Advanced Nutrients PH Perfect Nutes

[r1tony]

I didn't post pics of my problems before I was using too much AN PH Perfect but here are a couple of pics with my current low dosages, you tell me if I was wrong?

Bubble Gum 35 days into flower.

Roots

Never adjust the PH and never above 450ish in flower and 200 in veg.

 

[hydroherb]

Listen to what you're saying.

You're saying that the thousands or more of people out there who use AN products - at the recommended dosage or at least double or more what you say burns your plants - are wrong.


I'm not trying to say you're a bad grower or anything like that. I'm just saying that if you look at this objectively you can't come to the conclusion that the nutes are the problem.

Here's the key: If the nutrients were the problem we would see a lot of other people having the same problem you are.

As far as I know, absolutely no one else on the planet has to run concentrations as low as you to keep their plants healthy. And if everyone else doesn't have the same problem with the same nutrients that you have, we have to accept that the problem isn't the nutrients and that it must be something else.

We've logically eliminated the nutrients as a possible cause because, logically speaking, it is infinitely more likely that the problem is one of dozens if not hundreds of other factors rather than that the problem is the nutrients and every single other grower in the world somehow mistakenly underfeeds to the precise degree necessary to keep their plants healthy and doesn't realize they're doing it.


It's one or the other.

Either everyone else, myself included, can't do basic math and every time we've mixed our nutrients we've somehow managed to mix them at a fraction of the recommended strength (thereby avoiding burning our plants purely by accident on an astronomically improbable scale)...

Or

Some OTHER factor happens in ONE case and makes your plants experience nutrient burn at abnormally low ppms.


Surely you can see how improbable it is that the nutrients are causing the problem?

 

[r1tony]

Listen to what you're saying.

You're saying that the thousands or more of people out there who use AN products - at the recommended dosage or at least double or more what you say burns your plants - are wrong.


I'm not trying to say you're a bad grower or anything like that. I'm just saying that if you look at this objectively you can't come to the conclusion that the nutes are the problem.

Here's the key: If the nutrients were the problem we would see a lot of other people having the same problem you are.

As far as I know, absolutely no one else on the planet has to run concentrations as low as you to keep their plants healthy. And if everyone else doesn't have the same problem with the same nutrients that you have, we have to accept that the problem isn't the nutrients and that it must be something else.

We've logically eliminated the nutrients as a possible cause because, logically speaking, it is infinitely more likely that the problem is one of dozens if not hundreds of other factors rather than that the problem is the nutrients and every single other grower in the world somehow mistakenly underfeeds to the precise degree necessary to keep their plants healthy and doesn't realize they're doing it.


It's one or the other.

Either everyone else, myself included, can't do basic math and every time we've mixed our nutrients we've somehow managed to mix them at a fraction of the recommended strength (thereby avoiding burning our plants purely by accident on an astronomically improbable scale)...

Or

Some OTHER factor happens in ONE case and makes your plants experience nutrient burn at abnormally low ppms.


Surely you can see how improbable it is that the nutrients are causing the problem?

No.. YOU need to listen what I said. I had RO water and AN Nutes *ONLY* to make the conclusion on ppm levels... not sure what else could have been burning my roots with just those two in the bucket. Maybe it was the RO water according to you... since it can't possible be the nutes * sarcasm*. I mean I went through all the possible troubleshooting till there was water and Sensi PH perfect, and then to the ppm levels which where I found my answer and has been the answer for many weeks now. I have never had this trouble free growing in many years with this ppm levels and my plants grow faster and bigger too. I guess I am just lucky, I guess to the narrow minded or ill-informed.

I am sorry but your reaching for something that isn't really a problem. I don't know if you have to be correct or just like to argue for sake of arguing.

The nutrients are great, just that I cannot use the recommended dosage per my plant size and stage. Simple really, don't know what you're missing in my statements.

I hope you understand my point now, that for *me* I only use a small fraction of recommended dosage to get the results seen in the pics. Not that there is a problem, just that with my setup I needed to go to low low amounts for results I expect. I have had few different strains now and plants in veg and flower and all are great with my findings.

The great thing about this hobby is that if it works for me then great, if not for you or anyone else then so be it. Maybe I can help a person who had my issues. So really I am not saying that AN is bad or anything maybe you're looking for someone to bash AN and want to defend them, I am not your guy I love these low levels and plants as they grow now.

I am proud to be the *only* man on the planet growing big health plants with so little, I guess that is a compliment.

 

[TorturedSoul]

We've logically eliminated the nutrients as a possible cause because, logically speaking, it is infinitely more likely that the problem is one of dozens if not hundreds of other factors rather than that the problem is the nutrients and every single other grower in the world somehow mistakenly underfeeds to the precise degree necessary to keep their plants healthy and doesn't realize they're doing it.

Well, you haven't. Logically, I mean. Regardless of the actual probability involved with the member's nutrient strength being the problem, the mere fact that it is (in your eyes - probably in others as well, but not, apparently, in the eyes of the other member, lol) unlikely does NOT mean that it is impossible.

Scientists do not logically eliminate a given possibility from consideration just because it's unlikely - they experiment under controlled conditions.

The member's plant looks healthy. Roots look healthy. We have only his word that he is using a low-strength schedule, and that when he was using a stronger schedule that he had trouble... But I suppose that his word is as good as anyone else's, lol.

Seems somewhat weaker than average - but I'd be the first to admit that many people run their nutrients higher then they actually need to (and, sometimes, should). I've seen salt buildup on the medium (et cetera) before, which tells me that at least some portion of what the plant was fed was not used. And then there's that whole "flushing" thing, lol - one could assume that flushing isn't truly necessary except as a solution to removing excess nutrients that have accumulated within the plant. (After all, when growing outside in the ground it'd be a real trick to perform a proper flush?)

DWC is kind of funny, you know. Whatever one feeds the plant... Is going to stay in there until it is used or the grower changes out the reservoir contents. Now, technically, anything that is in solution when the changeout is performed... IS excess (otherwise, it wouldn't still be in there, unconsumed). I suppose that the healthy root system might in part be a function of a plant seeking out more nutrients, but then again it might not be. Have to actually be there and have tried various strengths/proportions to determine that.

And that doesn't even get in to the fact that different strains have different nutrient strength requirements - and different maximums above which signs of toxicity or lockout (of other nutrient components) occur. I've got a Snow White that should be fine with twice what it gets fed, but if I look at it cross-eyed it exhibits signs of a nitrogen OD. At the same time, I've fed the same mix at the same strength (out of the same jug) to a light-feeding sativa and the thing acted like it was figuratively tapping its foot waiting on a second helping plus dessert, lol. Go figure. And I've seen journals where Snow White was fed at a stronger level even though the plants might have been getting less light. Sometimes you just cannot tell until you try that individual plant I guess.

You are, of course, correct that a problem could be other things. But it could be nutrient level (or proportion of the various components) as well.

Could be... IDK, could be that the person has an a/c meter instead of a battery-powered one and it is reading unnaturally low because it is plugged into the same circuit as a poorly shielded electronic ballast (or one with a poorly-shielded cable).

I'm really just jabbering, lol. I was going to only type "You really haven't logically eliminated anything at this point," but figured that would sound insulting. So I... I guess I can't say I clarified anything when this message is probably anything but clarifying (because I'm well and truly there and it's been a while <GRIN>), but you know.

People often talk about pushing a plant until they start seeing signs of overfeeding and then backing off a smidgen. <SHRUGS> That's cool, been there myself. But I don't often see people experiment to determine how much lower than the maximum (for their particular strain/phenotype/environment/light level/climate/growing method/et cetera) they can go and still keep the same level of yield. And that's... really a shame, IMHO.

 

[r1tony]

Well, you haven't. Logically, I mean. Regardless of the actual probability involved with the member's nutrient strength being the problem, the mere fact that it is (in your eyes - probably in others as well, but not, apparently, in the eyes of the other member, lol) unlikely does NOT mean that it is impossible.

Scientists do not logically eliminate a given possibility from consideration just because it's unlikely - they experiment under controlled conditions.

The member's plant looks healthy. Roots look healthy. We have only his word that he is using a low-strength schedule, and that when he was using a stronger schedule that he had trouble... But I suppose that his word is as good as anyone else's, lol.

Seems somewhat weaker than average - but I'd be the first to admit that many people run their nutrients higher then they actually need to (and, sometimes, should). I've seen salt buildup on the medium (et cetera) before, which tells me that at least some portion of what the plant was fed was not used. And then there's that whole "flushing" thing, lol - one could assume that flushing isn't truly necessary except as a solution to removing excess nutrients that have accumulated within the plant. (After all, when growing outside in the ground it'd be a real trick to perform a proper flush?)

DWC is kind of funny, you know. Whatever one feeds the plant... Is going to stay in there until it is used or the grower changes out the reservoir contents. Now, technically, anything that is in solution when the changeout is performed... IS excess (otherwise, it wouldn't still be in there, unconsumed). I suppose that the healthy root system might in part be a function of a plant seeking out more nutrients, but then again it might not be. Have to actually be there and have tried various strengths/proportions to determine that.

And that doesn't even get in to the fact that different strains have different nutrient strength requirements - and different maximums above which signs of toxicity or lockout (of other nutrient components) occur. I've got a Snow White that should be fine with twice what it gets fed, but if I look at it cross-eyed it exhibits signs of a nitrogen OD. At the same time, I've fed the same mix at the same strength (out of the same jug) to a light-feeding sativa and the thing acted like it was figuratively tapping its foot waiting on a second helping plus dessert, lol. Go figure. And I've seen journals where Snow White was fed at a stronger level even though the plants might have been getting less light. Sometimes you just cannot tell until you try that individual plant I guess.

You are, of course, correct that a problem could be other things. But it could be nutrient level (or proportion of the various components) as well.

Could be... IDK, could be that the person has an a/c meter instead of a battery-powered one and it is reading unnaturally low because it is plugged into the same circuit as a poorly shielded electronic ballast (or one with a poorly-shielded cable).

I'm really just jabbering, lol. I was going to only type "You really haven't logically eliminated anything at this point," but figured that would sound insulting. So I... I guess I can't say I clarified anything when this message is probably anything but clarifying (because I'm well and truly there and it's been a while <GRIN>), but you know.

People often talk about pushing a plant until they start seeing signs of overfeeding and then backing off a smidgen. <SHRUGS> That's cool, been there myself. But I don't often see people experiment to determine how much lower than the maximum (for their particular strain/phenotype/environment/light level/climate/growing method/et cetera) they can go and still keep the same level of yield. And that's... really a shame, IMHO.

Wow.. thanks for reply and a long one at that.. lol.

My ppm is as stated... My plants are roughly 12-14 inches in veg then to about 36-48 inches flower.

I was using higher ppm on my aero stinkbud system before but in my dwc its like 1/5th the ppm. It works for me and actually so well I ordered more from Canada because I see me not using any other product for sometime. Plants are green and beautiful.

 

[hydroherb]

Well, you haven't. Logically, I mean. Regardless of the actual probability involved with the member's nutrient strength being the problem, the mere fact that it is (in your eyes - probably in others as well, but not, apparently, in the eyes of the other member, lol) unlikely does NOT mean that it is impossible.

