spearwarrior
Member
MisterBlah whats the recipe for mixing maxibloom(5kg)? the instructions on your site are for mixing with water not solid blend. thanks in advance.
-
As of today ICMag has his own Discord server. In this Discord server you can chat, talk with eachother, listen to music, share stories and pictures...and much more. Join now and let's grow together! Join ICMag Discord here! More details in this thread here: here.
Reverse engineering all those bottled nutrient blends
- Thread starter MisterBlah
- Start date
MisterBlah
Member
I think I had the recipe for Maxibloom as a percentage, but anyway, here's a quantity for ~5kg.
For the macronutrient fertilizers, as long as you are within 20-30g, you'll be fine. For Micronutrient, you'll benefit from being within 0.005g. I have an article on my website that gives you the requirements for the scales you need.
Magnesium Sulfate: 1,600g
Calcium Nitrate: 1,400g
Dipotassium Phosphate: 850g
Mono Potassium Phosphate: 850g
Magnesium Nitrate: 275g
Fe-chelated 18%: 30g
Zn-chelated 20%: 3g
Cu-chelated 17%: 2g
Mo-Chelated 8%: .75g
Bo-chelated 15%: .35g
Mn-chelated 18%: .3g
Co-chelated 16%: .2g
If you can't find DiPotassium Phosphate, don't worry, Just substitute MonoPotassium Phosphate.
Those micronutrient percentages are based on a specific Glycine chelate from Biomins. Don't worry if you can't find them and say, find EDTA chelates instead.
Here's how you would convert between the two:
Let's say I have a recipe that calls for an 18% chelate, but I only have a 13% chelate.
(Mass of 18%)*(18%)/(13%) = (Mass of 13%)
So, my recipe calls for 30g of an 18% Chelate and I can only find a 13% chelate, the equation would look like this:
30g*0.18/0.13 = 41.5g
Sometime soon I will have a small calculator on my website to do this. In addition, I will have a shop with a limited amount of fertilizers up within a week.
MisterBlah
Member
One problem you can run into when mixing dry blends is the fact that you will not have a homogeneous mixture. So, keep that in mind. You will need to spend extra time mixing the dry blend to make sure the micronutrients are well mixed into the rest of the mixture.
Yeah you generally find the lab analysis from dried products is miles away from the label listing and also they typically steer clear from using hydroscopic fertilizers in formulation (e.g. calcium nitrate). Having formulated several dry products for clients myself this is definitely not a formula I would use. Good call on the micros - you need a very expensive ribbon mixer to blend them in correctly into dry fert mixes and even then discrepancies might be present . BTW ---- based on this thread I am putting an article together now on why no one should be reverse engineering from labels. I find it fucking scary that people with limited formulation knowledge are formulating from labels and at best you will only get something that is close and at worst something that will result is crop death by formulation misadventure.
People I cannot stress enough be wary. Saving a few bucks to only lose more money through yield losses is simply dumb math! Anyway what I have written to date (very rough and more will be added along with an edit needed)
Reverse Engineering Hydroponic Nutrients and Additives from Labels
Something that has concerned me of late is seeing that growers and others are using nutrient label guaranteed analysis to reverse engineer their favourite formulas from. This is an ill-informed and misguided practice.
It is important to note that when reverse engineering, or ‘deformulating’, any chemical formula it is important to have precise data to work from. That is, you require data that specifies very precisely what is found in a chemical formulation to accurately reverse engineer it. This isn’t the case with nutrient labels where in many cases the guaranteed analysis does not provide accurate data to work from.
Fertilizer Labeling Laws
Fertilizers sold across the US and elsewhere are often only required to be listed accurately to within 0.4% to their listed NPK ratios. That is, they can be below the labeled guarantee percent by this percentage. So if a nutrient has 1% in solution, manufacturers can often get away with listing 0.6% on the label.
When looking at Colorado fertilizer labeling regulations, listing requirements are a sliding scale based on the guaranteed percent that is listed. For example, if the guaranteed percentage is 4% or less, a product needs to be listed within 0.49% for N, 0.67% for P, and 0.41% for K. As the guaranteed percentage rises, so does the range of error. This caps at that guaranteed percentage of 32% or more which allows for an error of 0.88% for N, 0.76% for P, and 1.44% for K. This also means manufacturers can get away with not listing the NPK ratio if the product is below 0.49% for N, 0.67% for P, and 0.41% for K. For calcium and sulfur, you don’t even have to list them on the guaranteed analysis if they are below 1% for calcium and below 0.5% for magnesium. For micro nutrients, the cutoff is different with each ion having their own value assigned to them. All of this makes it difficult to know exactly what an off the shelf hydroponic nutrient or additive really contains.
