What’s your favorite nutrient line?

tkufoS

Well-Known Member
Been using Dyna-Gro for the last 6 years and it has served me great.

A gallon of Protekt, Foliage Pro & Bloom run me about $135 and it’s super concentrated.

Usually run 2-4ml/Gal
$135 for 6 years worth of liquid nutes ain't too bad if that's your thing imo
 

NukaKola

Well-Known Member
$135 for 6 years worth of liquid nutes ain't too bad if that's your thing imo
I've gone through way more than that. Had a 10x20 greenhouse going on top of my indoor so I was going through nutes pretty quick. Tried some other brands but they were so diluted compared to DG that it ended up costing way more. 1ml of Foliage Pro is ~130 PPM. Doesn't require Cal Mag for coco either.
 

Northwood

Well-Known Member
I can't resist opining on this, even though I usually try to keep myself out of these threads.

The absolute best nutrient line is the biomass of the wonderful healthy cannabis plants I grew before. It has all the nutrients and minerals that are necessary for those growing that will replace them and they're in perfect balance for your grow already. It's the way nature works, but I think we've gotten so far from it, it's difficult to get yourself into these days.
 

Hollatchaboy

Well-Known Member
I've used fox farm for a long time, this grow I went with GH for the first time and I got to say it's confusing to use. Don't think I'll use it again. Usually the "grow" is high in N but in GH trio it has 2 parts and the micro has 5 or 6 I believe. Very confusing.
Just use the micro and bloom with the Lucas formula. Very easy... no confusion.
 

xtsho

Well-Known Member
Thank you for pointing this out. I believe they bought GH as well and this alone is enough to switch over to something else. People really need to step up and quick supporting the bad guys.
They all get their raw materials from the same chemical factories. Scotts business ethic is no worse than a good amount of these cannabis specific companies and their false claims and sketchy marketing practices.

In my opinion the guys selling seeds for $30 and the cannabis specific nutrient companies mixing MKP with water and selling it as a bloom additive for $25 a quart are just as bad. I buy what I need from the cheapest supplier. I don't care what company or brand it is. People get hung up on the wrong thing and then go and buy some flushing agent which is just sugar water because they think the company gives a damn about anything other than profit. I've never seen Scotts make as many false claims and outright lie about their products as I've seen in the cannabis industry from these so called "Good Guys".
 
Last edited:

Hollatchaboy

Well-Known Member
They all get their raw materials from the same chemical factories. Scotts business ethic is no worse than a good amount of these cannabis specific companies and their false claims and sketchy marketing practices.

In my opinion the guys selling seeds for $30 and the cannabis specific nutrient companies mixing MKP with water and selling it as a bloom additive for $25 a quart are just as bad. I buy what I need from the cheapest supplier. I don't care what company or brand it is. People get hung up on the wrong thing and then go and buy some flushing agent which is just sugar water because they think the company gives a damn about anything other than profit. I've never seen Scotts make as many false claims and outright lie about their products as I've seen in the cannabis industry from these so called "Good Guys".
I believe people do that tho because they don't know any better. Just like I didn't when I started. Lol
 

Johnny Lawrence

Well-Known Member
They all get their raw materials from the same chemical factories. Scotts business ethic is no worse than a good amount of these cannabis specific companies and their false claims and sketchy marketing practices.

In my opinion the guys selling seeds for $30 and the cannabis specific nutrient companies mixing MKP with water and selling it as a bloom additive for $25 a quart are just as bad. I buy what I need from the cheapest supplier. I don't care what company or brand it is. People get hung up on the wrong thing and then go and buy some flushing agent which is just sugar water because they think the company gives a damn about anything other than profit. I've never seen Scotts make as many false claims and outright lie about their products as I've seen in the cannabis industry from these so called "Good Guys".
Blah blah, blah, blah blah blah blah . . .

Why do you care so much, brotha? You know the secret. Let the idiots buy water. What skin is being removed from your back? None. The more people figure out what we know, the more we pay for nutes.. Shhhhhhhhh . . .

The record is skipping like crazy. Can we please hit stop?
 

xtsho

Well-Known Member
Blah blah, blah, blah blah blah blah . . .

Why do you care so much, brotha? You know the secret. Let the idiots buy water. What skin is being removed from your back? None. The more people figure out what we know, the more we pay for nutes.. Shhhhhhhhh . . .

