Advanced Nutrients, Love it or Hate it, State your claim!

[Bud Bug]

as a former manager of two grow stores and two of my friends own some of the biggest grow stores in the bay, exception being igrow. and as a personal friend of many company owners, i know for a fact that you CANNOT return any light, im not talking about any other product, for cash back at a hydro store, with the exception being AN's. even if its defective, your getting a replacement or store credit.....

You haven't shopped in the Greater Vancouver area then. Most stores are pretty liberal (especially these days) about exchanges or refunds the exception being liquid foods and this stems from counterfeit GH products back in the early 2000's and no one will take a chance of reselling the liquids and later possibly being associated with selling bad food. There's just not enough customer around to be doing this.

ya, those are stupid........

I personally would have nothing against AN if they didn't have bullshit advertising. Actually what really got my hate on AN was Big Mikes videos and how he cries wolf when something is said about AN but then he likes to dish it out borderline liable comments against other companies.

 

[krunchbubble]

You haven't shopped in the Greater Vancouver area then. Most stores are pretty liberal (especially these days) about exchanges or refunds the exception being liquid foods and this stems from counterfeit GH products back in the early 2000's and no one will take a chance of reselling the liquids and later possibly being associated with selling bad food. There's just not enough customer around to be doing this.




I personally would have nothing against AN if they didn't have bullshit advertising. Actually what really got my hate on AN was Big Mikes videos and how he cries wolf when something is said about AN but then he likes to dish it out borderline liable comments against other companies.

true i haven't shopped around there, was there 12 years ago thought! nice place, but got stripped searched on the way in and out of Vancouver, cant return. mark emery was so cool, he gave us a qp, 8 different kinds of weed for free! had to flush most of it, couldn't smoke it all.....hotel put a carbon filter outside our hotel room.

met some old kat with 7 grams chemo bud muffins, ate one and slept for almost 48 hours!!! lmfao!

met breeder steve there, got the best white widow i have ever smoked/grown in my life....

bought $12k worth of seeds and brought them back in pens, even with the strip search, they didnt get em.......

completely agree on big mike, what a dick. he's just trying to sell his shit, but his tactics are stupid......

 

[Bud Bug]

wondering if you have ever tried AN.......

cant knock till you tried, listening to the anti bandwagon does not mean its shit.......

try it, if you dont like it, get your money back, that simple.....

I used Conny twice with no "special" or better results compared to GH/PB/DM

 

[krunchbubble]

I used Conny twice with no "special" or better results compared to GH/PB/DM

agreed, its nothing special. it was big news when it first came out but now my hydro store gives it away! still have friends who try it, but they switch back....

 

[Bud Bug]

agreed, its nothing special. it was big news when it first came out but now my hydro store gives it away! still have friends who try it, but they switch back....

I know a few people who have way better results with the Sensi/AN GBM then Conny.

 

[YosemiteSam]

I am also calling attention to Mullray, Dr. Celcius and Yosemite Sam, would like your input if you have any............??

Also, the above post directed towards TOOHIGH: I apologize as you should not have been singled out, it should include the above names as well.

Lets all work together on this, and try to use the scientific method in your arguments.........

Our goal here is to grow amazing pot.............

Also, Mullray, you are a troll

What would you like my opinion on? Sorry, but I really don't even understand what it is you want.

 

[Mr Celsius]

I am also calling attention to Mullray, Dr. Celcius and Yosemite Sam, would like your input if you have any............??

Also, the above post directed towards TOOHIGH: I apologize as you should not have been singled out, it should include the above names as well.

Lets all work together on this, and try to use the scientific method in your arguments.........

Our goal here is to grow amazing pot.............

Also, Mullray, you are a troll

Are you referencing me? Also, like Yosemite Sam... I'm not sure what you want...

Scientific method?

Characterization
Hypothesis
Prediction of hypothesis
Experiments
Evaluation
Confirmation

What do most, if any of these functions have to do with the quality of advanced nutrients?

I don't own a lab, I can't have a proper control group and experiment. I work off of empirical data, that's all I can offer.