Scientists do not logically eliminate a given possibility from consideration just because it's unlikely - they experiment under controlled conditions.

I agree, the rational and reasonable thing to do here is to quibble over the exact shades of meaning of the words used.

It is entirely rational and correct to use the word "logically" to mean "reasonably". If you notice I didn't use the word "scientifically", not that it would actually matter because even within science it is acceptable to fall short of proving a negative (which is generally impossible). Rather the intelligent course of action is to attempt to predict what you can test positive for and then conduct an experiment to confirm that.

When something falls into the category of being inordinately improbable it would not only be considered reasonable, but advisable to discard that theory entirely and start from another premise that is more easily and more rationally tested.


Take this instance for example. Would it make more sense to attribute the anomaly in this garden to the absence of nearby invisible aliens and then attempt to construct a scientific experiment to prove there aren't aliens nearby, invisible or otherwise? Clearly not. Aside from the obvious element of absurdity clearly used for comic effect, it's effectively impossible to prove that aliens don't exist. It's effectively impossible to prove anything doesn't exist because the absence of proof indicates only that you failed to find proof, not that proof doesn't exist. If we search 99.9% of the galaxy and find no aliens that only proves that if they exist they might exist in the remaining 0.1% that hasn't been searched, or that they might have moved from an unsearched area into a searched area when we weren't looking.


The simple fact that vast numbers of growers have used AN's nutes and have not duplicated the results of this grower (which effectively functions as a sort of experimental control) very strongly indicates the responsible variable is not the nutrients.

Rather than conclude that the nutrients are (or are even likely to be) the cause of the observed results the logical - even scientific - conclusion would be to set aside that theory and instead test for infinitely more rational, supportable, and testable theories.

The member's plant looks healthy. Roots look healthy. We have only his word that he is using a low-strength schedule, and that when he was using a stronger schedule that he had trouble... But I suppose that his word is as good as anyone else's, lol.

I agree, the plants look good. But up until a couple weeks ago the story was Sensi + Zone and now he's grown with just Sensi? I'll buy that he's mixed a res of nutes without Zone but that hardly eliminates it as a suspect. It can take weeks to recover from a lock-out or other nutrient problem. If it was a Zone/Sensi interaction the only way to know for sure would be to conduct a proper side-by-side. A subsequent grow using only Sensi would be a strong indicator but a potential change in other variables (environmental, etc) from one grow to the next inhibits certainty.

Actually the best way to determine the cause would be to get someone who is also growing with Sensi, and also growing with DWC to independently duplicate the conditions of r1tony's grow and confirm his experience. Doing that would require a great deal more information than he's given us so far, and that's another part of the reason I'm hesitant to accept any conclusion or theory that involves the Sensi nutes as the reason his plants don't tolerate anything approaching the ppms everyone else's plants are happy with.


Here's my theory.

Since we know that the rate a plant uptakes nutrients is directly a function of its metabolic rate, and that feeding at a higher rate causes "burn" the problem isn't that the nutrients are "too strong" or anything of that nature. Rather, his plant's metabolism is not as fast as we're observing in our own plants, which results in it being overfed at a much lower ppm than normal.

Plants under stronger lights eat more. Plants supplemented with CO2 eat more. Certain strains eat more.

ALL of these are infinitely more likely to be the relevant variable, and many other variables could contribute or be solely responsible for the observed results.


The simple truth here is that we have two widely conflicting reports. On one side, r1tony is reporting incredibly low ppm overfeeding. On the other side thousands (if not more) growers report proper feeding at or near the recommended dose. One of the two is an anomaly.

His is the single data set that doesn't fit. The only logical conclusion based exclusively on that information is that there is something unique to his grow that caused the results.

This is the key: his experience is unique, different. This logically requires that the cause also be unique. If the nutrients are not unique, they do not fit the requirement.


As I said, r1tony, I am not trying to say that you're a bad grower. If you're happy with the results, and your plants are clearly healthy, there's absolutely nothing wrong with how you're growing them.

However, it is completely unreasonable to jump to the conclusion that the nutrients are responsible for a phenomenon only you experience. It would be like me saying that, upon finding my plants shredded, my new ballast was to blame because I'd just bought it. While I may not be able to scientifically prove that to be false, I can logically eliminate it for a number of reasons.

And the infinitely more reasonable course of action would be to see if I could figure out if/how the dog had gotten in.

 

[r1tony]

Lol... I love the debate but bottom line is nutes were too strong. My new ppms are as I stated and plants are awesome.

Oh and I added the zone after plants were on just sensi like I stated earlier. Then I found a stable ppms with just sensi and then went from there to add zone.

Not sure why this is such a big deal I am not bashing anyone or any company. I run low ppms with great results... No need for the troll or witch hunt.

 

[voltron]

Listen to what you're saying.

You're saying that the thousands or more of people out there who use AN products - at the recommended dosage or at least double or more what you say burns your plants - are wrong.


I'm not trying to say you're a bad grower or anything like that. I'm just saying that if you look at this objectively you can't come to the conclusion that the nutes are the problem.

Here's the key: If the nutrients were the problem we would see a lot of other people having the same problem you are.

As far as I know, absolutely no one else on the planet has to run concentrations as low as you to keep their plants healthy. And if everyone else doesn't have the same problem with the same nutrients that you have, we have to accept that the problem isn't the nutrients and that it must be something else.

We've logically eliminated the nutrients as a possible cause because, logically speaking, it is infinitely more likely that the problem is one of dozens if not hundreds of other factors rather than that the problem is the nutrients and every single other grower in the world somehow mistakenly underfeeds to the precise degree necessary to keep their plants healthy and doesn't realize they're doing it.


