interesting findings on advanced nutrients comparison

i found a few interesting things about AN's products.

for example, take a look at their NPK ratios. notice how they have generally kept the same NPK values after all these "improvements." also, notice how you get the exact same results with GH 3 part as base. i will say however, that GH 3 part has exponentially more metals in their products (not a good thing). take a look at the conni line vs the 3 part lines..... practically the same thing! now, the connie line is supposed to be "super chelated" but really, how much of a difference does that make?




after this discovery, i wanted to see what other tricks may be up AN's sleeves. all these times i hear people preaching

that powder is a more bang for the buck. this is the furthest from the truth! take a look at bud blood which AN would

claim is superior to bud ignitor. you would think that bud blood being older, less effective, and in powder form be

cheaper than bud ingitor.....yet bud blood is $70 more!


then i took a look at big bud powder vs big bud liquid. very similar results. big bud powder is $37 more than liquid!

another thing to remember is the liquid nutrients are apparently chelated while the powders are not.


while looking at the chemical make up of overdrive i realized it looked identical to botanicare CNS17 ripe. in fact they

are the exact same thing. to further prove this to myself i threw in the numbers into the canna stats calculator. look

at the ppm results...the same thing! if you go with CNS17 ripe will you save a whopping $81!

epicseeds said:

i found a few interesting things about AN's products.

for example, take a look at their NPK ratios. notice how they have generally kept the same NPK values after all these "improvements." also, notice how you get the exact same results with GH 3 part as base. i will say however, that GH 3 part has exponentially more metals in their products (not a good thing). take a look at the conni line vs the 3 part lines..... practically the same thing! now, the connie line is supposed to be "super chelated" but really, how much of a difference does that make?

​

after this discovery, i wanted to see what other tricks may be up AN's sleeves. all these times i hear people preaching

that powder is a more bang for the buck. this is the furthest from the truth! take a look at bud blood which AN would

claim is superior to bud ignitor. you would think that bud blood being older, less effective, and in powder form be

cheaper than bud ingitor.....yet bud blood is $70 more!


then i took a look at big bud powder vs big bud liquid. very similar results. big bud powder is $37 more than liquid!

another thing to remember is the liquid nutrients are apparently chelated while the powders are not.


while looking at the chemical make up of overdrive i realized it looked identical to botanicare CNS17 ripe. in fact they

are the exact same thing. to further prove this to myself i threw in the numbers into the canna stats calculator. look

at the ppm results...the same thing! if you go with CNS17 ripe will you save a whopping $81!

​

Click to expand...

Hmm. This is an interesting take on the nutrients. I'm not sure I completely agree because (from my experience), what works out on paper doesn't always happen in real life.

Numbers are based on the perfect growing conditions, and I don't know about you, but my growing conditions are not 100% perfect. I know that Advanced Nutrients work for me, and that my plants are happier when I use them.

As for the money thing, I hear a lot of growers whine about that. Personally, I would say that you should just try to stretch out the amounts you're using as much as you can. I've found using lower amounts of nutrients works, without causing too much of a financial strain. I mean, yeah, using the whole amount is good, but if you just knock down the amount by a little bit, you will still get the same results most of the time.

I'm glad someone is doing their homework and looking up the numbers. I'm not really changing my mind about AN, but it's good to see that someone is trying to learn more about growing.

I say, use what you want to use, but in the end, I'm going to use AN until I'm done growing. It works time and time again, so it's worth it to me. Worth it to a lot of other growers I know too.

peace

Sensibowl said:

Hmm. This is an interesting take on the nutrients. I'm not sure I completely agree because (from my experience), what works out on paper doesn't always happen in real life.

Numbers are based on the perfect growing conditions, and I don't know about you, but my growing conditions are not 100% perfect. I know that Advanced Nutrients work for me, and that my plants are happier when I use them.

