I would have a hard time saying any one formulation is best for marijuana, because it is a simple fact that many, many formulations produce the same results but do not have the same ratios. Saying that 10-10-10 is better than 5-10-10 is not not scientifically proven nor do simple empirical results based upon size or yield shown that to be true. There are too many variables involved to even produce a testing ting method to prove that 10-10-10 for example is better than 5-10-10.
There have been millions or billions of plant leaf samples tested and the best that the worlds top horticulturalists have ever come up with is a recommended "ratio range" for hydroponic growing of the most common green house agricultural products. The nutrient manafacturers manafacturers selling pot formulations do not do the testing of plant leaves or grow by standard testing methods that produce any real repeatable test results yet alone field results. Many, many y marijuana seed growers do better, testing than the top marijuana nutrient manufacturers. many commercial pot growers also do better testing. But then they usually tests for the needs of the growing conditions they provide and upon the strains they grow. While this is beneficial if you are providing all like parameters, this seldom is the case so we still in up with recommended ratios that we try top apply to all parameters used by different growers.
It is hoped the is thread will bring such research data and empirical data to print as then the growers themselves will be able to determine their needs rather than depending on manufacturers who pick some average and report it as being best.
In general the reasons to be specific about the ratios is most often more a economic decision. If there are fertilizer available in amounts beyond what the plants roots will take yup and that the plants will use then they are excess and will just be a waster of money in having them present. Secondly there is the issue that the extra unused fertilizer salts cause a rise in the EC as other nutrients are added so that for the same EC a lower concentration of the needed fertilizers will be available as less will be added of the more readily used ones. The third problem is in maintaining a balance that provided a readily manageable pH. While most problems can be managed well by just using a nutrient that is initially well balance and just dumping it and replacing it often, that can become quite expensive. Even the best fertilizers sold are not able to provide the beast ratio for all strains or all growing conditions so really most formulation marketing schemes are just that marketing schemes. The only real manner of complete nutrient management is through drain to waste system using frequent testing of in put nutrient pH and ppms as well as drained nutrient pH and ppms. In general this is what most research data is based upon when down by top researchers.
I had really hoped that this thread did not come down to a comparison of this brand does better than that brand. Actually I would hope that we could all reach a consensus that such posts would be edited out by the mods. If some one has empirical data beyond I used this and it worked better then of course that should be posted. However, without posting supporting empirical and base data such as this: growing method, strain, time periods, temperatures, lighting, humidity, lighting cycles, and this nutrient at this pH and EC at these stages produced these results and exhibited these problems, then the opinions really have no value.
The ratios shown are just the ratios for that individual formulation. Formulation data garnered from many, many "marijuana formulations, fall within the standard ratios used in other hydroponic ratios recommendations made by research by
These are the general ratio recommendations as posted by major research horticulturalists in regard to solution strengths . As can be seen they are pretty broad.
Figures are based upon ppm in solution:
N 100-400 Fe 0.5-6
P 10-100 Mn 0.3-4
K 100-650 B 0.1-0.8
Mg 10-95 Zn 0.1-0.5
Ca 70 -300 Cu 0.005-0.1
S 20-250 Mo 0.02-0.07
Ratios:
N
3-8
P 0.25-1.5
Ca:N 0.8-1.2
Mg:N 0.1-0.4
P:S 0.6-1.0
When looking at ratios a ratio like N
3-8 means the standard recommendation is that for each part:
Nitrogen there will be 3 to 8 parts Phosphorus etc.
not necessarily MJ) 