 

[westside weasel]

Yosemite Sam, Dr. Celcius:

AN makes a statement that phosphorous is used very little throughout the cannabis cycle, and more N and K is needed. They released the data observed from an experiment they had conducted regarding cannabis nutrient uptake during its life cycle. They have used the scientific method to reach this conclusion, and have based their nutrient line on this data. If you are against AN, what is it that makes their NPK ratio incorrect and what facts have you used to reach such a conclusion? (the facts you collect must have been obtained using the scientific method, otherwise it would be inconclusive data) Besides the opinion that you do not approve of their advertising, or suggest you can use different sources of nitrogen, you have not stated any scientific evidence to prove that their NPK ratio is incorrect. If their nutrients are inferior, what are the more productive products on the market and what data supports your claim? What is the correct NPK ratio that a cannabis plant should be fed?

I believe I have asked some of these questions in the original statement, but maybe that wasn't direct enough for you two, or did you forget how to use the forums? You seemed to be doing fine before I got here....................

note: I didn't ask you if you knew what the scientific method was, anyone can look that up, just use it in your argument

 

[westside weasel]

Arcticsun - cool, how long have you been using AN?

 

[krunchbubble]

Oh and as for your scientific method

"Scientific Method - Basic Outline

Statement
Hypothesis
Experiment
Procedure
Results
Conclusion
Retest "

Nope - it's far more complex than this and changes based on just which field of science it is and multitudes of factors. But in Ag research it could be simplified to

Theory/hypothesis
Set Experimental paradigms (set up controls - establish methods)
Experiment (in Ag this requires controls)
Procedure
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Peer review (analysis of procedure)

For anything to be of relevance in science it must be peer reviewed. Something we refer to as publish or perish.

Look forward to hearing your spin on stoichiometry.

MR

huh?

 

[westside weasel]

Mullray - why is AN's NPK ratio incorrect? If you check my other posts, you can find more relevant questions. All the information regarding AN on integral hydro is science, we are questioning the chemical analysis of AN/critiquing AN as a nutrient product - its made of chemicals - how is this not science?

Again, why are you nitpicking like 2 sentences that have NOTHING to do with AN, its research, or the point of this thread, but me personally??.....you are questioning my stoichiometry, so what do you want to know? Ask and you shall recieve because what do you want me to do otherwise, copy/paste my entire chemistry education onto a piece of paper...........?? Explain avogadro's number and a mol?? That is a google click away for anyone....

Twists and turns? They are direct questions, and you are an educated individual, as you say, so you know I am bringing up valid points to which you still have not answered at all.....

That's why I stated 'Basic Outline' - of course its more complicated than my BASIC example.....

Stay focused on AN, not personal attacks that are weak at best............

 

[Mr Celsius]

Yosemite Sam, Dr. Celcius:

AN makes a statement that phosphorous is used very little throughout the cannabis cycle, and more N and K is needed. They released the data observed from an experiment they had conducted regarding cannabis nutrient uptake during its life cycle. They have used the scientific method to reach this conclusion, and have based their nutrient line on this data. If you are against AN, what is it that makes their NPK ratio incorrect and what facts have you used to reach such a conclusion? (the facts you collect must have been obtained using the scientific method, otherwise it would be inconclusive data) Besides the opinion that you do not approve of their advertising, or suggest you can use different sources of nitrogen, you have not stated any scientific evidence to prove that their NPK ratio is incorrect. If their nutrients are inferior, what are the more productive products on the market and what data supports your claim? What is the correct NPK ratio that a cannabis plant should be fed?

I believe I have asked some of these questions in the original statement, but maybe that wasn't direct enough for you two, or did you forget how to use the forums? You seemed to be doing fine before I got here....................

note: I didn't ask you if you knew what the scientific method was, anyone can look that up, just use it in your argument

Son, you seem to have some attitude, I bolded it.

If you looked back, I said that my first grow was using Advanced nutrients and I liked it.

AN does scientific research... fine. Its not going to work for every cannabis plant. The species isn't homogeneous. Since AN is the only source of any sort of cannabis nutrient profile research, I can't provide you with other facts and as I stated before, I don't have a lab. Do you?

Instead of being an AN fanboi, I suggest you go grow some weed with a variety of different nutrients. You will clearly see (assuming you're a competent grower), that all the nutrients will give similar yields in the same amount of time.

