Dr. Bruce Bugbee method: NASA technique on Mars etc.

Vizzaro

Active Member
Ive seen the Bruce Bugbee video multiple times and the only time he mentions pH is when he is talking about making the media. Since Peat is acidic he adds vermiculite and dolomitic lime to bring the pH of the media to 5.5 which he says is near optimum. Other than that he mentions they have low sulfer in their water so they add gypsum and he measures the EC of their tap water which is at ~0.4.
 

greener side

New Member
Ive seen the Bruce Bugbee video multiple times and the only time he mentions pH is when he is talking about making the media. Since Peat is acidic he adds vermiculite and dolomitic lime to bring the pH of the media to 5.5 which he says is near optimum. Other than that he mentions they have low sulfer in their water so they add gypsum and he measures the EC of their tap water which is at ~0.4.
I can now confirm it is not in the 'maximize your' video. I still believe it to be mentioned in one of his videos. If I find it, I will confirm. Obviously even if I do it would be a bit ambiguous, though my high ph low buffer water seems to work well as evidenced by happy tomatoes
 

JonCreighton

Well-Known Member
Ive seen the Bruce Bugbee video multiple times and the only time he mentions pH is when he is talking about making the media. Since Peat is acidic he adds vermiculite and dolomitic lime to bring the pH of the media to 5.5 which he says is near optimum. Other than that he mentions they have low sulfer in their water so they add gypsum and he measures the EC of their tap water which is at ~0.4.
its very important to note that the 20-10-20 he reccomends has almost no other nuitents in it.

i think it has micro nuitenients but other than the NPK it has almost nothing. so while the additions he adds do help to w the PH they are also there to supply the other nuitents not in the jacks 20-10-20. gypsom is calium sulfate and lime has calcium and madnesium i think. so u can think of his mix as kind of a combination of slow reslease fertalizer in the soil mixed w addition of NPK in the feed solution. if u mniss the soil ammendsments its not going to kill u w PH but it will kill you cuz u have no calcium at all.

iv ran the soil and nutirent to his exact specification and posted the pics above. at about week 6 or somehitng i started adding cal, mag, sulfer cuz i just didnt think the ammendments to the soil were cutting it.

what he records from that video is a very general fertiliser. he wrote a paper in 2004 about nutrients in hydroponics that give a better insight into exactly what he thinks about plant nutrition.

if you want to get a little more specific. these are the exact numbers from his 2004 paper as u can see they are much diffferent than most of the way people use nuitrenits.... i thinnk that is why durring the video he makjes the wierd statement about people using "tooo much nuitrient"... thes are N,P,K, cal, mag, sul. and the table are what he calls .. starter... vegatative refill.. and reproductive (or fruiting) refill
1611520020326.png 1611520047402.png 1611520093487.png

VERY IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THESE NUMBERS ARE FOR HYDROPONICS AND IN PPMS BECUASE IT IS EASIER FOR ME TO WORK W THAT WAY. idk if u could convert these percentages directly cuz of how the math w orks on the spreadhseet but generally converting ppms to "normal" fertlaizer NPK percentages u would multiply the P by 2.3 and the K by 1.2

another side note he leaves room to add more nitrogen if nessesary to the ph control solution... so u could taske these numbers and add some N to them if u needed to. but he basically reccomends the numbers above
 

JonCreighton

Well-Known Member
1611522173469.png 1611522190906.png1611522205519.png

this is the numbers in ppms... if i remmeber correctly he says a nitrogen rate of 120ppms in the video... these numbers i think would average out to pretty close to that. you only give the start solutiuon 1 time in hydroponics... then go into veg refill.. then reprodutive refill..

also remember to get out of ppms and to normal npk numnbers multiple the P x 2.3 and the K x 1.2
 

Wastei

Well-Known Member
I have recently started growing with this exact method and ran into some issues. I have attached some pictures. Anyone else experienced this?

Ec 1.1 going in and coming out
Ph 6.5 in and 5.2 out
Been following the VPD

Could it be the ph fluctuation?

Thanks in advance.
Improper watering techniques, they look overly dry to me. Probably low pH if you're growing in peat based soil. Peat is naturally acidic.

You need a buffer, either by adding silicate, lime or simply buy adding pH up before watering. Cheers!
 
Last edited:

JonCreighton

Well-Known Member
I have recently started growing with this exact method and ran into some issues. I have attached some pictures. Anyone else experienced this?