It's one or the other.

Either everyone else, myself included, can't do basic math and every time we've mixed our nutrients we've somehow managed to mix them at a fraction of the recommended strength (thereby avoiding burning our plants purely by accident on an astronomically improbable scale)...

Or

Some OTHER factor happens in ONE case and makes your plants experience nutrient burn at abnormally low ppms.


Surely you can see how improbable it is that the nutrients are causing the problem?

I was just wondering, if one sees a problem with their plants and the first thing they do is change the feeding by decreasing the nutes and the problem dissappears, regardless of others results and findings why can one not conclude that the problem layed within overfeeding? True the res could've had bacteria in it which was washed away during a change and the low nutes were added to bacteria free res so results appear to be due to lower feeding... one of as you say dozens of other factors. But isn't part of the point of growing is to see how effective you can grow according to what your plants tell you not someone elses? We use the many other examples as great starting points but may need to adjust according to what our plants in our garden tell/shows us. Meaning if he can grow desirable fruit using low doses and increase his number of harvest with his nutes available should be a positive for him I understand the logic that you're using, I do. I just think a lil less making him appear to be a douch for coming to such a conclusion and a lil more of considering how good his results are netting him. That would help keep the 420 spirit that I have come to love. Really man, your comment "Either everyone else, myself included, can't do basic math and every time we've mixed our nutrients we've somehow managed to mix them at a fraction of the recommended strength (thereby avoiding burning our plants purely by accident on an astronomically improbable scale)..."
One of many that is very condencinding implying that he himself can't do basic math. Very rude, I'd offer congrats and maybe encourage him to bump the nutes a lil and see if he has more vigarous growth do to the majority and their finding or as TS stated make sure your equipment is reading proper. Either way his plants have responded well I encourage us all a lil medicating before commenting helps the vibes. So hydroherb listen to what you are saying and round out those corners dude

 

[voltron]

"However, it is completely unreasonable to jump to the conclusion that the nutrients are responsible for a phenomenon only you experience. It would be like me saying that, upon finding my plants shredded, my new ballast was to blame because I'd just bought it. While I may not be able to scientifically prove that to be false, I can logically eliminate it for a number of reasons." That is funny lmao

Yeah, one reason being the ballast isn't used as medium for the plant to grow in. If they were and you repotted your girl in her new ballast and the next day she was shredded it would be logical for one to conclude that the new medium/ballast may be responsible especially if repotted in a different medium/ballast lol and new growth began the next day. Why not conclude that? Again his change was the nutes and he noticed good results, isn't that what we all should do experiment and see what works well with what strain etc? You introduce a strawman argument with the comparison and scientific research, all he said was lower nutes in his res showed him good results. At least to someone like me who isn't a botanist/master grower can be satisfied with a healthy grow/harvest without all the extra... that can't be I must stress over a problem I no longer have after I made one adjustment and achieved the results I was looking for. Too much for me bro. I will leave this alone due to me tap dancing on the being too negative about this should be dead topic for R1, since his girls look great!

 

[TorturedSoul]

I agree, the rational and reasonable thing to do here is to quibble over the exact shades of meaning of the words used.

Hmm...

It is entirely rational and correct to use the word "logically" to mean "reasonably".

It is entirely acceptable - which is not, you understand, the same thing as being rational or correct - to use your own custom definitions for the words that you use. But if you do not predefine your customized variations on the meanings of said words, it is no one's fault but your own when they take your words at their proper meanings instead of what you unthinkingly assume they will. (Note: This was no more intended to give offense as my previous post was, so please do not feel insulted.)

If you notice I didn't use the word "scientifically", not that it would actually matter because even within science it is acceptable to fall short of proving a negative (which is generally impossible).

True. But in failing to prove - or disprove - anything, scientists do tend to properly keep the matter open as a question instead of discounting the possibility beyond question.

Rather the intelligent course of action is to attempt to predict what you can test positive for and then conduct an experiment to confirm that.

Yes, in general. But to concentrate on such a plan of action to the exclusion of all else is highly detrimental and can be - rightly - viewed by others as a way of slanting one's results toward the conclusion that they wish to find.

When something falls into the category of being inordinately improbable it would not only be considered reasonable, but advisable to discard that theory entirely and start from another premise that is more easily and more rationally tested.

Debatable, that. Rather... I do see your point - but if "science" concentrated on the likely & easily provable and neglected the improbable & the difficult to prove, then it wouldn't have progressed to anywhere near the level it is at today (and it wouldn't be "science," at all).

In any event, it would seem to have little bearing on the matter at hand, since the gardener in question did not feel that it was a good idea to continue feeding at the level that he experienced problems at whilst changing other variables to see if doing so might provide positive results (and before his plants died or were irreparably damaged).

Take this instance for example. Would it make more sense to attribute the anomaly in this garden to the absence of nearby invisible aliens and then attempt to construct a scientific experiment to prove there aren't aliens nearby, invisible or otherwise? Clearly not.

No, clearly not. But not for the reason that you seem to believe to be tantamount, that such a premise would not be easily provable. IOW... We all - myself included - like to make funny examples to help us get our meanings across, but if they do not fit the point of the discussion, they are pointless.

Aside from the obvious element of absurdity clearly used for comic effect, it's effectively impossible to prove that aliens don't exist. It's effectively impossible to prove anything doesn't exist because the absence of proof indicates only that you failed to find proof, not that proof doesn't exist. If we search 99.9% of the galaxy and find no aliens that only proves that if they exist they might exist in the remaining 0.1% that hasn't been searched, or that they might have moved from an unsearched area into a searched area when we weren't looking.

