Mammoth P and Teas

MMJ Dreaming 99

Well-Known Member
Looks like they have the same poison as Mammoth P with more heavy metals.... Strange to see the same formula being used here.. Maybe all these type of products that are produced on such a large scale include these plant hormones? I would like to find out more info if somebody has more to share. It would be very disappointing to know that all these type products that are lab made contain synthetic hormones in them.


As of: 9/25/2017
Product Name:
0-0.5-0.09 Photosynthesis Plus-O
OMRI Listed: No WSDA Organic Program Listed: No CDFA Listed OIM: No
Product StatusBrand NameWaste DerivedPesticide
Registered Microbe Life Hydroponics No No
Registrant: ECOLOGICAL LABORATORIES INC - MALVERNE, NY (800) 645-2976
Heavy Metals (in Parts Per Million)
Arsenic:
< 0.010 Cadmium: < 0.005 Mercury: < 0.0002 Lead: < 0.010 Nickel: < 0.040
Guaranteed Analysis
Total Nitrogen: Avail. Phosphate:
0.5% Sol. Potash: 0.09%
Calcium: Magnesium: Sulfur:
Boron:Chlorine:Cobalt:
Copper:Iron:Manganese:
Molybdenum: Sodium:Zinc:
Non Plant Food Ingredients

Humic Acid

Indole3 Butyric Acid

Naphthaleneacetic Acid

Phosphorous Acid

Kelp Vitamin B1

Polyacrylamide

Potting Mix

Microbial(s) Bacillus amyloliquefaciens 1.0 x 10^7 cfu/ml
Bacillus licheniformis 5.0 x 10^6 cfu/ml
Bacillus megaterium 2.5 x 10^5 cfu/ml
Bacillus subtilis 5.0 x 10^6 cfu/ml
Rhodopseudomonas palustris 8.5 x 10^4 cfu/ml
Rhodospirillum rubrum 2.0 x 10^4 cfu/ml
Glomus aggregatum 0.9296 propagules/ml
Glomus etunicatum 0.9296 propagules/ml
Glomus intraradices 0.9296 propagules/ml
Glomus mosseae 0.9296 propagules/ml
Pisolithus tinctorious 371,875 propagules/ml
Rhizopogon villosulus 92.968 propagules/ml
Rhizopogon amylopogon 92.968 propagules/ml
Rhizopogon fulvigleba 92.968 propagules/ml
Rhizopogon luteolus 92.968 propagules/ml
Scleroderma cepa 186.718 propagules/ml
Scleroderma citrinum 186.718 propagules/ml
Thanks for the analysis. I know one of my favorite poster, Dr. Who, is big on Kelp for root growth.

My ex-guru, who knew his nutes but is a bit wacky, liked Kelp with fulvic acid and whey to add for root growth.
 

Jahworks

Member
Thanks for the analysis. I know one of my favorite poster, Dr. Who, is big on Kelp for root growth.

My ex-guru, who knew his nutes but is a bit wacky, liked Kelp with fulvic acid and whey to add for root growth.

Kelp had its own hormones in it which might explain the ones found in Mammoth P... So I wonder, is it the hormones in the product or the microbes that give it the claimed yield increase... o_O
 

tpc_mikey

Well-Known Member
Kelp had its own hormones in it which might explain the ones found in Mammoth P... So I wonder, is it the hormones in the product or the microbes that give it the claimed yield increase... o_O
It is the microbes colonizing your root system, i would suspect the Humic acid plays a big roll as well as it will create nutrient uptake in the root system as well as the microbes so the plants go on a feeding freenzy is my guess. Not sure what does it but i can tell a huge diffrence in my 45th day of flower with clones as opposed to the mother they came off of that didnt get the mammoth p. It is a noticible diffrence i will try to find some pics of her and do a side by side.
 

tpc_mikey

Well-Known Member
Here is momma at day 46 and clones at day 45
Momma (momma was vegged for 60days and in a 10 gallon pot topped 2 times)
IMG_0157.JPGclones (in 5 gallon pots and vegged for about 35 to 40 days and only topped once)
IMG_0360.JPG
 

Jahworks

Member
Also, are you doing hydro or soil? What nutrient line are you using? Light setup? Give thanks for taking time to respond. Kudos!
 

Jahworks

Member
I have used Humic acid in all my grows and it does increase trich production for sure. And can honestly say that I have used MP and see no difference in my grows, in fact I have seen some indica phenos turn into sativa look a likes after applying MP.... Maybe it is strain related or I got an old batch...either way... I will still keep the synthetic hormones out of my grow. Nice buds though! Keep it up! Respect.:bigjoint:
 

tpc_mikey

Well-Known Member
I have used Humic acid in all my grows and it does increase trich production for sure. And can honestly say that I have used MP and see no difference in my grows, in fact I have seen some indica phenos turn into sativa look a likes after applying MP.... Maybe it is strain related or I got an old batch...either way... I will still keep the synthetic hormones out of my grow. Nice buds though! Keep it up! Respect.:bigjoint:
Growing organically in soil, only bottled ferts im using are organic FF big bloom and i do use a dash of FF grow big which isnt organic but its really just for a little extra N at flower other than that everything has been amended into my soils i.e. kelp meal tomatotone green sand bat guano worm castings etc.
 