Look, if you want to spend a lot of money on nutrients and feel "hi-tech" about growing weed, by ALL means. I'm not stopping anybody from trying out Advanced Nutrients. Just informing them that pretty much any nutrient out there will give the same results with probably less money spent.

Plants need NPK and micros. Cannabis has a rough profile of these requirements. Most nutrient companies fulfill those requirements.

Generally agreed that cannabis needs 3-1-2 in veg and 1-3-2 in bloom, maybe it'll change to 1-2-3 in bloom because of the new findings. Point being, I can easily fit any nutrient profile with GH-3 part at a fraction of the price. I don't need fancy fulvic acid/humic acid, bacteria or plant hormones in a pure hydroponic system (I view coco as hydroponic). If I'm growing in the dirt, I'm organic... pretty simple.

Fulvic acid is good for chelation, if you keep your PH in check, you don't need it.

Bacteria break down nutrients into plant usable forms and protect against pathogens or fix nitrogen. Hydroponic nutrients are already plant available. If you keep a clean res with your water temps kept in check you will unlikely develop pathogens. Cannabis cannot sequester carbon like legumes, so don't not benefit from nitrogen fixation (voodoo juice uses bacteria that sequester carbon).

I do not need plant hormones from various types of kelp. I will select the correct strain for that particular style of growing that I am doing. I do not need to control plant stretch (for the most part) or distribute auxins so that there isn't a dominate apical meristem; I can train the plant by either: supercropping, topping or LST.

The only thing useful in an Advanced nutrients lineup is simply the nutrients they provide. These nutrients work, they're just expensive compared to the same nutrients with a different brand on them.

Edit: Also, if you want data on a crop, you picked the wrong one... you forget its illegal. Universities aren't clammering on trying to get the right NPK so farmers can produce more. I suggest looking at corn studies if you want "evidence". All I know is Heath Robinson is evidence enough for me.

 

[krunchbubble]

Son, you seem to have some attitude, I bolded it.

If you looked back, I said that my first grow was using Advanced nutrients and I liked it.

AN does scientific research... fine. Its not going to work for every cannabis plant. The species isn't homogeneous. Since AN is the only source of any sort of cannabis nutrient profile research, I can't provide you with other facts and as I stated before, I don't have a lab. Do you?

Instead of being an AN fanboi, I suggest you go grow some weed with a variety of different nutrients. You will clearly see (assuming you're a competent grower), that all the nutrients will give similar yields in the same amount of time.

Look, if you want to spend a lot of money on nutrients and feel "hi-tech" about growing weed, by ALL means. I'm not stopping anybody from trying out Advanced Nutrients. Just informing them that pretty much any nutrient out there will give the same results with probably less money spent.

Plants need NPK and micros. Cannabis has a rough profile of these requirements. Most nutrient companies fulfill those requirements.

Generally agreed that cannabis needs 3-1-2 in veg and 1-3-2 in bloom, maybe it'll change to 1-2-3 in bloom because of the new findings. Point being, I can easily fit any nutrient profile with GH-3 part at a fraction of the price. I don't need fancy fulvic acid/humic acid, bacteria or plant hormones in a pure hydroponic system (I view coco as hydroponic). If I'm growing in the dirt, I'm organic... pretty simple.

Fulvic acid is good for chelation, if you keep your PH in check, you don't need it.

Bacteria break down nutrients into plant usable forms and protect against pathogens or fix nitrogen. Hydroponic nutrients are already plant available. If you keep a clean res with your water temps kept in check you will unlikely develop pathogens. Cannabis cannot sequester carbon like legumes, so don't not benefit from nitrogen fixation (voodoo juice uses bacteria that sequester carbon).

I do not need plant hormones from various types of kelp. I will select the correct strain for that particular style of growing that I am doing. I do not need to control plant stretch (for the most part) or distribute auxins so that there isn't a dominate apical meristem; I can train the plant by either: supercropping, topping or LST.

The only thing useful in an Advanced nutrients lineup is simply the nutrients they provide. These nutrients work, they're just expensive compared to the same nutrients with a different brand on them.