The thing is... Your example would have been more realistic (lol... so to speak) had you asked, "If the grower had proven that he had invisible aliens nearby, and he thought they were the root cause of his garden's problems, would it be sensible to remove them from the garden area in order to see if his plants improved?" (In which unlikely case, I'd say go for it but remember to keep the aliens happy if at all possible...)

Because, you see, his previous feedings' nutrient level is not akin to the questionable presence of invisible aliens - assuming that he was in his right mind or close to it at the time that he made those feedings (and mixed the nutrients), and that he has kept reasonable records (on paper or even mentally) then the existence of their relative strength is a known thing.

The simple fact that vast numbers of growers have used AN's nutes and have not duplicated the results of this grower (which effectively functions as a sort of experimental control) very strongly indicates the responsible variable is not the nutrients.[/quote]

That is quite plausible. One must keep in mind, of course, that your statement is only applicable in general terms. However, if you have any reports of people growing the exact same strain and phenotype, in the same environmental conditions, and under the same type and strength of lighting...

Rather than conclude that the nutrients are (or are even likely to be) the cause of the observed results the logical - even scientific - conclusion would be to set aside that theory and instead test for infinitely more rational, supportable, and testable theories.

Having used higher absolute strengths of nutrient concentrations in the past, I would tend to agree - in spirit. Although if I had been in the grower's shoes, with my garden's survival in question... Well, it takes a plant a lot longer to starve to death than it does to die from overfeeding (or from feeding at an extreme pH range, or any one of a number of other possibilities). So I might reasonably - which is not to say logically, although it might be perceived as being a logical step as well - decide to immediately cut the nutrient strength, either as its own step or in preparation for trying to discover what the proper next step might be. And if, as a direct result of cutting the strength of the nutrients that I was feeding my the plants, said plants appeared to get better, I might reasonably - but this time perhaps not entirely logically? lol - conclude that the strength that I had been feeding the plants was too high for them.

I probably would have done some further checking in an attempt to determine if there were more to it than just a case of the strength of the nutrients. Might I have been mis-reading the measuring device? Could I have allowed a portion of the liquid in one of the containers to evaporate, thereby making the resulting concentration stronger? Did I <GASP> cross-contaminate one of the containers and cause certain nutrients to precipitate out of solution and somehow manage to feed the resulting precipitates to the plants? Might my hypothetical roommate be feeding the plants when I was at work without realizing that I was feeding them? Et cetera.

I might further add that when most people see what they believe are signs of overfeeding / nutrient burn, the first step that they take is to decrease the nutrient levels. That would seem - to me, at any rate - to be a logical thing to do regardless of what those nutrient strengths were (or were perceived to be). It might not be the most rational thing to do if the nutrient strength was not (thought to be) overly high (for that particular situation) - but it would certainly not be irrational (and therefore likely to be unreasonable, illogical, or both).

If it was a Zone/Sensi interaction the only way to know for sure would be to conduct a proper side-by-side.

I wholeheartedly agree with that. An experiment isn't a proper experiment without a control.

A subsequent grow using only Sensi would be a strong indicator but a potential change in other variables (environmental, etc) from one grow to the next inhibits certainty.

I agree with that as well.

Actually the best way to determine the cause would be to get someone who is also growing with Sensi, and also growing with DWC to independently duplicate the conditions of r1tony's grow and confirm his experience.

That could be tricky. Duplicating a grow right down to the tiniest variable... I wouldn't want the job. But in theory, I suppose it might be the next best thing to him running two "identical except for the one variable at a time being tested" grows.

a great deal more information than he's given us so far, and that's another part of the reason I'm hesitant to accept any conclusion or theory that involves the Sensi nutes as the reason his plants don't tolerate anything approaching the ppms everyone else's plants are happy with.

It's the reason that I wouldn't discount any given conclusion. We seem to be going about this - and, perhaps, going about life - from two different perspectives. If I understand you correctly, you started with the belief that the rate and/or strength of nutrients that he was feeding them couldn't have been too strong - and, therefore, that they weren't. <SHRUGS> I would have thought it unlikely that they were too strong, but - not knowing all the particulars - I fully realize that it's at least a possibility.

Here's my theory.

Since we know that the rate a plant uptakes nutrients is directly a function of its metabolic rate, and that feeding at a higher rate causes "burn" the problem isn't that the nutrients are "too strong" or anything of that nature. Rather, his plant's metabolism is not as fast as we're observing in our own plants, which results in it being overfed at a much lower ppm than normal.

Plants under stronger lights eat more. Plants supplemented with CO2 eat more. Certain strains eat more.

ALL of these are infinitely more likely to be the relevant variable, and many other variables could contribute or be solely responsible for the observed results.

You do understand (or... do you?) that, regardless of the circumstances, if the concentration - or the rate of feeding - of the nutrients burns the plants... then that concentration and/or rate of feeding fits the definition of being "too strong," yes?

The simple truth here is that we have two widely conflicting reports. On one side, r1tony is reporting incredibly low ppm overfeeding. On the other side thousands (if not more) growers report proper feeding at or near the recommended dose. One of the two is an anomaly.

If he were the only person who has ever experienced what was thought to be an overfeeding situation with AN, then your statement about him being an anomaly on the data curve might have merit (with the caveat I mentioned above about different strains, phenotypes, environmental conditions, and light type/strengths, of course). But a quick search via Google shows that he's not the first person ever to have burned his plants with the brand. Nor is he the first person to have found that running at lower than recommended doses works (for him; YMMV, of course).

