lab results with canna coco A/B

had a test sent in for examine. used 8A/8B in R/O water ( 5ppm )

I noticed it's very very close to lucas' info on NPK of canna:
canna coco 8A/8B : 121-42(p)-60(k)-24(Mg)



my question is, I know canna says they chelate the micro, but should iron be showing up that low? or is it the chelation process when being tested???

Awesome!!! been wondering why people who are interested in using preformulated nutes with incomplete guaranteed analysis haven't done this exact testing. Deionized distilled water would be best, distilled water is pretty dang good and can be bought almost anywhere, R/O water is o.k. but it probably has enough contaminant to make micronutrient readings less accurate. e.g. results show more aluminum than manganese, more fluoride than iron etc.


Some interesting finds.

They stick to an almost perfect 3:1 Ca:Mg ratio (K would be ~1.66).
I guess coco has sufficient micronutrients? because this mix has a shockingly small amount of all micros compared to macros. 0.03ppm Mn when P is at 40ppm?
Im praying 99% of the Na Cl F and Al came from your water otherwise they are using some low low grade salts.
37:1 NO3:NH4 ratio (will definately cause medium pH to rise over time)

I just cant get over those Mn levels,
13:1 Fe:Mn
4:1 Zn:Mn
2:1 Cu:Mn

that really isn't a good micronutrient profile, either there was inaccuracies in the sampling (poor mixing procedures by canna, or imperfect mixing when samples where taken by you or the lab tech), inaccuracies in the test itself, or coco provides almost all micronutrient requirements. Otherwise plants would be seriously unhappy with that micronutrient profile, the macros look pretty good AFAIK, im not great with properly fertigating coco. i use peat myself.

habeeb said:

had a test sent in for examine. used 8A/8B in R/O water ( 5ppm )

I noticed it's very very close to lucas' info on NPK of canna:
canna coco 8A/8B : 121-42(p)-60(k)-24(Mg)

[URL=https://www.icmag.com/ic/picture.php?albumid=25801&pictureid=982859&thumb=1]View Image[/url]

my question is, I know canna says they chelate the micro, but should iron be showing up that low? or is it the chelation process when being tested???

Click to expand...

Wow awesome test. Thanks for sending that in and sharing the info! I should have some extra cash here pretty soon and plan on getting a lot of stuff sent ro labs for testing. Especially leaf and medium samples so I can get all my strains dialed in. Ifyou dont mind me asking, how expensive was that test?

Hmm. The medium ph seems oddly low too. I was suprised to see how much calcium is in the medium. It looks like you don't need to conpensate Ca at all. A hydro formulation would probably work better then a coco nutrient.

So what does this mean? That @ 8ml pr gal of RO, canna coco a+b should be ideal? Or lacking in micros, but sufficient in NPK ratios? Im an chemistry idiot!

Stay Safe

For years I read online a lot about RO water and the advantages, so I spoke to the people at Canna and General Hydroponics about it, at length, face to face.

Both told me the same thing, "Our nutrients are specifically formulated for growing with tap water" Mr GH [a great guy] said that all you were really doing with RO is taking out the Cal and Mag, then buying a bottle of Cal Mag [at great expense] to add it back in.

After a lot of reading up and some chatting, it seems that in the USA there are significant areas with groundwater contamination, heavy metals, sky high EC etc, that mean RO is needed, but that in Europe and many other places it is not.

Canna too, are good people IMO, genuine Cannabis lovers with real scientific qualifications and research behind their work, been using their stuff since it became available in the UK, never had a bad batch or the slightest problem. Awesome calendars too.

Habeeb's test results are interesting, and coco is not a straightforward Hydroponic medium due to the cation exchange, did you have the test done out of interest, or due to some issues ?

I still dont get it lol..

Stay Safe

You aren't using your canna coco a/b right. It says right on their site and on the bottle that you should be using tap water. If you use ro water and don't add back some brand of cal/mag how do you expect to get back what you took out? And most cal/mag brands include micro nutrients, cal, mag, a little nitrogen, and iron. What lab is that test from? It just looks like a spreadsheet to me that anyone can make.

dizzlekush said:

Awesome!!! been wondering why people who are interested in using preformulated nutes with incomplete guaranteed analysis haven't done this exact testing. Deionized distilled water would be best, distilled water is pretty dang good and can be bought almost anywhere, R/O water is o.k. but it probably has enough contaminant to make micronutrient readings less accurate. e.g. results show more aluminum than manganese, more fluoride than iron etc.


Some interesting finds.