Edit: Also, if you want data on a crop, you picked the wrong one... you forget its illegal. Universities aren't clammering on trying to get the right NPK so farmers can produce more. I suggest looking at corn studies if you want "evidence". All I know is Heath Robinson is evidence enough for me.

good post.

gotta say im rocking gh in the 20k grow in rw and in my coco grow and loving it right now! heads formula......

maybe simpler is better.......

 

[YosemiteSam]

Yosemite Sam, Dr. Celcius:

AN makes a statement that phosphorous is used very little throughout the cannabis cycle, and more N and K is needed. They released the data observed from an experiment they had conducted regarding cannabis nutrient uptake during its life cycle. They have used the scientific method to reach this conclusion, and have based their nutrient line on this data. If you are against AN, what is it that makes their NPK ratio incorrect and what facts have you used to reach such a conclusion? (the facts you collect must have been obtained using the scientific method, otherwise it would be inconclusive data) Besides the opinion that you do not approve of their advertising, or suggest you can use different sources of nitrogen, you have not stated any scientific evidence to prove that their NPK ratio is incorrect. If their nutrients are inferior, what are the more productive products on the market and what data supports your claim? What is the correct NPK ratio that a cannabis plant should be fed?

I believe I have asked some of these questions in the original statement, but maybe that wasn't direct enough for you two, or did you forget how to use the forums? You seemed to be doing fine before I got here....................

note: I didn't ask you if you knew what the scientific method was, anyone can look that up, just use it in your argument

Ummmm....there is an outside chance that it may be impossible to make you happy so I ain't gonna try real hard.

I like the tissue analysis AN did...or had done. On top of that, based on other similar analysis I agree with them about the amount of P marijuana needs to grow most efficiently.

The problem is...and no I have not applied the "scientific" method or broke out Mini Tab for a proper statistical analysis...but I have run the numbers through PHs ppm calculator...that AN does not follow the numbers their own research shows is optimum. Integral Hydro also points this out quite well.

I also have a problem with urea in any container grow. I do not want to fight dropping pH in my media for the whole grow...scientific method, nope, personal observation which, in this case, is good enough for me.

So, in summary, I agree with some of ANs so called research, disagree with a little of it and hate their marketing which I feel talks down to any semi intelligent grower. That is my opinion which is what the original question asks us to express.

Every other person is entitled to their own opinion. If you like the nutes keep using them...doesn't effect me one way or the other.

edit...for the record I use a formula that actually follows very closely what ANs P research showed to be optimum....elemental (not the P2O5/K2O numbers) ratios of 3-1-4-2-1/N-P-K-Ca-Mg. It works brilliantly and costs me 2.5 cents a gallon not including water.

edit dos...calculating moles is, theoretically, not all that hard. Sitting down and doing it based on your particular nute mix at your specific concentration without some handy spread sheet is a tedious motherfucker. Then figuring out which amino acid to use, calculating the moles needed based on what you came up with in the first step and then converting that to the weight you need...anyways, not intellectually hard but it would take some time. I decided to just control my pH and not have to worry about it. Then again I am a lazy stoner. I begin to even wonder if chelated micros are a good thing at all...provided you aren't the dumb ass AN is targeting with their marketing and you can actually control your pH.

 

[Japanfreakier]

I have never used AN so I'm going to go with "hate it"

 

[Mr Celsius]

I have never used AN so I'm going to go with "hate it"

Can't hate something you know nothing about. You make people who actually hate it look bad.

I'll reform your opinion for you: You have no idea if you like or dislike it because you have no experience using it.

 

[turbo6shooter]

I have never used AN so I'm going to go with "hate it"

haha youre funny

You ever take hits on the shinkansen? I like it. Especially when Im in the "green" car...

But anyways, AN does work good. Some stuff is cheaper and works better but figuring that out comes with experience.

Ive been switching up nutrient lines every so often just to try it out.

 

[YosemiteSam]

Mullray...thanks for that example. Is it possible to also chelate Ca and Mg? And if it is would that make Ca less immobile in the plant?

Plus, just based on observation, I agree with you that my formula could use a little more Ca. Would it hurt anything if I simply added enough Calcium Chloride to bump it up a little. I guess I am actually wondering about the chloride...I am thinking it would be toxic at some level.