I saw mentions of using anywhere from 25% less than recommended to using 25% of the recommended strength. And, to be fair, I also saw mentions of the recommended dosages being fine and one person stating that two strains in his bagseed garden liked higher nutrient strengths than recommended. So it's not like the many(?) thousands of other growers who use AN are at one point on the graph and r1tony is at another. There is a fairly broad range involved. Presumably - and, AfaIK, in practice it holds true - the bulk of people are clustered reasonably close to the median, but not all of them and even they are certainly not at the same exact data-point.

His is the single data set that doesn't fit. The only logical conclusion based exclusively on that information is that there is something unique to his grow that caused the results.

This is the key: his experience is unique, different. This logically requires that the cause also be unique. If the nutrients are not unique, they do not fit the requirement.

However, it is completely unreasonable to jump to the conclusion that the nutrients are responsible for a phenomenon only you experience.

Unless I read his posts wrong, he didn't jump to any conclusions (reasonable or otherwise). Instead, he thought he was overfeeding, he decreased the nutrients, the plants recovered, and because of that course of events, came to the conclusion that he did.

It would be like me saying that, upon finding my plants shredded, my new ballast was to blame because I'd just bought it. While I may not be able to scientifically prove that to be false, I can logically eliminate it for a number of reasons.

And the infinitely more reasonable course of action would be to see if I could figure out if/how the dog had gotten in.

Again, when using humorous(???) examples, please stick to ones that are in some way a valid comparison. I don't believe that I've ever read about a ballast shredding a plant. But I have read about people burning one (yes, even with AN, lol). So it is, of course, a case of comparing apples to bass drums.

 

[budlydoright]

Wow how did an AN thread break out into rational, intelligent discussion!

Nice job guys!!!

 

[hydroherb]

It is entirely acceptable - which is not, you understand, the same thing as being rational or correct - to use your own custom definitions for the words that you use. But if you do not predefine your customized variations on the meanings of said words, it is no one's fault but your own when they take your words at their proper meanings instead of what you unthinkingly assume they will.

I did not use a "customized" definition of the word "logically".

Logically | Define Logically at Dictionary.com

Check number 3. It's a perfectly valid and, if I may, logical use of the word. In fact I double-checked the dictionary definition prior to writing my previous post. If you want to argue valid definitions of a word I would highly recommend first ensuring that the dictionary doesn't actually contradict your side of the issue.

(Note: This was no more intended to give offense as my previous post was, so please do not feel insulted.)

The insult I perceive is based more on my pride in my vocabulary than an actual intent to insult (or at least I take you at your word on the lack of intent). The greatest insult here is that it is perfectly reasonable to assume someone is less than fully aware of the meaning of the words they use. Of course that insult is directed at our society as whole for failing as a whole to take pride in education. But I digress.

Yes, in general. But to concentrate on such a plan of action to the exclusion of all else is highly detrimental and can be - rightly - viewed by others as a way of slanting one's results toward the conclusion that they wish to find.

I agree but direct my agreement toward the assumption that the nutrients are the source of the problem and refusing to see any other option as viable (which is the impression I was given by r1tony).

Debatable, that. Rather... I do see your point - but if "science" concentrated on the likely & easily provable and neglected the improbable & the difficult to prove, then it wouldn't have progressed to anywhere near the level it is at today (and it wouldn't be "science," at all).

Actually science does exactly that. As a scientist there's no bonus points for eliminating the most difficult variables to test for first. The objective is to get from point A - uncertainty - to point B - reasonable certainty. Taking the most likely and easily provable path between those two points is precisely how science advances the fastest.

Occam's Razor is a perfect example of how science pursues simplicity (and quite applicable in this particular debate).

In any event, it would seem to have little bearing on the matter at hand, since the gardener in question did not feel that it was a good idea to continue feeding at the level that he experienced problems at whilst changing other variables to see if doing so might provide positive results (and before his plants died or were irreparably damaged).

I don't disagree with his choice of action, but rather the conclusions he drew as a result. If your plants are showing signs of overfeeding at ppms where they absolutely should not be, the correct course of action is not to insist they stop being overfed at that level. The correct course is to reduce feeding and pursue an explanation for the cause. (It's on that last part I feel the ball was dropped.)

That is quite plausible. One must keep in mind, of course, that your statement is only applicable in general terms. However, if you have any reports of people growing the exact same strain and phenotype, in the same environmental conditions, and under the same type and strength of lighting...

I definitely don't have any kind of database of that type of information. Especially when we don't even have most of that information in this particular case.

Having used higher absolute strengths of nutrient concentrations in the past, I would tend to agree - in spirit. Although if I had been in the grower's shoes, with my garden's survival in question... Well, it takes a plant a lot longer to starve to death than it does to die from overfeeding (or from feeding at an extreme pH range, or any one of a number of other possibilities). So I might reasonably - which is not to say logically, although it might be perceived as being a logical step as well - decide to immediately cut the nutrient strength, either as its own step or in preparation for trying to discover what the proper next step might be. And if, as a direct result of cutting the strength of the nutrients that I was feeding my the plants, said plants appeared to get better, I might reasonably - but this time perhaps not entirely logically? lol - conclude that the strength that I had been feeding the plants was too high for them.

I probably would have done some further checking in an attempt to determine if there were more to it than just a case of the strength of the nutrients. Might I have been mis-reading the measuring device? Could I have allowed a portion of the liquid in one of the containers to evaporate, thereby making the resulting concentration stronger? Did I <GASP> cross-contaminate one of the containers and cause certain nutrients to precipitate out of solution and somehow manage to feed the resulting precipitates to the plants? Might my hypothetical roommate be feeding the plants when I was at work without realizing that I was feeding them? Et cetera.