As for the money thing, I hear a lot of growers whine about that. Personally, I would say that you should just try to stretch out the amounts you're using as much as you can. I've found using lower amounts of nutrients works, without causing too much of a financial strain. I mean, yeah, using the whole amount is good, but if you just knock down the amount by a little bit, you will still get the same results most of the time.

I'm glad someone is doing their homework and looking up the numbers. I'm not really changing my mind about AN, but it's good to see that someone is trying to learn more about growing.

I say, use what you want to use, but in the end, I'm going to use AN until I'm done growing. It works time and time again, so it's worth it to me. Worth it to a lot of other growers I know too.

peace

Click to expand...

I don't even think you even read his post. Doesn't have anything to do with growing conditions.

Sensibowl said:

Hmm. This is an interesting take on the nutrients. I'm not sure I completely agree because (from my experience), what works out on paper doesn't always happen in real life.

Numbers are based on the perfect growing conditions, and I don't know about you, but my growing conditions are not 100% perfect. I know that Advanced Nutrients work for me, and that my plants are happier when I use them. Also, AN complete ripped off GH's flora 3 part series! They are the EXACT same thing! But again, I would go with the AN 3 part over GH's soley due to the fact that AN has less metals in it, and by a very large amount.

As for the money thing, I hear a lot of growers whine about that. Personally, I would say that you should just try to stretch out the amounts you're using as much as you can. I've found using lower amounts of nutrients works, without causing too much of a financial strain. I mean, yeah, using the whole amount is good, but if you just knock down the amount by a little bit, you will still get the same results most of the time.

I'm glad someone is doing their homework and looking up the numbers. I'm not really changing my mind about AN, but it's good to see that someone is trying to learn more about growing.

I say, use what you want to use, but in the end, I'm going to use AN until I'm done growing. It works time and time again, so it's worth it to me. Worth it to a lot of other growers I know too.

peace

Click to expand...

I definitely agree about growing conditions...but the point of this mostly was to show just how similar all their base nutes are. After looking at this I am convinced Conni is a complete rip off and a joke. I would say even the sensi line is not worth it.

But the biggest suprise here and the thing I think everyone should realize is that going the powder route for big bud etc is simply way more expensive than liquid. I have always thought powder was cheaper and I know a lot of people feel the same way. When you do the math it just isnt so.

Also, I think tests are in order to compare Over Drive with Ripe because chemically they are the same damn thing.

Well what u say as little sense to it but. you can only judge the products by comparing results... until u grow a crop with connoisseur (used it but did not compare still use it) and sensi bloom (used it and loved it) and micro grow bloom (which i think would do the best but harder to mix for some). As for over drive and cns17 u need to grow to compare... use everything same but big bud in one and cns17 in the other... then let me know if im really saving anything for real... all im saying is that information doesnt really mean much without testing it out in real world. I believe in some products because of the results I see. Hygrozyme , Vitamax, are also nutrients I use with the advanced line... Some stuff are the same but some product just work better then other even if their almost identical.

You make a lot of mistakes here.

epicseeds said:

notice how they have generally kept the same NPK values after all these "improvements."

Click to expand...

Plants need more than NPK. And, for those of us who've grown plants before, small changes don't mean insignificant changes. A very slight change in ratio in nutrients, CO2 ppm, light schedule, etc can all play a small or large role in the outcome of a plant's life depending on when and how they're applied.

Your analysis fails to account for any ingredients beyond nitrogran, phosphorus, and potassium - a pretty significant oversight that throws every conclusion into question.

epicseeds said:

also, notice how you get the exact same results with GH 3 part as base. i will say however, that GH 3 part has exponentially more metals in their products (not a good thing).

Click to expand...

This is true. Many people remember that AN's 3 part came out after GH's did. What isn't as widely known is that they did so to prove the same product could be made in a way that wasn't utter crap. Instead people just look at the basic numbers and say "they're basically the same, so I'll buy GH since it's cheaper". It isn't always cheaper, but people have that perception.