The record is skipping like crazy. Can we please hit stop?
Why?

How does what I post affect you? You're obviously highly intelligent. More so than most. So I don't understand why you would waste time worrying about some post I made about the evils I perceive to be rampant in the cannabis industry. That's just my opinion. People can take it or leave it. I'm not targeting specific companies. I'm not pointing fingers here and there. I'm just generalizing what I see occurring. If you disagree that's fine. But telling me to stop voicing my opinion? That's not something I'm willing to do.

So if my posts are not for your liking then just skip over them and smoke another bowl because I understand that you don't like me. For whatever reason I don't care. So you go your way and I'll go mine. No animosity here. :peace:




It really doesn't matter what OUR favorite nutrient line is. The plants just want certain things and if you provide those in the right amounts you'll keep the plant happy and healthy.

This is what the plants favorite line is:

Macro Nutrients

Nitrogen
Phosphorus
Potassium

Micro Nutrients

Zinc (Zn)
Manganese (Mn)
Iron (Fe)
Boron (B)
Chlorine (Cl) "Yes chlorine is a micronutrient needed by cannabis plants"
Cobalt (Co)
Copper (Cu)
Molybdenum (Mb)
Silicon (Si)
Nickel (Ni)
Sodium (Na)

Secondary Nutrients

Magnesium (Mg)
Calcium (Ca)
Sulfur (S)

Other elements used by the plant that are present in air and water

Carbon (C)
Oxygen (O)
Hydrogen (H)
 

ISK

Well-Known Member
Thank you for pointing this out. I believe they bought GH as well and this alone is enough to switch over to something else. People really need to step up and quick supporting the bad guys.
I'm not understanding what is meant by "quick supporting"

or did you mean "quit supporting".....if this what you meant, then that's easier said than done when it comes to mega corporations such as Monsanto, as they tend to diversify.

This is a list of some of the companies Monsanto owned before Bayer bought them out for $63 billion

Control-Almost-Everything-You-Buy-1024x643.jpg
 

PJ Diaz

Well-Known Member
I'm not understanding what is meant by "quick supporting"

or did you mean "quit supporting".....if this what you meant, then that's easier said than done when it comes to mega corporations such as Monsanto, as they tend to diversify.

This is a list of some of the companies Monsanto owned before Bayer bought them out for $63 billion

View attachment 4732741
It's not difficult to avoid those products if you make conscious decision making with your purchases. I'm proud to boldly state that not one of those companies' products are currently in my home.
 

bodhipop

Well-Known Member
I'm not understanding what is meant by "quick supporting"

or did you mean "quit supporting".....if this what you meant, then that's easier said than done when it comes to mega corporations such as Monsanto, as they tend to diversify.

This is a list of some of the companies Monsanto owned before Bayer bought them out for $63 billion

View attachment 4732741
My bad, I did mean quit supporting.
I appreciate you posting the list, this alone can make an impact on whoever reads this! It's definitely easier said than done but I'm going to try my best with the small amount of money I spend and keep telling others. I know what it's like to be so broke you just don't care though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ISK

PizzaBob

Member
Been using Mills line up per the feed chart for one year now. Solid results and u only need A & B and one additive at a time. They have 3 but u don’t use them at same time. They also have a proprietary Si that u use throughout. So 4 different bottles need to be used at any given time. So even people using Lucas will offer use at least 3 if u check their custom recipes. And if you buy larger bottles not too bad on cost.
 

collieBudz

Well-Known Member
Basically, most nute lines have what you need. Saying one is the best is a bit ridiculous .. youre plant can only be 100% healthy. It can’t be better than that, beyond the nutes it’s environment drying curing process everything together is a culminating factor into what your end product is.

that being said, I’ve used GH for years, it isn’t very expensive at all, I also use cal-mag, floralicious plus, rapid start, and both powder and liquid kool bloom.. I have a sizeable room and it costs me about 500$ Canadian a year... proven results, I’ve tried advanced and wasn’t impressed .. some friends swear by powder nutes but I haven’t really gone there.. I likeliquid at the cost it’s pretty negligible.
Try a bunch and you’ll see , results will be similar.
 

radiant Rudy

Well-Known Member
I can't resist opining on this, even though I usually try to keep myself out of these threads.