Ec 1.1 going in and coming out
Ph 6.5 in and 5.2 out
Been following the VPD

Could it be the ph fluctuation?

Thanks in advance.
if ur using the peat lite 20-10-20 it could be calcium defficiency from the additives in the soil not being enough calcium. i know at least some of the jacks 20-10-20 has no calcium.

could be too little phosporus... theres not much P in the 20-10-20... not much at all... going in at 6.5 ph some people would say is on the high side for P uptake aswell... so if u combine those two things together it could be a lack of phosporus... the large drop in PH in to PH out could indicate the plant is not eating the phosporus at the same rate as the other nuitrents aswell. phosporus has a large impact on ph down... that general hydropoonics orange ph down that mnost people use is actually phosporic acid.. so a large drop in the ph could indicate the runoff has a higher percentage of phosporus than the nuitrent solution.. that would mean the plant is not eating that phosporus at the same rate as the other nuitrnts. most people would say phosporus is avaialable in the 5.5-6.2 range... so it could be that feeding at 6.5 is restricting the phosporus uptake... coupled w the super low phosportus fertalizer... idk hope that help.. good luck
 

JonCreighton

Well-Known Member
1611533776251.png1611533360432.png1611533372132.png
those are the ELEMENTAL ((Px2.3) and (Kx1.2) for regular NPK) numbers for jacks 20-10-20... it comes out to 250 ppm 1 gram to 1 gallon.... if u notice there is no cal mag sul or silicone... those thigns are in the ammendsments to the soil... but i dont think enough...

to be honest iv done the soil just like he says and the 20-10-20 (actually 50-10-40) and everything just like he reccomned but i thin if ur really trying to follow the bugbee method u would want to find a way.. any way doesnt have to be how he mentioned..just find a way to get to the mixes i listed above.. I tailor them alittle but toward what most other people do for cannabis nuitreints. but the 20-10-20 (50-10-40) was his attemp at a general fertlaizer... i think his attemo at how to get specific was in his paper on nuitrenits in recirculating hydropoincs... i listed my break outs from that paper above... i should note im not a plant scientist i jackhammer for a living and the paper was difficult to break down.. so grower beware.

sorry if i highjack the thread but its really worth nothing unless u follow the intial mix pretty much exactly... just running jacks pete lite 20-10-20 could be a disaster...
 
Last edited:

Vizzaro

Active Member
View attachment 4806023View attachment 4806016View attachment 4806017
those are the ELEMENTAL ((Px2.3) and (Kx1.2) for regular NPK) numbers for jacks 20-10-20... it comes out to 250 ppm 1 gram to 1 gallon.... if u notice there is no cal mag sul or silicone... those thigns are in the ammendsments to the soil... but i dont think enough...

to be honest iv done the soil just like he says and the 20-10-20 (actually 50-10-40) and everything just like he reccomned but i thin if ur really trying to follow the bugbee method u would want to find a way.. any way doesnt have to be how he mentioned..just find a way to get to the mixes i listed above.. I tailor them alittle but toward what most other people do for cannabis nuitreints. but the 20-10-20 (50-10-40) was his attemp at a general fertlaizer... i think his attemo at how to get specific was in his paper on nuitrenits in recirculating hydropoincs... i listed my break outs from that paper above... i should note im not a plant scientist i jackhammer for a living and the paper was difficult to break down.. so grower beware.

sorry if i highjack the thread but its really worth nothing unless u follow the intial mix pretty much exactly... just running jacks pete lite 20-10-20 could be a disaster...
Did you use only the 50-10-40 and never used the 20-10-20? Also where did you get the 50-10-40?

And I get what you are saying about the Jacks 20-10-20 but it just makes me wonder how Dr. Bugbee was able to do it. I was curious if they actually used the Peat-Lite 20-10-20 in veg and in bloom. And in the comments of the video I found the answer in a response from Dr. Bugbee where he said: "We use the same 20-10-20 solution throughout the life cycle. the optimum input EC is about 1.5 milliSiemens per cm. It is particularly important to keep checking, the leachate from the containers to make sure it doesn't get too high or too low during flowering. The optimum electrical conductivity for the leachate is between 1 and 2 milliSiemens per cm."

And as for which fertilizer they use of the 20-10-20's they said: " The exacter fertilizer we use is Peters Professional 20-10-20 Peat-Lite Special. The Peat-Lite special has higher levels of micronutrients than the general purpose 20-10-20 fertilizer. The higher micronutrients concentration is beneficial-as long as growers keep the overall EC from getting too high."
 