I might further add that when most people see what they believe are signs of overfeeding / nutrient burn, the first step that they take is to decrease the nutrient levels. That would seem - to me, at any rate - to be a logical thing to do regardless of what those nutrient strengths were (or were perceived to be). It might not be the most rational thing to do if the nutrient strength was not (thought to be) overly high (for that particular situation) - but it would certainly not be irrational (and therefore likely to be unreasonable, illogical, or both).

I agree completely on the choice of action upon seeing the signs of overfeeding. There's nothing to be gained from trying to "ride it out" and solve the problem independent of reducing ppms. If you don't immediately get the plants on the road to recovery your test won't last long enough to yield answers... the plants will simply die.

That could be tricky. Duplicating a grow right down to the tiniest variable... I wouldn't want the job. But in theory, I suppose it might be the next best thing to him running two "identical except for the one variable at a time being tested" grows.

Tricky to say the least. First we'd have to actually get information on this grow beyond a few ppm and pH measurements and the complete discounting of any possible cause that isn't the nutrients.

And I certainly wouldn't relish the thought of running such an experiment on my own dime, but I would find it really fascinating to attempt if the equipment were provided.

It's the reason that I wouldn't discount any given conclusion. We seem to be going about this - and, perhaps, going about life - from two different perspectives. If I understand you correctly, you started with the belief that the rate and/or strength of nutrients that he was feeding them couldn't have been too strong - and, therefore, that they weren't. <SHRUGS> I would have thought it unlikely that they were too strong, but - not knowing all the particulars - I fully realize that it's at least a possibility.

I'm not saying it's impossible that somehow the nutrients are what's "wrong". I'm simply saying that it is an illogical conclusion with the evidence r1tony has. It's the wrong conclusion to jump to when there are so many infinitely more probable causes that haven't been ruled out first. It's like the guy on the History channel with the bad hair that says everything science can't explain this very instant was the work of ancient aliens.

Is it theoretically possible? Sure. Is it far more likely an unknown, non-alien reason is the correct answer? Absolutely. Simply because we didn't know what caused disease centuries ago doesn't make "evil spirits" the logical conclusion.

You do understand (or... do you?) that, regardless of the circumstances, if the concentration - or the rate of feeding - of the nutrients burns the plants... then that concentration and/or rate of feeding fits the definition of being "too strong," yes?

But there are two ways to look at it. Way 1 (which distorts the issue) is to say that the nutrients are too strong. Way 2 (which is more likely to be accurate) is to say that the plants are light eaters.

Look at it this way: is eating 3000 calories a day "overeating"? Not for an athlete or someone who works at a demanding manual job. And our plants are more athlete than couch potato. If they have a very low metabolism 1200 calories a day might be "overeating". But does that make the 3000 calorie meal "too big" or does it make their diet "too small"?

It makes more sense to define an anomaly by the trait that makes it different rather than by the more common majority. Albinos lack pigment, we don't say that the majority is "too pigmented".

Unless I read his posts wrong, he didn't jump to any conclusions (reasonable or otherwise). Instead, he thought he was overfeeding, he decreased the nutrients, the plants recovered, and because of that course of events, came to the conclusion that he did.

Every time someone suggested an alternate theory as to why his plants were getting burned at very low ppms his response was "no, that's not it, it's the nutes. The nutes are too strong." (I'm paraphrasing here.)

My issue is that this unfairly casts the nutrients in the role of scapegoat. Saying that a nutrient is "too strong" is a criticism of the nutrient that is, in this case, undeserved.

Rather it should be said that for as-yet unknown reasons his plants are reasonably successful on a surprisingly low ppm diet.

 

[voltron]

You guys (TS& HH) are good!! I like this style of debate...soon you two will be in complete agreement with each other Just for any that may be lost here... Neither of these guys nor the grower are saying Advanced Nutes caused any problems.

 

[HydroManster]

Could it be his TDS meter is off reporting a lower PPM than what is really in the bucket possibly? Not sure if someone mentioned that or not yet.

I am not a fan really of AN products. I do not like they way advertise either.

They claim to use the best ingredients but do not like i.e. UREA for a nitrogen source. UREA is the cheapest form of nitrogen known to man as it is mammal urine.

There are also questionable amounts of other synthetics used in there product but they will not tell us how much. Why is that you think?

They have been banned from many shelves in many stores, that bothers me some I must admit and it really should bother you as well IMO.

And if your running a sterile DWC or RDWC grow as we were when we tested it your plants will not get that nitrogen from UREA as there is no bacteria present to break it down first and make it available.

They boast all these claims and then there is the pricing. How on earth can they justify the price of Voodoo Juice for example? I mean seriously.....

The bottom line is the products do not justify the price tag in most all cases and do not produce the results to justify them either when tested against much cheaper nutrients systems.

We did give them a "honest" test and did side by side testing for 2 years. Many nutrients we tested produced much healthier and happier plants.

We also found the dosages and feed charts to be to strong for DWC and RDWC and showed signs of over feeding even at much lower dosages and amounts.

I would rate AN over all as "ok" at best but extremely over priced. If your growing in DWC or RDWC I would suggest a complete mineral based solution like Dynagro for example with cal/mag and Protek additives and H202 to keep things sterile.

Cheers!

 

[hydroherb]

Could it be his TDS meter is off reporting a lower PPM than what is really in the bucket possibly? Not sure if someone mentioned that or not yet.

That was brought up and shot down by him saying his TDS meter was really expensive. Yeah, I know it doesn't actually make sense but it's clear arguing that point won't get anywhere.

It's unlikely his meter could be off by that much, but if he won't entertain the possibility he won't check it with a second meter to confirm.

I am not a fan really of AN products. I do not like they way advertise either.

I am a fan of their products and even I will admit that they can go over the top on their ads. But that appeals to some people so you can't really fault them for picking one style over another. No style of advertising is universally appealing - someone will always dislike it.