The absolute best nutrient line is the biomass of the wonderful healthy cannabis plants I grew before. It has all the nutrients and minerals that are necessary for those growing that will replace them and they're in perfect balance for your grow already. It's the way nature works, but I think we've gotten so far from it, it's difficult to get yourself into these days.
No, it isnt the "absolute best". How do you account for the nutrients that are cropped out? Do you have any soil anaylsis showing balanced base saturation and lux level chelated minerals following this practice?
That interpretation is only correct if you have perfect plants and if your soil biology is capable of mineralizing the stubble. . Otherwise you are continuously repeating the same deficiencies and excesses that were present to start with.

Also excess K from mineralized canabis stubble is not ideal for the veg phase. Excess K blocking Ca is veg is a setup for future issues with insects and disease. Plants starting off with high nitrate from mineraliztion of stubble will overwhelm a young plants ability to convert the nitrate resulting in young plants that attract mites and aphids.
 

Northwood

Well-Known Member
No, it isnt the "absolute best". How do you account for the nutrients that are cropped out? Do you have any soil anaylsis showing balanced base saturation and lux level chelated minerals following this practice?
That interpretation is only correct if you have perfect plants and if your soil biology is capable of mineralizing the stubble. . Otherwise you are continuously repeating the same deficiencies and excesses that were present to start with.

Also excess K from mineralized canabis stubble is not ideal for the veg phase. Excess K blocking Ca is veg is a setup for future issues with insects and disease. Plants starting off with high nitrate from mineraliztion of stubble will overwhelm a young plants ability to convert the nitrate resulting in young plants that attract mites and aphids.
I just want to know how adding plants back to the same soil it grew in adds more K than was originally there before growing anything. Knowing that plants do not sequester K from the air, I really question that assertion. I don't think I'm adding more K than the plants removed by recycling what grew before, but I guess opinions differ. One of the reasons I recycle is because I'm scared to death of having too much K build up in my soil. Recycling is a way of knowing that you're only adding that which was removed in the first place. Otherwise I could be in a situation where in each cycle, I add more K than was used by the plants if using alternative concentrated amendments which may affect me down the road. Plus organic material feeds the life in my soil. If it weren't added, what the heck are the bacteria, protozoans, worms, etc. gonna eat?

I did mention "healthy" cannabis plants for recycling material in my post you quoted. Obviously using unhealthy plants that lack a specific nutrient aren't going to address any deficiency in that nutrient. Common sense. Nature works by recycling and the mineralization of elements bound to complex organic molecules. Nitrogen, calcium, potash, potassium, magnesium, etc. all have their own cycles and the co-evolution of plants with fungi, bacteria, and a host of other organisms has made this possible. To me this is the "root" of organic growing - feed the soil, not the plants.

No idea what you're talking about with the mineralization of N and the eventual toxic formation of Nitrates as a result from just adding organic material as a mulch. Heck, some people even compost organic material and apply it directly to their soil! The reality is that most of the NH4+ that protozoans release after eating bacteria are intercepted by other bacteria. You need to watch the C:N ratio of whatever you add as organic material. Obviously 1" mulch of fresh chicken manure would be a bad idea, but serious... you suggest cannabis leaves will lead to a N toxicity condition? Seriously?

And as far as base saturation is concerned, I suspect building organic carbon in your soil with a high CEC and abundant biology will only result in a more positive outcome than otherwise. And plants do not convert nitrates. Bacteria do.
 
Last edited:

radiant Rudy

Well-Known Member
Why?

How does what I post affect you? You're obviously highly intelligent. More so than most. So I don't understand why you would waste time worrying about some post I made about the evils I perceive to be rampant in the cannabis industry. That's just my opinion. People can take it or leave it. I'm not targeting specific companies. I'm not pointing fingers here and there. I'm just generalizing what I see occurring. If you disagree that's fine. But telling me to stop voicing my opinion? That's not something I'm willing to do.

So if my posts are not for your liking then just skip over them and smoke another bowl because I understand that you don't like me. For whatever reason I don't care. So you go your way and I'll go mine. No animosity here. :peace:




It really doesn't matter what OUR favorite nutrient line is. The plants just want certain things and if you provide those in the right amounts you'll keep the plant happy and healthy.