JonCreighton

Well-Known Member
the 50-10-40 is what the 20-10-20 is in elemental form... when u buy fertalizer they giver the npk numbers but thats not whats really in the mix... idk why they do this apparently in othre countries they give the actuall amount of npk... but in the states u have to convert them to elemntal... u do this by multiplying the P by .43 and the K by .83... if u do that w the 20-10-20 it comes to basically a 50-10-40... i did this because the numbers from his 04 pape arer easiest broken out in elemntal (ppm) form and not NPK form... so if u wanted to compare the jacks to the numbers i listed above they would both need to be in PPM form.. i know its dum and confusing... if i got the NPK percentages ont he spreadhseet ill try and post them

bugbee is able to do it because the mix as a whole is really really good. but if u miss a step or two, cant find vermiculite, or lime, or gypsum. none of that stuff is in the jacks 20-10-20... u would be relying on tap water alone for things like calcium, magnesium, sulfer, silicon, ect... some of the most important things for a plant and in mnost places not enough in the tap water. so u have to follow the addative to the soil if ur going to just go w jacks or ur going to be seriously lacking a lot of secondary nuitrents unless u got some exceptionally hard tap water.
 
Hello everyone!

There are several things to consider.

Dr. Bugbee's fertilizer recommendation is for use with tap water, and here's why:

Firstly tap water contains calcium and magnesium (more often than not approx ~80 ppm Ca and ~25 ppm Mg), which together with some from the dolomitic lime is sufficient. The 20-10-20 peat lite does not contain calcium and almost no magnesium, because it is designed for tap water and takes this into account. Micro nutrients (Fe, B, Cu, Mn, Mo, Zn) are included in this fertilizer in sufficient quantities, so no need to worry about that.

Secondly, but not less important, tap water has alkalinity (not to confuse with ph) which consists of mostly carbonates and bicarbonates ("hardness", for example CaCO3). This alkalinity will drive the ph of the substrate more and more up towards 7 over time, and this is too high. To counteract this, the 20-10-20 contains approx 40 percent of its nitrogen as ammoniacal nitrogen (NH4), which in turn has an acidifying effect in the substrate. The result is that the ph remains somewhat constant over time. Both, alkalinity and the acidifying effect of ammonium nitrogen on their own have much more impact on the substrate ph than the ph of the irrigation water.

If you use reverse osmosis water (which has no alkalinity), the high ammonium nitrogen content of the fertilizer will drive the substrate ph rapidly down over time since there is no alkalinity to buffer that, even if the ph of the irrigation water would not be acidic.

So you have to consider several things if using reverse osmosis water:

1) The use of a fertilizer which contains most of its nitrogen in the nitrate form, so that substrate ph remains somewhat stable.
2) Further you need a source for calcium and magnesium.

The best way to achieve this is to use a three part system, consisting of

Part A: a fertilizer with no or just a little nitrogen, but a ~1:2 ratio of P2O5:K2O, like Peters combi sol 6-18-36 or Peters hydroponic special 5-11-26. They are designed to work in conjunction with different nitrogen sources, depending on the source water and type of substrate (ammonium nitrate, calcium nitrate, ammonium sulfate etc.).

Part B: calcium nitrate for nitrogen and calcium

Part C: magnesium sulfate for magnesium and sulfur.

Here is an example (also perfect for coco and other soilless substrates etc.)
Peters combi sol (6-18-36): 0,34 g/l
Calcium nitrate (15,5 N 19 Ca): 0,65 g/l
Magnesium sulfate (10 Mg 13 S): 0,3 g/l

gives N-P2O5-K2O-Ca-Mg-S:
121-61-122-120-35-48


The ratio Dr. Bugbee recommends gives superb results in terms of both yield AND quality. Just be sure to NOT use any bloom boosters as it is really not needed and only throws you NPK ratio off. Just this ratio from veg till the end, no extra flowering formula or changing ratios, no reduced nitrogen. All the "cannabis specific" bla bla is just marketing bullshit and broscience.
So to summarize it:
It's super cheap, gives perfect results, better than all the overpriced, down watered high PK ripoff "nutrients lines", it is super easy, no constantly running to the hydro store.
You can get these in 50 pound bags and have a lifetime supply (!) for a couple of bucks.