There's a reason it's cheaper. It's cheaply made and full of crap that's bad for plants.

epicseeds said:

take a look at the conni line vs the 3 part lines..... practically the same thing! now, the connie line is supposed to be "super chelated" but really, how much of a difference does that make?

Click to expand...

It makes a huge difference. In theory, if a fertilizer were sufficiently chelated all the nutrients both macro and micro could be made available at nearly every pH in the survivable range. Allegedly this is what Advanced Nutrients has done with the new pH Perfect line they're coming out with.

The more chelated a nutrient is the easier it is for the plant to absorb under any conditions, but particularly so under adverse conditions. Many of the micro nutrients can be very difficult for plants to get in sufficient quantities because either the fertilizer is lacking in quality sources of it (sources of iron, for example, that are actually bio-available versus simply make the product LOOK like it has enough in suspension). Or it can be hard for the plants to absorb nutrients because those nutrients are most available at pH's that other important nutrients are not available at.

Chelation creates a larger "sweet spot" for the availability of the nutrients. That means more food at less stress to the plant.

epicseeds said:

after this discovery, i wanted to see what other tricks may be up AN's sleeves. all these times i hear people preaching that powder is a more bang for the buck. this is the furthest from the truth!

Click to expand...

Sometimes powders are cheaper in application rate calculations than liquids. Sometimes (as you've shown here) they aren't. It's nothing evil, it's just the way things are. Different manufacturers use different production methods. Apparently AN is able to make liquid concentrates more cheaply than powder ones.

As far as I'm concerned, I buy liquid fertilizers simply because it's easier for me to measure them precisely than powders. I'm better at liquid measurement and I have the tools for it. A buddy of mine prefers to work with powders when he can so he does that.

The cost difference usually isn't worth getting wound up over. I'll pay a bit more for something easier, like a lot of people.

epicseeds said:

take a look at bud blood which AN would claim is superior to bud ignitor.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry man, but I really gotta question your sources if you think this is the truth. No one claims Bud Blood is superior to Bud Ignitor, least of all Advanced Nutrients. They reformulated Bud Blood, improved it, and renamed it Bud Ignitor. Bud Ignitor is just the improved version of Bud Blood, and thus is obviously the better product.

epicseeds said:

you would think that bud blood being older, less effective, and in powder form be cheaper than bud ingitor.....yet bud blood is $70 more!

Click to expand...

Doesn't really matter, since Bud Blood is going to be discontinued.

Most people would applaud AN for dropping prices.

epicseeds said:

another thing to remember is the liquid nutrients are apparently chelated while the powders are not.

Click to expand...

I haven't seen anything to suggest that's true. Do you have any sources for this?

epicseeds said:

while looking at the chemical make up of overdrive i realized it looked identical to botanicare CNS17 ripe. in fact they are the exact same thing. to further prove this to myself i threw in the numbers into the canna stats calculator. look at the ppm results...the same thing! if you go with CNS17 ripe will you save a whopping $81!

Click to expand...

Okay, you're like a lot of people who make the mistake of thinking that the % of stuff on the label of a bottle is a recipe. There's more to what makes a fertilizer a fertilizer than just those numbers. The chelators, for example, don't usually appear on the label. Those percentages also don't tell you what was added to put the nitrogen, calcium, and whatever else into the fertilizer. I can fill a bottle with urine and it'll have a fair amount of nitrogen in it but if I pour that into a hydroponic system the plants will NEVER get any significant amount of nitrogen out of it. It's not bio-available to the plants in that form. (Urates must be metabolized by bacteria commonly found in soil to break them down into a form that allows plants to utilize them.)

So just because two labels list the same nutrients in the same percentages it doesn't mean they're the same.

Another way to think of it: Say you make two identical batches of bread dough. One you immediately bake in the oven, the other you allow to rise and then bake it.

Both loaves contain exactly the same ingredients, but only one of them is going to be very appetizing.


And don't forget, labels don't tell you EVERYTHING that's in the product. Sometimes it's the stuff they DON'T put on the label that's most important to know about...