That said I will say their obvious passion is better than companies that don't seem to really care whether anyone likes what they have to sell or not.

They claim to use the best ingredients but do not like i.e. UREA for a nitrogen source. UREA is the cheapest form of nitrogen known to man as it is mammal urine.

Do you have a source to back this up or is it just a rumor you heard? Do keep in mind that if you want to provide a source it needs to include proof that they don't process the urea themselves prior to adding it to the bottles.

They have been banned from many shelves in many stores, that bothers me some I must admit and it really should bother you as well IMO.

That's politics, not something nefarious.

They boast all these claims and then there is the pricing. How on earth can they justify the price of Voodoo Juice for example? I mean seriously.....

No one is twisting your arm to buy their stuff. I buy it, I believe it is well worth the expense and this is based off the real-world results I've seen in my own garden. You don't have to agree.

I'd just caution you against spreading nasty rumors that were mostly started by people in the industry with ulterior motives and then picked up by consumers who don't know better. There have been people who've admitted that part of their job was to start those rumors about Advanced Nutrients in order to scare store owners into giving more shelf space to the brand the rumormongers work for.

 

[r1tony]

As stated I checked ppm with my blue lab meter, Hannah meter and a Milwaukee. All are within tenths of each other so yes ruled this out.

I did go buy some NON-PH Perfect SensiGrow *black label*

and yes that is 400-600ppm for small clones and smaller plants and upwards for bigger plants.

The PH PERFECT (which I stated from beginning are not the same) in the blossom botttle *yellow with woman*

are 200 max and burning above, so there are different formulas in each and NPK ratios. Maybe this is where these *so called experts* are trying to witch hunt the claim...

Either way low ppm is the way to go with *ph perfect sensi grow* and regular ppms are fine with non-ph sensi grow. Either way I love the salts, not sure why people are obsessing on making this a bad thing?

Just harvested my bubble gum with never reaching over 450ppm in flower and averaged 3-4 ounces per plant dry and curing. How would I complain with that with just a 400w HPS?

Ya I changed my bucket in flower one time *gasp* just adding nutes back as the plant needed them. There we can start another witch hunt on changing reservoirs weekly! Oh nos!

 

[jbiz206]

I have ph ppm perfect conni and most the additives and im saying from my experience with it is r1tony is right this shit is hot, i use conni at half and the additives at a quarter and im killing it so fuck haters.... Also if your running anything outside soil you can rape these are the cleanest nutes ive seen.

 

[Aeroherbs]

Either way low ppm is the way to go with *ph perfect sensi grow* and regular ppms are fine with non-ph sensi grow. Either way I love the salts, not sure why people are obsessing on making this a bad thing?

I think the issue is with statements like "low ppm is the way to go". Since there's a lot of people whose plants are absolutely gobbling up these nutes at the recommended dosage your statement makes it sound like they're outside the norm.

While you're clearly getting the best results at low ppm that's not typical for most people and you sound like you're recommending everyone do it your way.


At least that's what I'm getting from all this. You're saying that this is what works for you, but the way you say it makes people think you're saying that everyone should do it your way. And then they say that's wrong and the argument goes back and forth.

Low ppm is the way to go - for you. Perhaps some others. But for most of us our plants need a lot more than yours to get the best growth. I doubt you're recommending that we all use the same dosage you do.

 

[r1tony]

I think the issue is with statements like "low ppm is the way to go". Since there's a lot of people whose plants are absolutely gobbling up these nutes at the recommended dosage your statement makes it sound like they're outside the norm.

Blah Blah Blah

LOL where have I EVER stated people should use lower amounts (even though many growers comment that "lower is always more in dwc) but I never stated that. My original post and subsiqent posts state that I was having issues and diagnosed I needed to use "lower" dosages. I did and it worked, and worked well for me.

Now, if you want to use my levels of nutes or a whole bottle at a time I could care less, I posted trying to help others in what I was experiencing. Unfortunately trolls (well maybe not trolls but people that are narrow minded) started chiming in that things were wrong, blah blah. They started a witch hunt over nothing, I had a problem, I diagnosed it, corrected it and grows move on. I was hoping to help anyone going through my problems without the 3-4 weeks wasted.

I guess from now on, I will try to help out less and act like I know everything like most of the trollites chiming in.

Since the first post I have had few plants harvested with adjusted ppms and roots white as snow and buds big as most egos in here.

Probably my last post here as I could care less about what you guys think, know, hear or tested. It worked for me, and that's all that counts. Do what works for YOU not what others say or try to dig up like here I have said that since first post, moron.

Whatever.

 

[Aeroherbs]

LOL where have I EVER stated people should use lower amounts (even though many growers comment that "lower is always more in dwc) but I never stated that.

Sigh. My entire point was that there was a big, big difference between what you were trying to say and what it sounded like you were saying. You're talking about your own experience but the way you say it makes it sound - to some people - like you're trying to give universal advice.

That was my point. I never said that you said everyone should use lower ppms. I said that it was easy for someone to think that's what you were saying.

I guess from now on, I will try to help out less and act like I know everything like most of the trollites chiming in.

First off, there weren't any trolls. There were people who didn't understand what you meant, and you didn't understand what they meant. Trying to attribute anything darker than that to the whole thing is silly.

Second, even if there had been trolls the ragequit isn't exactly the right way to handle that.

Do what works for YOU not what others say or try to dig up like here I have said that since first post, moron.

Now that's just entirely uncalled for. I was trying to be nice and help you and everyone else understand where the misunderstanding came from and you decide to call me names?

I'm tempted to conclude from this that the bulk of the misunderstanding exists on just one side of this issue if you're going to mistake an olive branch for an attack.