As a side note: I would trust Dr. Bugbee more than most if not all others because for sure he knows what he is talking about and first researches what he claims. He's a well-known, respected professor doing pioneering work for almost 40 years, photobiology, nutrition, soilless substrates, hydroponics to only name a few topics, and has released many peer-reviewed papers. They are professionals who do REAL scientific research.
Watch his USU Cannabis lab tour video. They are doing state of the art cannabis research in controlled environment growth chambers and testing also parameters like temperature, humidity etc.

The world of cannabis is so full of myths and false claims and marketing bollocks, it is ridiculous, and i'm glad that finally there is scientific research going on and people like Dr. Bugbee uncover the truth!
 

JonCreighton

Well-Known Member
The world of cannabis is so full of myths and false claims and marketing bollocks, it is ridiculous, and i'm glad that finally there is scientific research going on and people like Dr. Bugbee uncover the truth!
well said... and i couldnt agree more with everything u said... let me throw some things at the wall here and let me know what u think...

i wonder.. given more time on the video he wouldnt get a little more detailed w his nutient methodology... i think iv attached his 2004 paper on riculuating hydroponics a couple time on this thread and iv posted what my breaks outs of his solutions are from that paper above.. i wonder if given time to expand on his thoughts on the video hee wouldnt shade more towards the break outs from the 2004 paper..

he says on the video " we use the same fertalizer for all plants.. wheat plants, corn, tomaote,... we can reccomend a general fertalizer that does well for this" so if he were to be reccomending a tomatoe fertalizer in a similar video i imagine he would say go w 20-10-20... but based on the 2004 paper we can see what his actuall fertalizers are quit different but avaerage out to close to 20-10-20...

i guess what im wondering is......

was the 20-10-20 from the video an over generalisation and given more time he would lean his mixes more towards the 2004 paper?

or

has his views on nuitrnets changed since 2004? or is cannabis so different it requires a totally differnt feralizer? (i lean agaist this cuz again he said in the video he would reccomend the 20-10-20 for the same pants from the 04 paper)

im really trying to nail down here cuz u cant leach hydro system really and im tyring to go start to finsih without changin the solution... everything being cumulative w the hydro im just trying to be as sharp as i can w it..
 
well said... and i couldnt agree more with everything u said... let me throw some things at the wall here and let me know what u think...

i wonder.. given more time on the video he wouldnt get a little more detailed w his nutient methodology... i think iv attached his 2004 paper on riculuating hydroponics a couple time on this thread and iv posted what my breaks outs of his solutions are from that paper above.. i wonder if given time to expand on his thoughts on the video hee wouldnt shade more towards the break outs from the 2004 paper..

he says on the video " we use the same fertalizer for all plants.. wheat plants, corn, tomaote,... we can reccomend a general fertalizer that does well for this" so if he were to be reccomending a tomatoe fertalizer in a similar video i imagine he would say go w 20-10-20... but based on the 2004 paper we can see what his actuall fertalizers are quit different but avaerage out to close to 20-10-20...

i guess what im wondering is......

was the 20-10-20 from the video an over generalisation and given more time he would lean his mixes more towards the 2004 paper?

or

has his views on nuitrnets changed since 2004? or is cannabis so different it requires a totally differnt feralizer? (i lean agaist this cuz again he said in the video he would reccomend the 20-10-20 for the same pants from the 04 paper)

im really trying to nail down here cuz u cant leach hydro system really and im tyring to go start to finsih without changin the solution... everything being cumulative w the hydro im just trying to be as sharp as i can w it..
I've read the paper you mentioned a few years ago but don't remember exactly what elemental concentrations etc. were described. I'll read it once again, perhaps i'm able to give you an answer on that. What i can say for now is that one difference is recirculating vs non-recirculating with leaching ("drain to waste").
In a recirculating system you have to take several things into account. For example different elements are taken up by plants at different speeds and by different mechanisms (for example calcium is only passively absorbed by mass flow etc.) so some could accumulate in the nutrient reservoir or the substrate while others could soon get depleted (and maybe deficient). The plants also alter the ph of the recirculating nutrient solution as they take up elements (for example if it takes up more cations than anions the ph goes down because hydrogen ions are exchanged for them to keep the ion charge in balance and vice versa). So as far as i know the ratios are more important and maybe different as opposed to an open system where you leach the substrate a bit (~10-20% runoff) every time you feed so the elemental ratios and concentrations remain somewhat more stable/constant and the fertilizer salts don't accumulate that much.
Well... i will read that one up again and come back to hopefully be able to give you (and me) a more precise answer.
If you have any questions feel free to ask as i'm always willing to help where i can.
 

JonCreighton

Well-Known Member
I've read the paper you mentioned a few years ago but don't remember exactly what elemental concentrations etc. were described. I'll read it once again, perhaps i'm able to give you an answer on that. What i can say for now is that one difference is recirculating vs non-recirculating with leaching ("drain to waste").
In a recirculating system you have to take several things into account. For example different elements are taken up by plants at different speeds and by different mechanisms (for example calcium is only passively absorbed by mass flow etc.) so some could accumulate in the nutrient reservoir or the substrate while others could soon get depleted (and maybe deficient). The plants also alter the ph of the recirculating nutrient solution as they take up elements (for example if it takes up more cations than anions the ph goes down because hydrogen ions are exchanged for them to keep the ion charge in balance and vice versa). So as far as i know the ratios are more important and maybe different as opposed to an open system where you leach the substrate a bit (~10-20% runoff) every time you feed so the elemental ratios and concentrations remain somewhat more stable/constant and the fertilizer salts don't accumulate that much.
Well... i will read that one up again and come back to hopefully be able to give you (and me) a more precise answer.
If you have any questions feel free to ask as i'm always willing to help where i can.
ya its quite difficult in the hydro... im trying to make the mixes w half the nitrogen and supply the other half of the nitrogen via nitric acid w a ph controller... even w the passive uptake in calcium its hard to get the amount of calcium u need into the mix without adding too much nitrogen... by that i mean if u were to use calcium nitrate for ur calcium and u need lets say 20% calcium... ur already at like 15% nitrogen... and the nitric acid needed for ph might push u over where u want to be for N. calcium chloride helps but i tread lightly w the chloride... im not really sure what a toxic ppm level of chloride is (iv read a lot of different opinions, some up to 150 ppm/g) and im not really sure how quickly it is absored from the solution so im worried about accumulation. do u know either of those things by chance? becuase i can only get the mixes down to about 2/3 nitrogen in the mix and 1/3 in the ph control iv been adding 1/3 of the phosporus via phosporic acid in the ph control and that has been working fine

its a cool paper to read and grasp...i just dont have the infastructure to be changing out my circulating solutons weekly or even bi weekly... i broke out the starter, veg, and refill solutions from micro and millimole into ppm form (not NPK) and posted it a few posts up if u want to save some time from haveing to do it yourself give those a peep... the way he does it is he give the start solutoin 1 time... vegatative durring veg and reprodutive mix durring what might be flower but im not 100% sure about that... it might be he carries the veg refill for most of the process and only changes to reproductive growth for the very end (last week or 2). thats just my guess and what im basically doing these days... the veg refill solutuion is very close to the 20-10-20 aswell..
 

JonCreighton

Well-Known Member
i figured id just post the math... someone let me know if its wrong...

there is a description in the article where he describes the difference between his mix and the hoagland solutiuon.. he says his mix contains much less nitrogen because half of the nitrogen can be supplied via the ph control soluton. for that reason there is a column w the exact numbers from the tables from the 04 paper... there is also a column w those same numbers but double the nitrogen.. those are the N2 columns.... the mixes w double the nitrogen are the actual targets.... in my opinion atleast, thats what i think he was trying to say
 

Attachments

Vizzaro

Active Member
Hello everyone!

There are several things to consider.

Dr. Bugbee's fertilizer recommendation is for use with tap water, and here's why:

Firstly tap water contains calcium and magnesium (more often than not approx ~80 ppm Ca and ~25 ppm Mg), which together with some from the dolomitic lime is sufficient. The 20-10-20 peat lite does not contain calcium and almost no magnesium, because it is designed for tap water and takes this into account. Micro nutrients (Fe, B, Cu, Mn, Mo, Zn) are included in this fertilizer in sufficient quantities, so no need to worry about that.

Secondly, but not less important, tap water has alkalinity (not to confuse with ph) which consists of mostly carbonates and bicarbonates ("hardness", for example CaCO3). This alkalinity will drive the ph of the substrate more and more up towards 7 over time, and this is too high. To counteract this, the 20-10-20 contains approx 40 percent of its nitrogen as ammoniacal nitrogen (NH4), which in turn has an acidifying effect in the substrate. The result is that the ph remains somewhat constant over time. Both, alkalinity and the acidifying effect of ammonium nitrogen on their own have much more impact on the substrate ph than the ph of the irrigation water.

