advanced nutrients jungle juice

[DIRTYDEEDS]

I was just over at the advanced nutrients website and saw that they have a new 3 part nutrient called jungle juice.From what i understand it's supposed to be gh 3 part but at a fraction of the cost.They claim this is their way of stickin it to them by selling the exact nutrient but at much lesser price and by doing so hopefully converting alot of gh users to advanced.They even have the mixing ratios for the lucas formula on the back of the label.I also heard from remo the ''urbangrower'' on his youtube channel that they're coming out with a 2 part thats just like canna's 2 part.

 

[YosemiteSam]

Kinda makes a guy curious why they would do such a thing. Do they claim it yields 40% less than their old 3 part...cause they made the opposite claim comparing their old 3 part to GHs.

Also watch out for a labeling trick...do they list as w/w or w/v? Knowing the truth about that might cast some light on the $ claim.

 

[RubeGoldberg]

their old 3 part is a separate product though, i think the idea is that
"hey Flora users, we have the same shit for 40% less cost"

I mean if I want a big mac, im not gonna buy a whopper from the BK next door, but if they told me they had an exact copy of the big mac just cheaper.. fuckit i'll go with that

 

[stoney-trees]

. Do they claim it yields 40% less than their old 3 part...cause they made the opposite claim comparing their old 3 part to GHs.

They said they used cheaper chelates. cheaper ingredients. Im sure considering the cost of the jungle juice compared to AN 3 part people will expect lower yields.

 

[farmdalefurr]

here is a little comparison. i recently switched to h3ads formula, but only because i already had the bloom, only needed the micro. im liking what i see so far, but, when this gh runs out im definitely gonna try the jungle juice w/ the 6/9 formula and see how it goes. ive had great experiences w/ AN in the past using sensi along w/ a few additives. hopefully the jungle juice is good. the price sure is

 

[Darkstarlive]

I though it was just a renaming of ther 3 part nutrients, why would they have 2 3-part base nutrients?
I think its just reinventing itself with new names for the same old products and new labels with different pictures.

 

[desertsquirrel]

The add for this product is so funny. The first half explains how they coppied GH to a TEE, and the second half is all about how gh has micros in bad ratio for "our special plant."

AN is the biggest joke in the industry.

GH at 12 days...

http://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=215910

 

[BCMaster]

I just received a response back from AN tech support in regards to Jungle Juice and PH perfect,

This is what they had to say,

"Thank you for your inquiry.





The PH perfect product will usually remain in the PH range of 6.0 to 7.0 however the product works in several ways, your plants will still be absorbing nutrients efficiently even if in normal nutrients they would be out of range.



In regards to the Jungle Juice, it is an EXACT reverse engineering of the GH flora 3 part, thus it is not PH perfect and can be treated exactly like the GH product.





Regards

AN Tech Support"





I thought this was odd because they advertise jungle juice as ph perfect.

 

[303hydro]

There is a reason people hate A.N. They are evil pieces of sh*t ( although the rest not much better) and this is just another part of their general tactic of using misinformation to fuel nutrient sales while keeping growers uneducated so they can buy 20 additives, half of which will be killed by the other additives.

From another thread:

This Jungle Juice thing smells fishy because only the percentages written on he label are the same as GH's Flora series not the real nute contents.
GH confirmed by email that they state percentages in w/w%, while AN customer service wrote they express NPK contents in w/v% on liquid fertilizers.
This means that AN's nute content is actually less then GH's by their specific gravities.

To get the the difference we have to know GH's specific gravities:
grow - 1.11
micro - 1.23
bloom - 1.15
(Specific gravities taken from cannastats)

The overall difference is 49%.
AN Jungle Juice contains 49% less nutrients than GH 3 parts, even if the NPK is the same on their labels in case AN really list NPK in w/v% while GenHydro list theirs in w/w% as they stated in the emails.

To see both NPKs expressed in the same way (w/v%):
Jungle Juice 3 parts:
2-1-6 grow
5-0-4 micro
0-5-1 bloom

GH 3 parts:
2.22-1.11-6.66 grow (1.11)
6.15-0-4.92 micro (1.23)
0-5.75-1.15 bloom (1.15)

To get the final conclusion :
While AN states their product costs 40% less, it actually cost 9% more than GH 3 parts.

 

[RubeGoldberg]

.

 

[neddy]

There is a reason people hate A.N. They are evil pieces of sh*t ( although the rest not much better) and this is just another part of their general tactic of using misinformation to fuel nutrient sales while keeping growers uneducated so they can buy 20 additives, half of which will be killed by the other additives.

