How long has it been?
does it have any true leaves yet?

Cheri, sometimes we forget that peppers are perrentials. They have a ten year life span. This is a Congo Pepper in it's first year. This is last years picture. Some don't do well in their first year but we have such a selection to choose from who notices.
Now this is them 2 weeks ago.

Looks like a mad scientist's handy work doesn't it.

it's been 22 days since planting. It was about a week behind in sprouting, but it's still only about an inch long! The others are all over 5 inches at least! No second leaves yet either.
I'm going to move it to it's own system later today and see if it does better.
Georgiii, thank you very much for the very helpful info you offered and without making me feel stupid! Very much appreciated!! Does that mean they are permanent plants in my garden?? They're called 'cajun tabasco peppers'. I don't know the actual name, just the layman name (I haven't gotten that far yet lol)
~~Cheri~~

Cheri,

Peppers are perennials but do not normally survive a killing frost. If you want to grow the same plant next year and it gets below 30 degrees, you will need to protect it or bring it inside.

Mike

22 days is a long time. are all your peppers this small or just the one? I would venture it's a runt and not going to make it.
In my experience growing peppers, they always take longer to germinate than anything else I grow. Usually about a week. But surely they should have at least a set of leaves by now.

Well, it WAS a little over a week longer than the others. I remember reading that before so I didnt worry...but it's growth is really slow!! It does have a third leaf now (should have checked that before I said no but I didnt see any growth last time I checked) but it's itty bitty too.
Here's the pic I took about an hour ago

Some of the OTHER plants planted the same day. I think my nutes were light, so I just changed the res.

That other pepper plant was something I saved from a planter, not part of that group I seeded. But the cukes were from that same group and in the same system.

EC is now 1.6 (was pretty low at 1.2, and I didn't check the PH this week but it's just over 5.5 now) I also had the pepper covered with a little green house from an old pop bottle..clear... should I take this off or leave it on??

Hey cheri!
You have a few things here that may play:

1. Tabasco are of the species Capsicum frutescens and those are in fact growing even slower from seedling stage to a few inches than other species and varieties. And those are not the easiest customers either.

2. All chili varieties hate wet feet and your vermiculite /perlite mix probably contains too much vermiculite. Vermiculite retains too much humidity if added in such high amounts. Here around we have lately changed the P/V ratio to only 1 part of Vermiculite to 4 parts of Perlite to prevent wet feet.

3. The EC of 1.6 is clearly too high for those tiny pepper seedling. I mean I've grown seedlings occasionally with even higher EC for testing purposes, but that's not an optimum. 0.6 - 0.8 with low mineral content water is what I would suggest for pepper seedlings of that size.

4. Some pepper seedlings can be very picky - next time try to grow your seedlings in different media with various nutrient strengths and you may even try some in potting ground as a control group. Using at least two alternative methods doubles your chances of success. ;-)

5. Don't feel stupid or anything of the sort, as this part can indeed be quite tricky, even for advanced growers.

no no, I I don't feel stupid at all. Ignorant yes (lmao) but only because I never read that it sould be so low!! I'll have to go buy more perlite today and switch it to it's own system. I'll have to rig something up, but hey...it's what we do, right? lol
Thanks for your help! I didn't realize they were so hard to grow!
I was going my the chart I had with my nutes. Everyone else seemed to like it LOL Never thought that could be the problem! Thanks!
And btw, I planted 3 seeds. 2 sprouted, but the other one never got it's leaves out of the seed shell and it withered. This one I had to gently pull the shell off because it was doing the same thing! I was afraid to damage it, but I was very careful.

Chiles are not hard to grow, but, in that they are pretty un-engineered plants, their ability to use nutrient is limited.

I grow mostly chiles and keep ec at 0.7 and Ph at 6.5

I am not saying that peppers are hard or difficult to grow, I am more like saying they may be picky when it comes to growing conditions. Or if you prefer, they may not grow as expected if growing conditions aren't suited for some reason or the other. As previously described in fact. ;-)

oh, right, I got it. That makes sense. They're finicky ;) I've got some perlite and I'm just thinking about what to use for a new system. And thanks Willard for that info, I'll go with that. My PH is set about 5.8 ish, so I'll put it higher in it's own set up. My water is just above 7 from the tap, so it wont be too hard lol

So higher ph, lower nutes... got it.

If ever my opinion matters, I do not advise to raise PH at 6.5 or use it for growing any kind of peppers. Between 5.8 and 6.2 is just fine from my experience and these are commonly accepted figures. Also, the best concentration for most maturing hot pepper plants is more like between 1.3 and 1.8 mS/cm from my experience and point of view. Ask around or take a few second opinions and you will find these figures more or less confirmed as well ;-).

ok, so right now while it's still a seedling I use an ec of around 0.6 to 0.8 (what's your conversion rate btw?) and when it gets a few more leaves then boost it to about 1.3 for the rest of the time, assuming it's doing well?

Right, and these are truly reliable data I'd put my hand in the fire for.

