Is Advanced Cal/mg a good Nutrienes?
- Thread starter Fiete
- Start date
GreenThumbsMcgee
Well-Known Member
i use it. my plant doesnt mind the gimmicks.
tropicalcannabispatient
Well-Known Member
Neither the pedophilers? lol
SPLFreak808
Well-Known Member
Does it work? Yes. Did you pay 3x more for the same thing of another brand? Lol yes
rob333
Well-Known Member
use to love advance nutes till i found out the owner is a kiddie fiddler now we do not stock any thing from advanced no more
GreenThumbsMcgee
Well-Known Member
anyone watch weeds? i always thought it was funny how they promoted advanced nutrient like it was some magical potion, and how every grow room shown had the advanced feed chart in a plain sight.
budman111
Well-Known Member
Wonder how much cash that cost Big Mike?
GreenThumbsMcgee
Well-Known Member
a fortune dude. that show had hype, I bet a ton of ppl modeled there shit on that.
If you want less expensive, @MisterBlah is showing how to make these boutique "lineups" using ordinary salts. It's phenomonenal information:
Reverse-engineering everyone's nutrients:
How to mix stock solutions
Cost analysis
AN Sensi pH Perfect
How to mix stock solutions
Cost analysis
AN Sensi pH Perfect
Experienced hydro growers do this a lot -- and buy 50lb bags of chemicals. You might find it perplexing to understand the nuances of how to mix (and where to buy manageable quantities of chemicals). He's adding more "lineups" but intends to provide "for dummies" information (and perhaps sell hobbyist quantities of chemicals). If it's not your thing now, keep an eye on it. In the near future it might be easier to orient yourself to.
I wouldn't rush to switch brands. There's no "pure" business out there. All the themed "lineups" are gimmicky. GH Flora 3-part is a classic hydro product. But, they were bought by Scotts (which is affiliated with Monsanto.). A lot of people use Dyna-Grow. My impression is that JR Peters (Jack's Hydro) is somewhere between the themed "lineups" and using bulk salts.
The General->Nutrients forum would be a good place to investigate those choices.
MisterBlah
Well-Known Member
50lb bags of fertilizer. It's a fertilizer. A "chemical" is the most generic name you can give any molecule. Water is a chemical. Table salt is a chemical. Sorry for the digression. I just don't like how the word "chemical" seems to get used in a lot of contexts. While what you said is correct, it seems to give the connotation that all chemicals are always dangerous, or, I guess that's how I interpreted it.
Also, there's no reason to be mad at Monsanto. Most people are due to lots of misinformation, even my university was, but that's a story for another time.
When I google for those products (like magnesium sulfate, or calcium nitrate) I see them referred to as "chemical compounds." Maybe "chemical fertilizer ingredients" would be a way to say it which could make everyone happy. "Inorganic compound" seems like the most accurate way to say it. But, most people don't talk like that.
That's always been a problem with bringing bulk-mixed fertilizer to the average grower. It turns into a whipping post to punish people for not fluently speaking chemistry. ("You can't do it if you can't speak the language. Figure it out for yourself. Harrumph!").
What you're doing is great, breaking down those barriers, making the info easily accessible. Hubris-free.
The "for dummies" presentation you're planning(?) would be the perfect place to educate about terminology and why some terms are preferable, etc. I.e., reach people at their level and orient them to where you think they should be. A gentle primer?
Last edited:
MisterBlah
Well-Known Member
I agree.
Fertilizer is still the easiest term to understand and the most accurate based on the context. TBH, I don't really understand why the bottled blends aren't called fertilizers, because that's what they are. It also doesn't bring with it the unintentional connotations surrounding the rest of chemistry.
The reason I don't call it "fertilizer" is because I think that word causes the average new grower to think of packaged, balanced, plant food (like MiracleGro, Espoma). I don't think they think of 50lb bags of (inorganic chemical compounds?) as "fertilizer" even though it's used with other compounds to make (or ingredients to) fertilizer. (I consider myself in that category too.).
"Fertilizer" also loses the distinction between organic sources of nutrients versus synthetic. That could be an equally-important distinction to some growers. "Chemicals" makes that clearer.
This would make a really good "tool tip" ("learn more" drill-down) of the "Dummies" orientation. I don't think people intentionally use "bad" words. I think "inorganic compounds" or "fertilizer salts?" is the most precise way to refer to these chemical ingredients. It's just that that's going to take some popular adoption of terms.
That's why I really like what you're doing. You can deprecate some of this tedious stuff into "learn more" links so people can drill deeper into the fine points of terminology (without it being a stumbling block). Those points could be linked to in discussions when people seem to be using the terms that are problematic.
Last edited:
Maybe "DIY fertilizer ingredients" conveys that it's fertilizer (without the tedium of chemistry terms). Something most people would understand (compared to "inorganic chemical compounds"). Then it would just be a small secondary distinction whether it's organic or synthetic. That's probably less important to emphasize as part of a common "name" (for this stuff) since people who care about that distinction would know without it having to be said(?).
MisterBlah
Well-Known Member
Personally, I think it's okay for a new grower to think of products like MiracleGro, Espoma, etc. They are simply fertilizer blends, after all.
As per wikipedia: A fertilizer is any material of natural or synthetic origin (other than liming materials) that is applied to soils or to plant tissues (usually leaves) to supply one or more plant nutrients essential to the growth of plants.
It's the most general term. You are right. There isn't a distinction. And they shouldn't be a distinction if we are just talking about fertilizer. It's all stuff that makes plants grow better. Anyway, it looks like further classification gets into "organic fertilizer" for your natural stuff and "straight or complex fertilizer" for the synthetics.
I think all I'm saying is that in the modern day, to the layman, the word "chemical" has a bad connotation, so I want to avoid it for now.
I guess I can understand the pragmatics involved in trying to avoid the word "chemical." You're right that there is an antipathy toward "chemicals" (which is a large factor in the Scotts->Monsanto criticism).
But, I think avoiding the word (for popularity?) could look bad. I mean, these constituents to a "blended fertilizer" are called "chemical compounds."[1]
Maybe the solution would be to have a "learn more" (drill down) in the anticipated "For Dummies" where "chemicals" could be presented as NOT bad (why they're not bad). Maybe avoiding the word isn't the answer? But, education is?
It's an interesting topic. I definitely believe honestly/objectively/fairly addressing things like this is a huge benefit of what you're doing. Typically things like this are stumbling blocks to conversation that would lead people to using bulk salts (whatever anyone wants to call them). Most people don't care about terminology. IMO, what has held back acceptance (by the average grower is presentation.). You're definitely disrupting the status quo in that regard! I'm sure whatever you come up with (as a "for dummies" orientation) will be great!
[1] The first search result seems to describe things like K2SO4 (potassium sulfate):
Last edited: