this ratios jiving at 1.3-1.5EC (fertilizer only ppm, not what came with the water -- best to calcualte this from the guaranteed analysis labels than using a TDS pen that can be incredibly inaccurate -- apps and online fertiizer ppm calculators can do this work for you). the community wants to believe that you do this at this week, and that and week 6, and pray to brahma under a pale moon... this is self-absorbed dreck to give a false sense of sophistication despite never putting any effort in to prove anything.. just some popular shaved monkey did it, so now other shaved monkeys do it en masse === "culture" lol... while it is very complicated, that is not how it is complicated. the interactions between the nutes, thd different local variables, the genetic variation is waht causes a need to be agile and willing to adjust -- not some rigid feeding schedule based on selling the most product and squeezing the most money from you while we dump excessive fertilizer into our groundwater.