Well then your point is moot then, because nobody is talking about comparing salt for salt of the two basic products. You know what you need and what you don't, therefore people like you, I, and irnhed are not the relevant subjects. Advanced nutrients have got a shit load of nutrients which people think they have to/should buy because THEY don't know...... We know you know, I know I know, irnhed knows.... that's the whole point for gods sake. The argument is based on the lack of ethics they're showing by playing on people who don't. I really don't know what part of this you're finding hard to understand.
[quote name='"SCMC"']Lol. Really. You don't get it? Maybe it's because you failed to read all the clearly printed words. It was a comparison of prices based on elemental concentration in the bottles. Salt for salt. This is in response to the actual OP. Not the bloviating that has gone on since then. It doesn't matter if you know anyone who does a Lucas formula with advanced nutrients or not. I also don't care if Advanced says I need voodoo juice or B52. I know I don't, no one here ever suggested that a person should just blindly do what the feeding programs say to do. If you'd like to understand how Advanced Nutrients micro+bloom compares, salt for salt dollar for dollar, against gen hydro micro+bloom, then read the post I quoted from page one. It is very clear.[/quote] Even just the base nutrients for AN are more expensive than GH.. You keep talking like you right, but you just keep reiterating what I said to begin with... AN costs more money. Even with your math on the first page, you say that AN is more expensive. So... What again are you trying to prove? Salt for salt is like tic for tat dude. What really matters is how light my billfold is when I leave the hydro shop.
Sigh. I'm GLAD for you and your cheap nutrients, but to call people who use AN naive is really low class. I mean, I'm not ripping on your way of doing things - even if I don't agree. I'm also really happy when folks are talking about the different ways they grow, but we're going to disagree. That's cool by me. It's just a little crappy when folks start insulting each other because it's unnecessary and it really doesn't help anyone out. I love AN and I'll always use their nutrients, and if that's not your thing, fine by me. I won't call you any names. I have better things to do.
Agreed. Really folks, can we get back to growing and just ignore who we don't want to talk to? I'm here to learn about growing and not to listen to people whine about how some people are talking about some nutrients more than others. I USE AN, so yes, I'm also going to talk about them. So the f what? You don't have to listen. LOL
Lol. Me too. I already priced out a grow using connoisseur a&b, sensizym and overdrive, in a water farm.
Your post would've had more credibility, had you not insulted those that use "cheap" less expensive nutes that work just like the more so-called superior "different' one's peeps choose to use.. But hey " that's cool by me"... To each their own, right!..Yeah right!, that's what I thought!..
[quote name='"jakesterjammin"'] Bud Candy is your sweetener/carbs and they claim amino acids..[/quote] Why would I add carbs to a hydro grow? I tried bud candy once and I hate that stuff. It adds this sweet sugar flavor to all the bud that really dulls the natural flavor. Bud Candy is a waste of money IMO. Also... B52 is way over priced and might do nothing at all. Nirvana is good, but you can make it yourself for less. Great white is good but a little more expensive than other bacteria/myco combo supplements. Bud factor xl is a total rip off, and final flush is not required, just like voodoo juice and hammerhead. The rest of their stuff is negotiable. Big bud dry isn't a terrible value for a hydro grow looking for some potassium in bloom. 1/4 teaspoon in 5 gallons, so it goes a long way. Bud blood does also work as advertised but you have to be careful and it is more of a "once everything is dialed." The connoisseur a&b is about $60-70 a liter is basically a 7-5-10. For flowering a person could run 5-7ml per gallon of each for a dialed in program for many strains for the first 4-5 weeks before supplementing PK levels. $70 of nutrients would make about 180 gallons solution. Maybe more depending on the EC once it is mixed up. Somewhere in the neighborhood of $0.35 to $0.45 per gallon to run this A&B. The only question really is if can pay for itself by harvesting heavier or higher quality comparatively, and it only has to make up $35 to justify its use. The best way to find out is to try for myself. Fortunately, I am neither poor or closed minded and I hope to do this sometime in in the next few months.