From another thread:

This Jungle Juice thing smells fishy because only the percentages written on he label are the same as GH's Flora series not the real nute contents.
GH confirmed by email that they state percentages in w/w%, while AN customer service wrote they express NPK contents in w/v% on liquid fertilizers.
This means that AN's nute content is actually less then GH's by their specific gravities.

To get the the difference we have to know GH's specific gravities:
grow - 1.11
micro - 1.23
bloom - 1.15
(Specific gravities taken from cannastats)

The overall difference is 49%.
AN Jungle Juice contains 49% less nutrients than GH 3 parts, even if the NPK is the same on their labels in case AN really list NPK in w/v% while GenHydro list theirs in w/w% as they stated in the emails.

To see both NPKs expressed in the same way (w/v%):
Jungle Juice 3 parts:
2-1-6 grow
5-0-4 micro
0-5-1 bloom

GH 3 parts:
2.22-1.11-6.66 grow (1.11)
6.15-0-4.92 micro (1.23)
0-5.75-1.15 bloom (1.15)

To get the final conclusion :
While AN states their product costs 40% less, it actually cost 9% more than GH 3 parts.

Not to defend AN because I agree, they are trash, but whoever posted this has got their math wrong.

Roughly, AN = 2+1+6+5+4+5+1 = 24
and the GH adds up to 27.96%

So,
GH Grow is 9.9g more of fertiliser/L

GH Micro is 20.7g/L more of fert

Bloom is 9.0g/L more of fert
3.96% total over all 3 of them….
or 39.6g per litre
So in real terms it costs GH about 20-50c more/L than AN to produce their GH 3 part

 

[loyalty7]

G.H must be doing something right lucas rocks if your cash cropping

 

[tester]

Not to defend AN because I agree, they are trash, but whoever posted this has got their math wrong.

Roughly, AN = 2+1+6+5+4+5+1 = 24
and the GH adds up to 27.96%

So,
GH Grow is 9.9g more of fertiliser/L

GH Micro is 20.7g/L more of fert

Bloom is 9.0g/L more of fert
3.96% total over all 3 of them….
or 39.6g per litre
So in real terms it costs GH about 20-50c more/L than AN to produce their GH 3 part

You are right, the difference is 3.96%.
So GH's 3 pack contains 3.96% more nutrients (expressed as NPK) than AN's 3 pack.

But don't forget that NPK can't be directly converted to fertilizer content in the way you did.
So the difference is not 39.6g of fertilizer/liter like you wrote, but a total of 3.96% NPK(=N, P2O5, K2O).

Just to see the actual difference in terms of the difference in the amount of fertilizer used, I run the numbers on Grow through Hydrobuddy.

24g of fertilizer/liter is the diff where the diff in NPK% was:
0.99%

 

[neddy]

You are right, the difference is 3.96%.
So GH's 3 pack contains 3.96% more nutrients (expressed as NPK) than AN's 3 pack.

But don't forget that NPK can't be directly converted to fertilizer content in the way you did.
So the difference is not 39.6g of fertilizer/liter like you wrote, but a total of 3.96% NPK(=N, P2O5, K2O).

Just to see the actual difference in terms of the difference in the amount of fertilizer used, I run the numbers on Grow through Hydrobuddy.

24g of fertilizer/liter is the diff where the diff in NPK% was:
0.99%

Tester I ran the numbers through my calculator (Casio) and if you really want me to define this OK I'll give it 5 more minutes. Point being 49% is way out - not even close. ANs formulas are far better value that easy.

 

[rock solid]

G.H must be doing something right lucas rocks if your cash cropping

 

[tester]

Tester I ran the numbers through my calculator (Casio) and if you really want me to define this OK I'll give it 5 more minutes. Point being 49% is way out - not even close. ANs formulas are far better value that easy.

Yes man, I was wrong about the 49%.
And you were wrong about the 39.6g fertilizer difference.
But your point still stands, if everything is true what AN says then AN's copy of GH's 3 part does cost less. Not necessarily by 40% as they stated, but it cost significantly less.

Also all nutrient companies have to list their NPK in the same way based on agriculture labeling rules, otherwise shit gets pulled from the shelves.

In an optimal world this would be true.
I don't know much about fert regulation in the US but I believe there's a hole in EU's fert regulation, allowing companies to state NPK by w/v% on the labels of fertilizer solutions, instead of w/w% which must be used on fertilizer salts.

Even Canna writes about this:

However, sometimes we have discovered that while the label on fertiliser X shows NPK ratios ten times greater than those of fertiliser Y, the amount of each to be added per litre of water is exactly the same. This happens because the NPK proportions that we are comparing sometimes use different systems of measurement.