They stick to an almost perfect 3:1 Ca:Mg ratio (K would be ~1.66).
I guess coco has sufficient micronutrients? because this mix has a shockingly small amount of all micros compared to macros. 0.03ppm Mn when P is at 40ppm?
Im praying 99% of the Na Cl F and Al came from your water otherwise they are using some low low grade salts.
37:1 NO3:NH4 ratio (will definately cause medium pH to rise over time)

I just cant get over those Mn levels,
13:1 Fe:Mn
4:1 Zn:Mn
2:1 Cu:Mn

that really isn't a good micronutrient profile, either there was inaccuracies in the sampling (poor mixing procedures by canna, or imperfect mixing when samples where taken by you or the lab tech), inaccuracies in the test itself, or coco provides almost all micronutrient requirements. Otherwise plants would be seriously unhappy with that micronutrient profile, the macros look pretty good AFAIK, im not great with properly fertigating coco. i use peat myself.

Click to expand...

yes, I should have used other water, but I guess I did not see that much contaminant as a problem beforehand..

I need to check with lab if chelated has anything to do with tests, as they chelate with fulvic I believe..

yes your right about nitrate and pH rise.. I am not sure how people tend to think there medium pH could drop, let alone with high alkalinity water.....

Greeco said:

Wow awesome test. Thanks for sending that in and sharing the info! I should have some extra cash here pretty soon and plan on getting a lot of stuff sent ro labs for testing. Especially leaf and medium samples so I can get all my strains dialed in. Ifyou dont mind me asking, how expensive was that test?

Click to expand...

$40 including shipping costs, $35 for test.

Greeco said:

Hmm. The medium ph seems oddly low too. I was suprised to see how much calcium is in the medium. It looks like you don't need to conpensate Ca at all. A hydro formulation would probably work better then a coco nutrient.

Click to expand...

I'm hoping you mean the water pH? it's what happens with low alkalinity.. well zero, but not much worry, from what we understand, zero alkalinty means your pH is what the medium pH is, coupled with rising pH from nitrate.. I still add some pH up I will not lie, but I don't zero in on a number

I agree, Ca looks very high, and interesting they want you to add tap ( Ca/Mg ) for more Ca..

hydro formulas work no doubt, but I think they are on to something even we don't understand yet.. I talked to spurr recently, and even he said without a doubt after testing coco, he said adding a high k is not good....

ChaosCatalunya said:

For years I read online a lot about RO water and the advantages, so I spoke to the people at Canna and General Hydroponics about it, at length, face to face.

Both told me the same thing, "Our nutrients are specifically formulated for growing with tap water" Mr GH [a great guy] said that all you were really doing with RO is taking out the Cal and Mag, then buying a bottle of Cal Mag [at great expense] to add it back in.

After a lot of reading up and some chatting, it seems that in the USA there are significant areas with groundwater contamination, heavy metals, sky high EC etc, that mean RO is needed, but that in Europe and many other places it is not.

Canna too, are good people IMO, genuine Cannabis lovers with real scientific qualifications and research behind their work, been using their stuff since it became available in the UK, never had a bad batch or the slightest problem. Awesome calendars too.

Habeeb's test results are interesting, and coco is not a straightforward Hydroponic medium due to the cation exchange, did you have the test done out of interest, or due to some issues ?

Click to expand...

test was done to see what exactly was in the bottle, as numbers are only a guaranteed number, so I wanted to just see as I was curious as I have never done this before..

well I guess companies, even canna can say what they like, but to say or formulate a nutrient after tap water is ridiculous.. is is absurd for this vary reason.. everyone's water is different! so how can people achieve success when working with different numbers.. I understand though, to ask everyone to move to R/O would lose alot of people, so I get it, but I shake my head to say the formulated for tap, as that is saying they formulated it for 50 ppm / 100 ppm / 200 ppm / 400 ppm water... absurd!

great calendars, but I don't think they are put in out in the USA..

swisscheese said:

You aren't using your canna coco a/b right. It says right on their site and on the bottle that you should be using tap water. If you use ro water and don't add back some brand of cal/mag how do you expect to get back what you took out? And most cal/mag brands include micro nutrients, cal, mag, a little nitrogen, and iron. What lab is that test from? It just looks like a spreadsheet to me that anyone can make.

Click to expand...

and the police say to go the speed limit, do you? well sometimes you lack the understanding why I operate why I do.. but you don't know why as you didn't ask..

well I guess I need to add back that sodium and other crap in my water too huh.. as you might see, using a formula with nitrate, high alkalinity levels are not desirable

I use epsom salt, works fine

yes, I made up a spreadsheet and punched in some numbers I thought looked good........

im no expert, the numbers looked fine to me. chelated usually refers to the type of nutrient you're looking at. the details of which chelated nutrients may be found in the .msds file most decent companies have available online.

well i looked and it doesnt say exactly which chelated minerals are in the nutrient

Canna Continental
11400 West Olympic Blvd. #200 Lost Angeles, CA 90064
USA
Fax:310 943 2692
Product name: CANNA COCO A
1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE SUBSTANCE/PREPARATION AND COMPANY/UNDERTAKING
2. COMPOSITION/INFORMATION ON INGREDIENTS Liquid fertiliser NPK 4 + 0 + 1 with trace elements.
HAZARDOUS INGREDIENT(S) CAS no. %(w/w) Symbol R-phrases Contains no hazardous ingredients
3. HAZARDS IDENTIFICATION
Low Toxicity under normal conditions of handling and use.