How the hell did bud candy add a sweet flavour to your buds? I mean how did/does it actually do that? This is old wives tale crap at its very best. Like if you eat loads of sugar, then I cut you, your blood will taste like candy floss It's biologically impossible. Years ago - and I'm talking decades, some growers used to think feeding your plant sugars made the buds sweeter. Obviously that's been debunked since. I thought everyone knew. "The connoisseur a&b is about $60-70 a liter is basically a 7-5-10.The only question really is if can pay for itself by harvesting heavier or higher quality" It's 7 parts nitrogen, 5 parts phosphorus, 10 parts potassium..... the only question you need to ask yourself is why would anyone be so stupid as to pay $70 for a liter of that? Exactly what do you think you're getting that is different to any other nutrient with similar numbers? You really believe in the magic bean theory don't you? Some science. Call me if you find the goose and the golden eggs
Thus why my response was short and sweet.... LOL (get it?).. No point to confront someone which thinks bud candy makes the bud sweeter in taste...
Coming from two people who have never used it themselves or tried multiple strains grown using the product your opinions are without insight or experience. Maybe, before you act like an expert on something, you should try it out. Urban Garden Magazine | Expert Eye: Carbohydrates and Amino Acid Products Plants That Help Themselves | Idaho State University Magazine During normal growth the plant produces sugars and starches to facilitate growth. During times of rapid change, or as caused by stress, the amount of carbohydrates in the plant can not meet the demand. By supplementing carbohydrates the plant can maintain a rapid pace of growth. Or so the theory states. Cannabis is an extremely hardy and adaptive plant, surviving in every sort of soil on nearly every continent on the planet. This demonstrates the potential for cannabis, as a plant hell bent on survival and adaptive enough to survive in harsh climates, to utilize simple sugars if they are present at the root zone. My experience is that, and if you'd run a simple net search to see the reviews given by many other growers who have first hand experience, is that Bud Candy does leave a kind of sweet flavor behind in the bud. Washing out the natural flavors and homogenizing the taste from different strains. Without any experience with the product, or knowledge regarding their use I don't understand why anyone would take what you say about them with any credit. I don't really know how it works, or why it makes bud taste the way it does. But that is what it does. Try it for yourself if you are in disbelief. Perhaps the links I provided will spur further investigation into the matter and encourage experimentation rather than hyperbole.
[quote name='"Sensibowl35"'] Sigh. I'm GLAD for you and your cheap nutrients, but to call people who use AN naive is really low class. I mean, I'm not ripping on your way of doing things - even if I don't agree. I'm also really happy when folks are talking about the different ways they grow, but we're going to disagree. That's cool by me. It's just a little crappy when folks start insulting each other because it's unnecessary and it really doesn't help anyone out. I love AN and I'll always use their nutrients, and if that's not your thing, fine by me. I won't call you any names. I have better things to do. [/quote] Not sure that I called anyone names here bud.. Just a friendly conversation about how AN marks up their price on everything. [quote name='"decrimCA"']Agreed. Really folks, can we get back to growing and just ignore who we don't want to talk to? I'm here to learn about growing and not to listen to people whine about how some people are talking about some nutrients more than others. I USE AN, so yes, I'm also going to talk about them. So the f what? You don't have to listen. LOL[/quote] Not saying there is anything wrong with AN... Except the price. [quote name='"SCMC"']Lol. Me too. I already priced out a grow using connoisseur a&b, sensizym and overdrive, in a water farm.[/quote] Hey dude I watched this weeks episode of Weeds tonight and they had your gallons of connoisseur on the show tonight! I know I believe everything that the tv says... And they say it works great, so I better believe it! Gotta get to a hydro shop quick and spend the hundreds of dollars on the nutes that I need to grow good pot!