These different systems are the w/w% and the w/v% if you read further.here on page 26


And AN Tech support also stated they use w/v% on liquid fertilizers.
Here is the original email:

Can you tell me how do you list NPK values on the liquid fertilizer's label?

Is it:
- weight / weight percentage (w/w%)
or
- weight / volume percentage (w/v%) ?

Answer:

For the liquid products the NPK% are listed as W/V (weight/volume) while the
powders are listed as W/W (weight/weight.)

....otherwise shit gets pulled from the shelves.

As they ARE pulled off the shelves:

Products Listed in violation Jan-Aug 2010

• Advanced Nutrients, 0-2-4 Bud Ignitor (unregistered)
• Advanced Nutrients, Tarantula (unregistered)
• Advanced Nutrients, Voodoo Juice (mislabeled)
• Advanced Nutrients, Piranha (mislabeled)
• Advanced Nutrients, 0-0-1 Tarantula (mislabeled)
• 5-0-1 Micro (unregistered)
• Bud Factor X (mislabeled)
• 1-5-4 Overdrive (mislabeled)
• 0-2-4 Big Bud (liquid) (unregistered)
• 0-0-13 Rhino Skin (unregistered)
• 4.8-1.8-4.3 Mother Earth Super Tea Grow (unregistered)
• 50-1.50-2.0 Mother Earth Super Tea Bloom (unregistered)
• Grandma Energy's F-1 (mislabeled)
• 1.5-1.5-1.5 Grandma Energy's Sensational Seaweed (unregistered)
• Grandma Energy's H-2 (mislabeled)
• 0-0-0.5 Organic B (unregistered)
• Nirvana (mislabeled)
• 2-1-6 Grow (unregistered)
• B-52 (no grade, no guaranteed analysis) (unregistered)
• 3-1 -3 Organic Iguana Juice Grow (unregistered)
• Dr. Hornby Voodoo Juice Microbial Rhizosphere (unregistered)
• Bud Candy (unregistered)
• Juicy Roots (unregistered)
• 0-0-13 Rhino Skin (unregistered)
• 2-0-0 SensiCal Mg Calcium and Magnesium Bloom (unregistered)
• Sensi Grow (unregistered)
• Sensi Bloom (unregistered)
• Connoisseur (unregistered)

Keep in mind that at present - in addition to these violations - the ˜Oregon Department of Agriculture" has issued Advanced Nutrients with a further five counts of stop sale violation, fifteen counts of selling unregistered products, and eighteen counts of mislabeling. Actions for sample deficiencies are also in progress.

View Stop Sale List on Oregon Site
Also see http://www.integralhydro.com

 

[neddy]

You are right, the difference is 3.96%.
So GH's 3 pack contains 3.96% more nutrients (expressed as NPK) than AN's 3 pack.

But don't forget that NPK can't be directly converted to fertilizer content in the way you did.
So the difference is not 39.6g of fertilizer/liter like you wrote, but a total of 3.96% NPK(=N, P2O5, K2O).

Just to see the actual difference in terms of the difference in the amount of fertilizer used, I run the numbers on Grow through Hydrobuddy.

24g of fertilizer/liter is the diff where the diff in NPK% was:
0.99%

Ah see what you mean. I didn't factor in the P205 and K20 equations. Yes you are correct.

 

[tester]

Nope, the problem is that you converted the difference in NPK right into grams of fertilizer/Liter.

Where there was a 0.99% difference in NPK, you wrote:

GH Grow is 9.9g more of fertiliser/L

GH grow is 9.9g more of NPK/liter, but not "fertilizer"/liter. Different fertilizers has different NPK content so to get a 0.99% difference in the overall NPK content, you have to use more of the salts.

 

[neddy]

Nope, the problem is that you converted the difference in NPK right into grams of fertilizer/Liter.

Where there was a 0.99% difference in NPK, you wrote:


GH grow is 9.9g more of NPK/liter, but not "fertilizer"/liter. Different fertilizers has different NPK content so to get a 0.99% difference in the overall NPK content, you have to use more of the salts.

now the guy who uses hydrobuddy and Canna stats and got it horribly wrong is giving an education in fertiliser formulation. Actually tester the way chemists talk is in elemental values and convert those by the gram of said element so what we have is two languages. The way people talk about things on mj forums is different again (and often wrong). Anyway bottom line - we've now corrected a serious misinterpretation of numbers and established that the misinformation posted on one thread and mimicked on another thread is miles wrong. Jungle Juice is far better value for money than GH 3 part (not that I would use either)

 

[neddy]

PS. Feel free to ban me. IC Mag blows!