Still, no details about the ingredients but you can always call them and ask, or just be reassured by Canna's "Statement of Hazardous Nature:
CLASSIFIED AS NON – HAZARDOUS According to Worksafe Australia Criteria
EMERGENCY INFORMATION PHONE NUMBER 1800 683 667

habeeb said:

test was done to see what exactly was in the bottle, as numbers are only a guaranteed number, so I wanted to just see as I was curious as I have never done this before..

well I guess companies, even canna can say what they like, but to say or formulate a nutrient after tap water is ridiculous.. is is absurd for this vary reason.. everyone's water is different! so how can people achieve success when working with different numbers.. I understand though, to ask everyone to move to R/O would lose alot of people, so I get it, but I shake my head to say the formulated for tap, as that is saying they formulated it for 50 ppm / 100 ppm / 200 ppm / 400 ppm water... absurd!

great calendars, but I don't think they are put in out in the USA..


.......

Click to expand...

Yes, it seems bit crazy, but it works, seen first hand in 6 European countries with all possible geological/water combinations, great results always with Canna and GHE for that matter.

Although neither company are Quacks, putting out 101 potions and lotions, they could sell some more complex solutions if they were needed, both seem very technically capable and are good people IMO.

Added to the exceptional calendars, Canna also have "bribed me" with nice taps and keys for the 5L and 10L tubs, well worth asking your dealer for all 3.

^

I agree.. never said it didn't work.. we have thousands of users using there tap water, and they grow fine.. but I make the statement, just because something works, doesn't means it's optimal..

I follow the lines of R/O users: lucas/pH and spurr's ratios, they work because they were formulated off the basis of R/O water. So we know stripped of "everything" these formulas provide the plant with all you need. I use R/O as I have been moving once a year, so it is easy for me to have a starting base, and know every setup will be similar, now if I moved around everytime with tap, I could not say I could get predictable results.. second, I like a base of zero, I think it much eaier to start off with, then a un-known level of nutrients in the tap, or re-formulating for my tap levels..

I say, use whatever works for you.. I am most sure there is more people running tap then R/O systems, but R/O works for me, and everyone needs to use what works for them at the end of the day as you are responsible for the well being of your plants, and how ever you manage that, or what works for you, great.





as of chealtes, here is an example of them saying the iron is chealted:


once again, I need to contact the testing lab, and see what there methods are, and does chelation make a difference in final numbers..





Thank you to everyone who has contributed.. keep the comments rolling, whether we agree or not, more information is more information

They also make some change to there nutrients fore soft and hard water markets, its not the same every where or they use to do.

Nice test and thanks fore sharing.

Hi, cod somebody tell me which NPK ratio of CANNA COCO is?
I mean value of A and B separated.

I read somewere that A+B ratio is NPK 5 - 4 - 3, and here canna woop report NPK 4 + 0 + 1 for the CANNA A solution.

Watching the analysis report in the irst page i see a different actual ratio (K seems more than P9...sorry for the stupid question and for my english, hoping in an answer.
regards

EDIT
I've just find that and NPK ratio may be 6-2-3 http://www.newagehydro.com/shop/media/MSDS-Canna-Coco-A&B.pdf
It is strange as on web there are so difform informations and datas.

Sante said:

Hi, cod somebody tell me which NPK ratio of CANNA COCO is?
I mean value of A and B separated.

I read somewere that A+B ratio is NPK 5 - 4 - 3, and here canna woop report NPK 4 + 0 + 1 for the CANNA A solution.

Watching the analysis report in the irst page i see a different actual ratio (K seems more than P9...sorry for the stupid question and for my english, hoping in an answer.
regards

EDIT
I've just find that and NPK ratio may be 6-2-3 http://www.newagehydro.com/shop/media/MSDS-Canna-Coco-A&B.pdf
It is strange as on web there are so difform informations and datas.

Click to expand...

Coco a @8ml per gallon
n 99ppm
p 0
k 21
ca 111
mg 7.75

Coco b @8ml per gallon
n 23
p 41
k 39
mg 26

That is all that i can calculate based on the guarenteed analysis, they dont provide all of the required info, for some reason they dont list a source of ammonical N, but its in the lab results on the first page of this thread.. kinda weird..