[quote name='"TheWatcher"'] How the hell did bud candy add a sweet flavour to your buds? [/quote] This is to say that the same cutting will taste the same regardless of nutrient program. How does cow manure compost result in a different flavor when used in an organic mix? I provided some stuff above but the truth of it is I haven't the foggiest idea how Bud Candy makes for a sweeter smell and flavor, but it does. Bud Candy is not recommend it nor will I use it myself again. The flavor gets boring quickly. [quote name='"TheWatcher"'] It's 7 parts nitrogen, 5 parts phosphorus, 10 parts potassium..... the only question you need to ask yourself is why would anyone be so stupid as to pay $70 for a liter of that? Exactly what do you think you're getting that is different to any other nutrient with similar numbers? [/quote] Technically it is a two part, but yeah, we can call it a liter. The element levels are the minimums. Without testing the nutrients or working for AN there is no way for you or I to know just how much more is in the mixture. But what we can be sure of is that there is more in the bottle than on the label. I think that the final product depends on the quality of the nutrients and their availability to the plant while in solution, not just how many ions are in there. Until these nutrients are tested fairly and concluded on in another fashion (note that I posted a link to a "study" where advanced nutrients out harvested every other system) we cannot be certain on any of the final qualities for ourselves. I am willing to spend the $150 or so to get into an advanced nutrient vs gen hydro vs jacks hydro grow because I know that one way or another I am going to harvest a few hundred grams and it's all good in the end no matter what. I am young and reckless and figure I might be growing weed for the next 60+ years. Three months and a couple $ on nutrients that will last a while... No biggie. Then we can see if snake oil contains PGR's.
You can do that, but I think I speak for everyone when I say that you would have to post pictures of every growth stage and right through flowering for your results to have any validity whatsoever. I mean this is why these "test grows" are so sketchy, including the one you posted a link to. They contain a mountain of variables which are completely left unanswered by just stating the end harvest weight. I mean, a grower might do one simple thing like under/over use one product, cause a bit of tip burn etc, and the whole test is rendered completely useless to anyone. It's a million miles from a scientific study, but it's a nice gesture. Your grow, for example, would have to be perfect across the board using every different nutrient, and as soon as you stray from that ideal target, your results are thrown out of whack exponentially. With regards to carbohydrates, we're talking about plant physiology, and in which case, you have misquoted the scientific studies you have linked. Yes, plants use sugars, but they create them through photosynthesis, and the amount of any we put in via water based feed that they can actually use is extremely small. In fact, field tests which studied the effect of sugars on growth of many varieties of plants, from fruits and vegetables to flowers etc, showed that any levels above what would normally be found in its natural environment, actually inhibited growth in most species. We're talking about the difference between genetic and physiological. Genotype and phenotype, if you like. It's teprenes which affect flavour, not sugars. Any actual residual sugar left in the bud itself would actually create a black, acrid taste, as it does when any foodstuff containing sugars is caramelised. We don't eat our buds, we burn them. Burning any sugar containing substance is caramelisation and is the exact opposite of sweet, a fact chefs have been working with for centuries. So the question would be; do the carbs help the plant produce more terpenes? Again, the theory is nice, in as much that more sugars help the plant at a metabolic level, but the truth is, scientific research has shown us that it's almost impossible that a well fed plant being provided with optimal light can produce more of anything simply by adding any extra carbs in the form of sugar in the water, and in fact, studies have also shown, as I said earlier, that they're more likely to inhibit growth than do anything at all beneficial. In fact, it's something which stems more from the organic side of growing in that actual microbes and fungi, which, in an organic root zone are beneficial to the health of the plant, are fed by sugars usually excreted by the plant itself. They in turn break down organic matter which can then be taken up by the plant. In that instance we're giving them a boost and it's entirely viable that it will be beneficial for them. Again, it won't produce a massive boost in growth, but will help keep things ticking along smoothly. When you look at it like that, you realise how it's possible (he says in a cynical tone) that this is a good example of hydroponic pseudo science. Taking info from one place and using it in an inappropriate way. Believe me mate, I have read a lot about these things. I've read about the different forms of phosphorus and their availability to the plant, for example field studies which compare phosphite with phosphate and its effect on field crops, as well as many other things from worm shit, to rockdust, fungi.... the list just goes on and on. The truth is, what I'm saying here just isn't even scratching the surface. I just haven't got enough time on my hands to even get near to explaining this properly, but all the information is just a Google search away. Any effect on taste is, I'm 100% sure, placebo, ie all in the mind of the user, and nothing more than that. Ironic because placebo pills are usually exactly that - sugar. But when tested alongside vitamins and all other sorts of trial drugs etc, people will swear there was some benefit. It's why the placebo pill is part of the study, because it's human nature to see something that isn't there and any real effects have to be shown to be above that amount. It's why it's no surprise to me that a lot of people will say bud candy affects the taste. I'm surprised you've made no allowance for that fact.
