The point I'm making is that once you add other nutrients to MG or Cornucopia or any other nutrients, is that you are then changing the nutrient ratios and you are no longer comparing MG to Cornucopia. Then the actual nutrient ratios can be so off that it can cause problems like nutrient lockout, which can lockout other needed nutrients.
So once you alter the nutrient ratios and more importantly, not knowing exactly how much you altered it, makes the comparison invalid. You can't say at the end that Cornucopia was better or MG was better because you have, maybe drastically, altered the nutrient ratios. I'm telling people not to draw any conclusions from this test because once you add nutrients to other nutrients you have changed those products, maybe drastically. So you are then comparing an unknown product you made up to another unknown product you also made up.
That is why I suggested that, if he wanted a valid test, compare only the Cornucopia to only the MG. I also don't understand why anyone would add additional nutrients before you've even determined if the primary nutrients are lacking. If you notice, after a period of growth, that something is lacking it could very well be that you aren't feeding often enough or you are feeding too often, depending on what the plant is showing you. It doesn't necessarily mean your primary nutrients are lacking even if you see a deficiency; it could just be a feeding schedule issue. Adding new and additional nutrients are only needed when you can see clear evidence of deficiencies after you have determined your feeding schedule is accurate.
This test is testing one made up nutrient mix to another made up nutrient mix of unknown nutrient ratios, it is not comparing Cornucopia to MG.