If you use reverse osmosis water (which has no alkalinity), the high ammonium nitrogen content of the fertilizer will drive the substrate ph rapidly down over time since there is no alkalinity to buffer that, even if the ph of the irrigation water would not be acidic.

So you have to consider several things if using reverse osmosis water:

1) The use of a fertilizer which contains most of its nitrogen in the nitrate form, so that substrate ph remains somewhat stable.
2) Further you need a source for calcium and magnesium.

The best way to achieve this is to use a three part system, consisting of

Part A: a fertilizer with no or just a little nitrogen, but a ~1:2 ratio of P2O5:K2O, like Peters combi sol 6-18-36 or Peters hydroponic special 5-11-26. They are designed to work in conjunction with different nitrogen sources, depending on the source water and type of substrate (ammonium nitrate, calcium nitrate, ammonium sulfate etc.).

Part B: calcium nitrate for nitrogen and calcium

Part C: magnesium sulfate for magnesium and sulfur.

Here is an example (also perfect for coco and other soilless substrates etc.)
Peters combi sol (6-18-36): 0,34 g/l
Calcium nitrate (15,5 N 19 Ca): 0,65 g/l
Magnesium sulfate (10 Mg 13 S): 0,3 g/l

gives N-P2O5-K2O-Ca-Mg-S:
121-61-122-120-35-48


The ratio Dr. Bugbee recommends gives superb results in terms of both yield AND quality. Just be sure to NOT use any bloom boosters as it is really not needed and only throws you NPK ratio off. Just this ratio from veg till the end, no extra flowering formula or changing ratios, no reduced nitrogen. All the "cannabis specific" bla bla is just marketing bullshit and broscience.
So to summarize it:
It's super cheap, gives perfect results, better than all the overpriced, down watered high PK ripoff "nutrients lines", it is super easy, no constantly running to the hydro store.
You can get these in 50 pound bags and have a lifetime supply (!) for a couple of bucks.

As a side note: I would trust Dr. Bugbee more than most if not all others because for sure he knows what he is talking about and first researches what he claims. He's a well-known, respected professor doing pioneering work for almost 40 years, photobiology, nutrition, soilless substrates, hydroponics to only name a few topics, and has released many peer-reviewed papers. They are professionals who do REAL scientific research.
Watch his USU Cannabis lab tour video. They are doing state of the art cannabis research in controlled environment growth chambers and testing also parameters like temperature, humidity etc.

The world of cannabis is so full of myths and false claims and marketing bollocks, it is ridiculous, and i'm glad that finally there is scientific research going on and people like Dr. Bugbee uncover the truth!
I appreciate your comment on Dr. Bugbees "Method" for growing cannabis. As I mentioned earlier I am growing my plants in media I made based on Dr. Bugbees formula. But unfortunately I am running into problems.

I am getting some yellowing on my plants. I suspect it was calcium deficiency. Also I may have stunted 2 of my younger plants due to transplant shock. It was hard for me to get them out of their small starting container I used (I won't be using those again). After I placed them in their new containers and fertigated them I noted the leaves just flopped down after that and they have not bounced back. The bottom leaves turned yellow super fast and then just dried up.
 

Attachments

So, i read the paper once again.
In this paper a special type of recirculating system is used. They do not dump the recirculating solution every week as it is common for such a system. They use the same solution for the entire crop cycle (several months) without discarding the solution and just fill it up as needed with either a vegetative or a fruit refill. He describes the challenges that occur like nutrient toxicities if one would refill every time with a full dose of nitrogen for example.

BUT: in this paper nutrient concentrations are given in millimoles (mM) per liter and not percent or ppm. I don't know if you know about the concept of moles etc. but it is relative easy to convert from millimoles to ppm.
For example nitrogen has a molar mass of 14 g/Mol. Multiply that with for example 6 millimole to get 84 ppm.

