Ciao happy, grazie per lo scambio di info. Sai credo che nella vita non si smette mai di imparare.
Venendo a noi, Io mi riferivo al fosforo minerale p2o5, secondo quanto ho letto su un sito e che riporto sotto, le case produttrici di fertilizzanti darebbero valori di fosforo e potassio sulle etichette maggiori di quelli biodisponibili subito per la pianta di cannabis. che non supera, mediamente, i 3 mesi di ciclo. Quindi ioni fosforo utilizzabili da p2o5 sarebbero px0,44 e potassio da k2o sarebbe un po' di più kx0,83..che ne pensi? Bisognerebbe aumentare del 60% il fosforo ed il 20% il potassio?io ne ho dato in piu.
"Another reason the P,K figures are higher than maybe expected is due to a bit of trickery on the fertilizer labels of commercial products.*
The N figure is straight forward because N comes from organics or salts....almost NEVER in mineral forms, but because P and K come in some degree of rock/mineral form, much of it isn't immediately available for uptake by root system because the nutrients aren't in ionic form. Therefore, the label figures actually represent the amount of P2O5 and K2O (NOT the amount of P,K) available in the FIRST year.*
You can figure the ACTUAL amount of P by multiplying the label# by 0.44 and the K amount by 0.83.*
For example, let's say you're using a superphosphate at 0-20-0. You'd think that meant 20% Phosphorous. But it really means that, by weight, 20% of this fertilizer is phosphorous in MINERAL form of p2o5 available in the first year. The actual amount of ELEMENTAL phosphorous would be*
20 x 0.44 = 9% available phosphorous.*
This labeling gimmick is why growers are FAR more likely to overfert with N than with P,K and why we need a bit more P,K than usually recommended.*