This is what the plants favorite line is:

Macro Nutrients

Nitrogen
Phosphorus
Potassium

Micro Nutrients

Zinc (Zn)
Manganese (Mn)
Iron (Fe)
Boron (B)
Chlorine (Cl) "Yes chlorine is a micronutrient needed by cannabis plants"
Cobalt (Co)
Copper (Cu)
Molybdenum (Mb)
Silicon (Si)
Nickel (Ni)
Sodium (Na)

Secondary Nutrients

Magnesium (Mg)
Calcium (Ca)
Sulfur (S)

Other elements used by the plant that are present in air and water

Carbon (C)
Oxygen (O)
Hydrogen (H)
Screenshot_20191211-013437.png
I just want to know how adding plants back to the same soil it grew in adds more K than was originally there before growing anything. Knowing that plants do not sequester K from the air, I really question that assertion. I don't think I'm adding more K than the plants removed by recycling what grew before, but I guess opinions differ.. Otherwise I could be in a situation where in each cycle, I add more K than was used by the plants if using alternative concentrated amendments which may affect me down the road. Plus organic material feeds the life in my soil. If it weren't added, what the heck are the bacteria, protozoans, worms, etc. gonna eat?

I did mention "healthy" cannabis plants for recycling material in my post you quoted. Obviously using unhealthy plants that lack a specific nutrient aren't going to address any deficiency in that nutrient. Common sense. Nature works by recycling and the mineralization of elements bound to complex organic molecules. Nitrogen, calcium, potash, potassium, magnesium, etc. all have their own cycles and the co-evolution of plants with fungi, bacteria, and a host of other organisms has made this possible. To me this is the "root" of organic growing - feed the soil, not the plants.

No idea what you're talking about with the mineralization of N and the eventual toxic formation of Nitrates as a result from just adding organic material as a mulch. Heck, some people even compost organic material and apply it directly to their soil! The reality is that most of the NH4+ that protozoans release after eating bacteria are intercepted by other bacteria. You need to watch the C:N ratio of whatever you add as organic material. Obviously 1" mulch of fresh chicken manure would be a bad idea, but serious... you suggest cannabis leaves will lead to a N toxicity condition? Seriously?
"One of the reasons I recycle is because I'm scared to death of having too much K build up in my soil. Recycling is a way of knowing that you're only adding that which was removed in the first place" Soil testing/sap testing is THE WAY to know your K situation. You're trying to tell me you know your K levels by recycling? "seriously" ? Without a test you're guessing. "scared to death"? Bro assuage your fears with data. Are you thinking that a steady K level from sprout to chop is best practice? It's not.

"It's the way nature works" no, you're mistaken. A grow room, a farm or a greenhouse isn't nature, it's a manipulated production based environment. A forest is how how nature works.

the root of "organic growing" "seriously"? That term is meaningless.

"Obviously using unhealthy plants that lack a specific nutrient aren't going to address any deficiency in that nutrient. Common sense."
To me, common sense would mean you posted up data showing balanced soil and mineral sufficiency. Instead you argue as if farming best practices follow your thinking. They don't. No farmer considers his stubble "absolute best" nutrition nor does any successful farmer imagine that it will supply the correct complement of nutrients for successive crops. Any nutrient deficiency or imbalance will be magnified by continuous incorporation of post harvest plant materials.

"No idea what you're talking about with the mineralization of N" I can see that. Do you know you plant nitrate levels by "recycling" lol. Sorry that's not possible. " The reality is that most of the NH4+ that protozoans release after eating bacteria are intercepted by other bacteria." By "the reality" you mean your simple beliefs. Do you have a biological assay of your substrate? Please put up your soil test showing super low nitrate or your sap test showing super low nitrate. "The reality" is that many growers have nitrate out the ass in soil and in plant sap. A good indication that nitrate is a ubiquitous problem is the endless discussion of spider mite solutions and other sap sucking insect concerns.

" but serious... you suggest cannabis leaves will lead to a N toxicity condition? Seriously?" LOL, the ellipsis is straight jackassery.
I'm not suggesting. I'm stating that over supplying nitrate to smaller or any plants that cannot convert it rapidly enough into amino N will result in plants with high nitrate inviting other deficiencies, insects and disease. This is basic botany. A plant's nutritional needs are not static over the course of a grow.

If you believe that substrate K or NO4 at 2 weeks should be the same or lower than a 6 week old or flowering plant then there is good news, you have a huge opportunity to improve your flowers.
 
>
Top