But for the EC (and conversion rates), I believe the common confusion will go on for another 10 years. There is no conversation rate for EC or mS/m as they are an unique unit that doesn't need to- nor can't be converted. Any EC-meter will read the same. If you want to know to what conversion rate in ppm a certain EC would correspond, that's another story. But then you need to know and use the conversion rate of the TDS meter you'd compare a given EC with. For instance 1.0 mS/cm would simply read 700 ppm with any /700 conversion rate instrument and 500 ppm with any /500 conversion rate meter. Electrical conductivity is converted to different conversion rates, but EC always remains EC.

The confusion is understandable though, as most people can't let go the idea of TDS or ppm as a more understandable standard. They believe this is more accurate or more "real", while it isn't. Why can I understand this so well? Because I painfully remember, that once with my first EC-meter I wanted to find out the conversion rate it used as well - simply because I wanted to know how much ppm my nutrient solution actually had LOL.

*laughing at herself* ...I knew that. Seriously, I did. idk why I asked that. I'm going to bed now LOL Maybe sleep will help...

It's good to bring up every once in awhile, though. I'm with Luc on this one. Why people don't standardize on the only thing measured is beyond me. As he pointed out, it only stands to confuse people. I don't get why so many books and even nutrient manufacturers still use PPM when discussing concentration of a mixture. I can understand that they do when discussing concentration of a specific mineral prior to mixing, but afterward is completely irrelevant.

The truth is that the ppm measurement of conductivity instruments is also a common way of measuring conductivity in the scientific community which is called salinity (or Total Dissolved Solids). It has nothing to do with the actual parts per million of anything within your hydroponic solution and it merely compares the conductivity of the solution to that of a solution of pure Sodum Chloride (NaCl). Since the concentration of a pure salt is directly proportional to conductivity this comparison can be done. It is a very popular expression for conductivity - specially when dealing with water quality - since it gives you an idea of the strength of the conductivity of the solution when compared with an NaCl standard. If your hydroponic solution has a conductivity of 500 ppm, it means that your solution has the same conductivity as a solution made of NaCl of that concentration but it doesn't tell you anything besides that, it doesn't mean that your solution has 500ppm of anything, it merely compares it to a 500 ppm pure NaCl standard.

In hydroponics there seems to be a confusion because the equivalency is not always straightforward, depending on the instruments used, distilled water quality and the quality of the NaCl used figures range between the 500-700 ppm conversion you usually find. In hydroponics it makes a lot more sense to talk about standard conductivity units measures in mS/cm rather than anything else.

I hope this helps anyone looking for this information :o)

Here is a link that might be useful: Everything Hydroponics

We went through this several times here already Daniel and in fact I only recently pointed out the paradox, that what you actually measure with a 500 conversion rate is how many ppm a NaCL solution of a certain strength or concentration would equal in ppm.

The confusion gets even greater when people read or look at formulas and recipes for nutrients that are expressed in ppm, as in N= 180 ppm, etc. Obviously, they (want to ) relate these ppm to the ones they measure with their "TDS-meter" somehow. They don't make the connection with different equivalencies of each element or component, though - and that their "TDS-meter" isn't able to respect the average limited equivalency of a nutrient solution.

Anyway, I repeatedly read in many forums about people giving the TDS of their NS in ppm without mentioning the conversation rate of their instrument, still believing they/their instrument would measure and read actual ppm AND with a unique standard. They are simply not aware that what they tell and actually use as a concentration could be of either 500/700 standard and thus a different pair of shoes. What they use could be off the grid when following a recommendation given in a different conversion standard as well.

Before actually discovering this discrepancy, I simply thought and assumed that the 500 conversion rate was used as a standard and in case 700 conversion rate was occasionally "dealt", it had to be specified and mentioned. But later I had to discover that this was merely wishful thinking from my side, and that it is "random"... ;-)

If you use the EC mentioned here, your later posts will concern flower drop. Keep the nutrient low at 0.7 or so.

I have 10-15 years of data on nutrient levels for chiles and low levels work better.

Thanks guys! I'm rigging up a new system just for this guy and I'll let you know how it goes!

"In hydroponics there seems to be a confusion because the equivalency is not always straightforward, depending on the instruments used, distilled water quality and the quality of the NaCl used figures range between the 500-700 ppm conversion you usually find. In hydroponics it makes a lot more sense to talk about standard conductivity units measures in mS/cm rather than anything else."

I would agree but is there any instrument (that does not cost thousands) that can tell you the PPM/TDS or even EC of each individual element in the solution. They only give you the total amount, not the complete composition. I can use straight miracle grow and get the desired PM/TDS or even EC, but is that the only number that determines a healthy plant? Just because I have the right number on the meter I must have the perfect nutrient solution, right?

If you are a scientist and make up your own nutrients in proportion to the plants you are growing, these numbers are much more useful. For the 95% of us that are not scientists these numbers are guidelines at best.

The actual EC value of your solution - as you point out - does not tell you anything about the total composition. Since different ions have different conductivities even very bad nutrient solutions which are not balanced adequately can give you good EC readings. Having the right EC number does not have any meaning regarding nutrient formula quality and - as you also say - it is merely a guideline to determine the strength of a given nutrient formulation that you know is well balanced.