Jahworks

Member
Growing organically in soil, only bottled ferts im using are organic FF big bloom and i do use a dash of FF grow big which isnt organic but its really just for a little extra N at flower other than that everything has been amended into my soils i.e. kelp meal tomatotone green sand bat guano worm castings etc.

Nice! I am sure they will be tasty!
 

greg nr

Well-Known Member
ok, here is the issue I have with all of these emotional side by sides. Some favor mp, some don't, but people certainly get emo'd over the results. Meh, they don't mean squat.

I'm growing 4 clones from the same mom right now. They are in the same soil, same tent, same light, they get the same additives. There are differences in the plants. Not huge, but if I could line them up side by side you would see differences, I can't easily because they are planted 2 to a SIP container and in a trellis net.

But If I were running these as a side by side, what would be the lesson? That elixir A worked much better than elixir B?

It would be a false analysis because plants grrow at different rates for a lot of reasons. It is fun to do, but really means nothing other than it reinforces what the experimenter already thought would happen. These aren't double blind tests using hundreds of plants. The growers know exactly which plants get which additives, and some have a personal or financial bias to make it come out a certain way, even if they don't realize it.

But carry on. Carry on. Just don't get angry when someone disagrees with your results.
 

greg nr

Well-Known Member
You have this partly right IMO.
The part about the results not being good or maybe being totally misread by those doing them. Absolutely would not be comparable to the results done if we could have access to our dream set up for testing with large quantities of plants. Even if we have the money we would probably get in trouble unless we were a large legal facility. So what are we to do if we only have the ability to grow in a 10x10 space? We do the best we can. Should we not experiment? Should we not share the results because someone may criticize the actions taken. If we didn't experiment who would. Has none of the experimenting done in small grows not benefited others?
Maybe we should listen to the companies who want to sell us the product, there's an idea.
Maybe we won't get mad if someone gets angry or says carry on, carry on or maybe we might say :finger:
Agree almost completely, but I would just add that the experiments are best judged by you for your environment, and may have no applicability to anyone else.

I experiment also. I run mamoth-p and recharge. Can I stand here and go toe to toe with someone who feels completely opposite? No.

Do "I" believe they help? Yes. But I'm not going to get into a fist fight over it. ;)
 

Buba Blend

Well-Known Member
Agree almost completely, but I would just add that the experiments are best judged by you for your environment, and may have no applicability to anyone else.

I experiment also. I run mamoth-p and recharge. Can I stand here and go toe to toe with someone who feels completely opposite? No.

Do "I" believe they help? Yes. But I'm not going to get into a fist fight over it. ;)
I deleted my post, I misinterpreted carry on, carry on, as though he should not waste his time experimenting, my bad.
 
I have searched and searched and cannot find this document anywhere. Can you please link it? I actually think that you may have fabricated it.

Also, it would be wise to check the material data sheet registered at the state. You will find that it contains synthetic plant hormones and Polyacrylamide (which contains small amounts of acrylamide, a known neurotoxin) Not sure about adding synthetic plant hormones into my grows or small amounts of known neurotoxins. KEEP IT NATURAL FOLKS! :) The data I have found is posted below:


As of: 9/25/2017

Product Name:
Mammoth P Hydro to Soil / University Tested / Bloom Enhancer / Active Microbial Nutrient Liberator
OMRI Listed: No WSDA Organic Program Listed: No CDFA Listed OIM: No

Registrant: GROWCENTIA - FORT COLLINS, CO (970) 818-3321

Heavy Metals (in Parts Per Million)
Arsenic:
0.005 Cadmium: < 0.005 Mercury: < 0.001 Lead: < 0.005 Nickel: 0.00863


Non Plant Food Ingredients

Humic Acid

Indole3 Butyric Acid

Naphthaleneacetic Acid

Phosphorous Acid

Kelp

Vitamin B1

Polyacrylamide

Potting Mix

Microbial(s) Pseudomonas putida - 20,000,000 cfu/ml
Comamonas testosteroni - 40,000,000 cfu/ml
Citrobacter freundii - 60,000,000 cfu/ml
Enterobacter cloacae - 80,000,000 cfu/ml
 
Why are we to believe what you are saying? Would you mind calling back and recording your phone conversation?

I have searched for the material data sheet that you have posted about and cannot find anything but you posting the same thing on three different forums trying to scare people from using this product. Please link the "Material Data Sheet" so we can see what is happening here

Ok. After calling Mammoth P, they are saying there are no other ingredients being used and that the listing info at the state is wrong. So there you have it, either the state info is wrong or Mammoth P is not being fully open. I hope this post makes us all more aware of the possibilities that may exist when these "new" save all products come out. I think I will hedge my bets on products that are wildcrafted from the earth. There are just too many unnatural variables with lab produced or synthetic type products. I don't know why, but I must have a certain bone to pick with the whole mass produced fertilizer market. Too many times have I seen products come and go in the name of bigger yields, all of them seeming to fall due to using banned ingredients. My .02 Bless up all the natural growers out there!
 
Top