I have also been watching Tom Hill's growing large plants thread. He uses Ca25 (a highly pure calcium chloride) as a foliar. The makers claim it will translocate in the plant...which I also wonder about...I always assumed you could not get foliar fed CaCl to translocate. Then again, I think he uses ascorbic acid in that foliar feed...perhaps he is actually chelating that CaCl...that would be a calculation worth making.

 

[krunchbubble]

Nice NPK Ca and Mg ratio. Finally someone who knows their stuff. I'd personally up the Ca to 2.3 - 2.5 and P to about 1.1 - 1.2 but that's just my personal opinion. To work it out correctly leaf tissue analysis is not enough and it also requires monitoring photon to sugar conversion rates. In fact I found ANs tissue anlysis somewhat questionable and could only conclude it proved very little if not nothing. I.e. More research is required.

And yep, Stoichiometry is boring tedious stuff that requires absolute concentration but as you point out calculating mol is very simple stuff to anyone who has even a basic handle on chemistry. As Weasel seems to have gone quiet on answering the chem question (he's probably busily trying to google it but will only find an explanation in terminology that confuses him more unless he can decipher chem inforation too often written by chems for chems). So, I'll answer my own question.

Here is an example.

Let’s say we wanted to chelate 10,000ppm of Iron (Fe), using citric acid. Firstly 10,000ppm is the same as 10,000mg/L which equals 10.0g of elemental iron (Fe) in 1L of water. Therefore 10.0g of Fe = 1.0%w/v.
Next, let’s say we are using Iron Sulphate heptahydrate (FeSO4.7H2O) which is 20.2% elemental Fe.
To calculate 1.0% Fe from FeSO4.7H2O in 1L you equate it as 1.0_ = 0.0495 kg/L times by 1000 to get g/L = 49.50g/L Fe
20.2 (elemental Fe)

The molecular weight of FeSO4.7H2O = 278.0g. Therefore, the number of moles would be

n = m = 49.50
278.0 = 0.178mol FeSO4.7H2


To chelate one Fe ion you need two citric acid molecules. Therefore you will need 0.178 (mol) x 2 = 0.356mol of citric acid anhydrous.
If citric acid has a molecular weight of 192.12g/mol the mass (amount) of citric acid required to chelate 10.0 grams of Fe (1.0% elemental Fe) would be equated as
n = m m = n x M = 0.356 x 192.12 = 68.39g of citric acid
M

Therefore to chelate the Fe ions in 49.5grams of iron sulphate heptahydrate you need 68.39g of citric acid anhydrous. So the answer is, you will need 68.39g of citric acid anhydrous to chelate 10,000ppm of Fe.


Thanks YosemiteSam I enjoyed your post.



MR

are you fatman? you completely remind me of him....

 

[YosemiteSam]

To work it out correctly leaf tissue analysis is not enough and it also requires monitoring photon to sugar conversion rates.

First of all thank you for the thoughtful post. I am using RO water in one location and tap in another (city vs county). The alkalinity in the city water scares me off. So actually my county grow has a little more Ca than I reported...I will look at adding a little CaCl to my RO grow.

I am in an area where variety is just a given...you cannot sell just one thing. I have seen fairly big differences in plants EC requirements myself. Probably have not reached the level of sophistication yet where I can judge small differences in ratios...although I am working on it.

About your quote...I read it yesterday but it didn't really start me thinking. Then I got high and fell asleep (my brain seems to do its best work when I ain't in its way). When I woke up I think I at least part ways understand what you were saying...i.e. that part of it is about helping the plant convert energy from light into stored energy or mass of carbohydrate.

Can brix level measured by a refractometer be used as a metric for how well this is happening? And if so could you tweak around to achieve the highest brix level possible given the lights you are using? Or even how well the plants are using the nutes you are giving the to form sugar?

If that theory is even semi valid it seems to me that brix level could be an important measurement in the quest for a better grow.

I have always had some doubt about merely using tissue analysis alone as a guideline. I mean if you feed humans junk you end up with a very different body composition than if you feed them nothing but clean protein, veggies and good fats. I could not help but think the same would be true for plants.

so maybe tweak around and achieve the highest brix level you can, do tissue analysis, tweak again slightly with the help of that info to get a higher brix and on and on til you be happy.

Or did I miss your point entirely?