Regarding the measurement of specific ion concentrations in solutions I have done a fair amount of experimenting with ion selective electrodes and I have been quite successful with the measurement of nitrate, potassium and iron in solution. Phosphorous is a little bit more complex since the large number of different species within the solution - due to the pH we work at - makes measurement a little bit difficult and I need to take a sample and adjust it to another pH before I get any decent reading. I have not tried any other elements, mainly due to the fact that ion selective electrodes are expensive and often very sensitive to interference when the difference in concentration is so large (for example when determining Cu, the fact that other metals are tens to thousands of times more concentrated would pose a problem).

I understand that ion selective electrodes are not for everyone and I would agree that they are just not necessary to have a successful hydroponic crop and merely interesting if you want to follow the evolution of particular nutrients through your crop or if you are very interested in accurate nutrient control through prolonged periods of time. For example, I can replace my nitrogen and potassium levels knowing exactly how much of each nutrient is missing.

EC reading are a good guidance but they depende a lot on the quality of the nutrient formulation which needs to be good to begin with. I always encourage people to prepare their own solutions, a simple process I think anyone can do. As you know I wrote a free ebook which describes how to do this.

I hope this answers your questions :o)

Daniel

Here is a link that might be useful: Everything Hydroponics

Thanks for your reply danielfp,

first off I would like to say that I never questioned your data, in case you may have thought so. I just am on the side of the non scientist, and backyard grower. The difference between a backyard grower and a scientist that has the right equipment. Well lets say I test my nutrient selution, and it says that it is lacking 100 PPm/TDS or EC of magnesium. The pre made nutrient concentrates don't allow for you to pick what you want to add. You can only do that if you have the individual elements.

And yes I have downloaded your make your own nutrients e-book, and I do appropriate you not only taking the time to create it, but giving it away for free. But it still will be some time before I am able to create my own. Just like me, just because I have read it, does not mean that I can fallow through with it all.

Most people that are doing hydroponics (from my experience) are fairly new to it. I just wouldn't recommend getting involved with making your own nutrients before you have even grown the crops with a commercial nutrient. That way you can get used to how they are supposed to look, before trying to guess what deficiency/toxicity's if any the nutrients you made have. And unless they make a meter that can give values for each individual element (that we the people can afford), well I just don't see them as anything more useful than just a guideline. Still needing regular nutrient changes in order to know what is in your solution.

P.S. I am sure you are correct with all your info, just saying that what seems to be common sense to you is not always the case for the rest of us without all the experience and training.

Really the various retail hydroponic solution manufacturers should provide EC levels for various plants based on using their solution. But then people would start comparing different companies EC values and find they are all very similar.

Firstly, what could possibly by wrong or strange with the fact that they were (very) similar? Secondly actual recommended EC varies not only with crop variety, but with conditions as growing temperatures as well. And finally, manufacturers are smart enough to know that the fewer information and instructions they give, the simpler a product seems to be to use. Giving one (even vital) information and hard fact too much, and the consumer wood perhaps chose the "simpler to use product" - instead.

Attention, it's not to always blame the manufacturers or retailers, it's more like a collateral interaction between both consumers and marketing people that makes most markets and products more and more "dishonest".

Sheesh. Get off you high horse.
I never accused or "blamed" the manufacturers for or about anything.

Did I say you had blamed the manufacturers or anything of the sort? NO!

1. I ASKED what could possibly be wrong with the fact that several products may recommend similar EC. That was somehow related to your remark grizzman, - but it surely ends there.

2. I explained that actual recommendations would depend on other parameters and that "manufacturers" may run in trouble when wanting to give extensive EC recommendations.

3. After that I pointed out another reason why they wouldn't recommend any EC, - which is commonly known as KISS marketing strategy.

4. Having said all that, I felt like adding a GENERAL warning remark to not hastily blame the manufacturers or retailers, because the market is strongly connected to customer demand. Hence NO single connotation with- not even remotely connected nor addressed to any grizzman!

What's the problem man?

One more thing: As for providing EC-readings of several products with a specific dilution, I have got one source that lists EC-readings of all major fertilisers and some hydroponic products available in Europe (mainly Germany). Its partially provided by the manufacturers themselves and completed through individual measuring by the German Chamber of Agriculture of North Rhine-Westphalia.

It's available in German language only, but the right columns are pretty self-explanatory. They list at page 2:

"in der Düngelösung = Gebrauchslösung"-> refers to/means ready to use solution in mS/cm

"in der Stammlösung" -> means in/as concentrate, also shown in mS/cm.

PS: Obviously, these data are no recommendations but data of dilution factors of different products (and formulas) in thousandth and percent - and thus differ widely as they depend on each product's concentration and composition.

To get the downloadable PDF, click at the usual hyperlink->

Hopefully no-one feels concerned and/or gets mad at me for providing this info... LOL. Well, seems you can never be careful enough around here...

Here is a link that might be useful: E C - Wert Tabelle