14 g/Mol x 6 mMol/L = 84 mg/L = 84 ppm

Molar masses (g/Mol) for:
Nitrogen = 14
Phosphorus = 31
Potassium = 39
Calcium = 40
Magnesium = 24,3
Sulfur = 32

For the vegetative refill solution this would give (ppm):

N = 84
P = 15,5
K = 195

or as phosphate and potash like on most fertilizer bags (P/0,43=P2O5 and K/0,83=K2O)

N = 84
P2O5 = 36
K2O = 235

That is a ratio of 2,3-1-6,5 or 23-10-65.
So the only different thing here is a higher potassium content than the 20-10-20 and i think the use of nitrogen only as nitrate and no ammonium.
If i understand it correctly they do not use a peat/vermiculite substrate in that paper, so they do not have a high cation exchange capacity (CEC) that stores and buffers (amongst calcium and magnesium) also potassium. Perhaps this is the reason they use a higher potassium concentration in their solution, but i don't know for sure. It could further be a compromise for using all-nitrate nitrogen, as the only usable fertilizer salts for this are calcium nitrate and potassium nitrate and so they use more potassium nitrate to not over apply calcium.
And the recirculating system is also a factor that influences their ratios.

So this is a different approach to fertilization (to save the environment etc.) than what's recommended in his cannabis video and not of big relevance if fertigating in a soilless peat based substrate with 10-20 % runoff.
 
i figured id just post the math... someone let me know if its wrong...

there is a description in the article where he describes the difference between his mix and the hoagland solutiuon.. he says his mix contains much less nitrogen because half of the nitrogen can be supplied via the ph control soluton. for that reason there is a column w the exact numbers from the tables from the 04 paper... there is also a column w those same numbers but double the nitrogen.. those are the N2 columns.... the mixes w double the nitrogen are the actual targets.... in my opinion atleast, thats what i think he was trying to say
Oops i wrote a reply and just after posting i saw that you already did the math of mM to ppm :)
 
So, i read the paper once again.
In this paper a special type of recirculating system is used. They do not dump the recirculating solution every week as it is common for such a system. They use the same solution for the entire crop cycle (several months) without discarding the solution and just fill it up as needed with either a vegetative or a fruit refill. He describes the challenges that occur like nutrient toxicities if one would refill every time with a full dose of nitrogen for example.

BUT: in this paper nutrient concentrations are given in millimoles (mM) per liter and not percent or ppm. I don't know if you know about the concept of moles etc. but it is relative easy to convert from millimoles to ppm.
For example nitrogen has a molar mass of 14 g/Mol. Multiply that with for example 6 millimole to get 84 ppm.

14 g/Mol x 6 mMol/L = 84 mg/L = 84 ppm

Molar masses (g/Mol) for:
Nitrogen = 14
Phosphorus = 31
Potassium = 39
Calcium = 40
Magnesium = 24,3
Sulfur = 32

For the vegetative refill solution this would give (ppm):

N = 84
P = 15,5
K = 195

or as phosphate and potash like on most fertilizer bags (P/0,43=P2O5 and K/0,83=K2O)

N = 84
P2O5 = 36
K2O = 235

That is a ratio of 2,3-1-6,5 or 23-10-65.
So the only different thing here is a higher potassium content than the 20-10-20 and i think the use of nitrogen only as nitrate and no ammonium.
If i understand it correctly they do not use a peat/vermiculite substrate in that paper, so they do not have a high cation exchange capacity (CEC) that stores and buffers (amongst calcium and magnesium) also potassium. Perhaps this is the reason they use a higher potassium concentration in their solution, but i don't know for sure. It could further be a compromise for using all-nitrate nitrogen, as the only usable fertilizer salts for this are calcium nitrate and potassium nitrate and so they use more potassium nitrate to not over apply calcium.
And the recirculating system is also a factor that influences their ratios.

So this is a different approach to fertilization (to save the environment etc.) than what's recommended in his cannabis video and not of big relevance if fertigating in a soilless peat based substrate with 10-20 % runoff.
Just saw at the end of the paper he writes that meanwhile they are using less potassium in the refill solution, so it should be somewhat lower than in their table at the beginning.
 
I appreciate your comment on Dr. Bugbees "Method" for growing cannabis. As I mentioned earlier I am growing my plants in media I made based on Dr. Bugbees formula. But unfortunately I am running into problems.

I am getting some yellowing on my plants. I suspect it was calcium deficiency. Also I may have stunted 2 of my younger plants due to transplant shock. It was hard for me to get them out of their small starting container I used (I won't be using those again). After I placed them in their new containers and fertigated them I noted the leaves just flopped down after that and they have not bounced back. The bottom leaves turned yellow super fast and then just dried up.
Do you use tap water or reverse osmosis water?
 
Top