And I have been saying that for fucking years now!! Christ ALL of these so called nutrients tests NEVER even establish a base with their strain before starting the testing.... EVERYONE I have seen thus far is IMHO a fly by night test and completely not creditable.... Even though we can learn from them... As far as 100% proof, WAY OFF the mark and most are completely laughable.... Notice how they play on the "Cash Crop"..... It's worth MORE!!!!
[quote name='"TheWatcher"']You can do that, but I think I speak for everyone when I say that you would have to post pictures of every growth stage and right through flowering for your results to have any validity whatsoever. I mean this is why these "test grows" are so sketchy, including the one you posted a link to. They contain a mountain of variables which are completely left unanswered by just stating the end harvest weight. I mean, a grower might do one simple thing like under/over use one product, cause a bit of tip burn etc, and the whole test is rendered completely useless to anyone. It's a million miles from a scientific study, but it's a nice gesture. Your grow, for example, would have to be perfect across the board using every different nutrient, and as soon as you stray from that ideal target, your results are thrown out of whack exponentially. [/quote] If this is the case then how can anyone decide what a superior nutrient program is. Surely you cannot think all of them are the same. As long as each plant is grown in exactly the same environment then the only variables are only the nutrient program. [quote name='"TheWatcher"'] With regards to carbohydrates, we're talking about plant physiology, and in which case, you have misquoted the scientific studies you have linked. [/quote] No I have not. Read the articles. There is no misquoting. [quote name='"TheWatcher"'] Yes, plants use sugars, but they create them through photosynthesis, and the amount of any we put in via water based feed that they can actually use is extremely small. In fact, field tests which studied the effect of sugars on growth of many varieties of plants, from fruits and vegetables to flowers etc, showed that any levels above what would normally be found in its natural environment, actually inhibited growth in most species. You cannot be sure of anything until you try it for yourself. Otherwise you are just a blowhard without any firsthand knowledge. I am sure that bud candy changed the flavor of my bud, all my strains. And it was no placebo effect as others could detect the taste and smell also. I provided evidence. The retort was a straw man.
Don't be so touchy about being challenged and this will be more debate than fight. All the "straw man" shit is just internet battle chat... and that's not what this is to me. I left you with the freedom to go and find any of the many field tests which study the effect of sugars on crops of all kinds. I didn't think I'd need to validate what is already available to you with a very quick google search. You've quoted one article which states that plants can process a very small amount of sugars via the root zone and most if not all of what is added on top of that is likely a waste of time and money. Which we already know. And which nobody is disputing. So, as we were then. You have provided no evidence of anything whatsoever with regards to what bud candy did to your buds, except your own word, which I'm definitely not taking as gospel. What interests me is what is in bud candy which is different from any other basic sugar? What is the special ingredient? If the sugars really do make a difference to the taste, surely they're available much more cheaply? I'm sorry but none of this is making much sense. Is it not sugar at all? If so where does that leave us? Anyway, with regards your tests, look, you say "As long as each plant is grown in exactly the same environment then the only variables are only the nutrient program." No. The main variable is your application of it. You're about to embark on a test but it seems to me you haven't quite grasped the magnitude of it. Again I'm not trying to pick and poke at you, just get you to think about it. Every single grow could throw different results back at you based on how you used the nutrients in question, and only then would you realise how the findings might fluctuate. I'd say it'd be a better idea to use one brand of nutes on a one clone run, multiple times, dial it in, calculate the averages, then do the same with a different brand of nutes. It's a more drawn out process, but the results would be more credible imo.