To meet CDFA (Californian Department of Food and Agriculture) compliance, every nutrient is simply required to be labeled above a guaranteed minimum. Unless, according to § 2307, it is “labeled only for hydroponic, continuous liquid feed programs or ready-to-use foliar products.” In which case, “The minimum percentages acceptable for micronutrients stated in Section 2303, do not apply to guarantees for those water soluble nutrients or micronutrients”.
So, many of these liquid blends are labeled in an ambiguous way where manufacturers aren’t required to even specify that micronutrients are in the product. Effectively the legislation surrounding nutrient labeling allows the manufacturers to be deliberately vague about what their formula actually contains.
Where the micronutrients are concerned this doesn’t present as much of a problem to an experienced and skilled formulator; however, in the case of an inexperienced formulator quite the opposite is true. To generalize somewhat, where the macronutrients (e.g. N, P and K) are concerned the plant has some tolerance to excesses or deficiencies in solution. However, the micronutrients are far more critical in terms of their control and management than most of the macronutrients, particularly in hydroponic systems. Most micronutrient deficiencies can usually be corrected, but when dealing with excesses (toxicity) correction can be difficult, if not impossible. Therefore, care must be taken to ensure that an excess concentration of a micronutrient is not introduced into solution via the hydroponic nutrient.
This said, the importance of micronutrients in plant nutrition is high and they should not be neglected although they are needed in very low quantities. This understanding was developed in 1840 by the German chemist, Freiherr Justus von Liebig, who made a major contribution to the science of agriculture and biological chemistry.
He determined the 'Law of the Minimum', often referred to as Liebig's Law, which describes the effect of individual nutrients on crops.
Liebig's Law of the Minimum is a principle developed in agriculture that states that if one of the nutritive elements is deficient or lacking, plant growth will be restricted and not in its full potential even when all the other elements are abundant. Any deficiency of a single nutrient, no matter how small the amount needed in solution, will hold back plant development. If the deficient element is supplied, growth will be increased up to the point where the supply of that element is no longer the limiting factor. Increasing the supply beyond this point will not be helpful, as some other elements would then be in minimum supply and become the limiting factor. Basically, where too low levels of the micronutrients are added to solution deficiencies occur and growth is impacted. Conversely, even if a little too much of some of the micronutrients are added to solution, toxicity is the likely result. Because micronutrients are added to solution at only very low levels this means there is a fine margin for error. In turn, this means that a high degree of precision is involved in ensuring that excess or not enough of any micronutrient is added to a formulation.
Where working from the lab analysis the micronutrients found in the analyzed nutrient are listed in ppm. This makes it very easy to add precise levels of the micronutrients found in the original formula to a reverse engineered solution. However, the micronutrients or some of the micronutrients may not be listed. Therefore, inexperienced formulators could very easily add too much or too little of these elements to solution.
The other thing to be aware of is that the labels of companies are often very misleading since they can list any possible salt combinations in the “derived from” to label the ions they have in solution as the sources. This is a strategy used by some companies to confuse people so that reproducing their formulations becomes harder. For example, if you don't know that you should use potassium nitrate (KNO3) instead of HNO3+KOH you would be making the solution in a much more expensive and dangerous way (since both of these substances are corrosive).
Add to this that some countries may have unique components that can be used in formulation and this adds another layer to what a hydroponic nutrient’s formulation may be derived from re fertilizers used in production. For example, Dutch formulators (e.g. Atami) often use a locally sourced liquid phosphate containing fertilizer in formulating. However, this liquid fertilizer isn’t available in countries outside of Europe.
Other than this, chloride (Cl-) isn’t required to be listed for a product to be compliant. This means that if calcium chloride or potassium chloride is used in formulation, the label won’t indicate this because chloride isn’t listed on the label. For example, recently we tested House and Garden (HGC) Coco nutrient. Through these tests we were able to establish that HGC had added quite high amounts (1% w/v) of Cl- to the solution. The lab analysis therefore told us that HGC were either using calcium chloride or potassium chloride in production. Given the high levels of Cl- this is important information to know when reverse engineering, and only lab tests will provide this information. You can see an example of how we reverse engineered House and Garden Coco from lab analysis here…
It is important to note that many company’s usually only list as little as they can on labels in the most deceiving manner possible to make it hard for any competition to reverse engineer their formulas. This is pretty much standard practice by some manufacturers of nutrients and additives. Look at it this way, if you had invested large amounts of time and money into creating unique formulas would you then list your product in such a way as to provide your competition (or indeed your customers who understand formulation chemistry) with your formulas?
However, regulatory bodies require listing on labels to satisfy compliance standards. If manufacturers fail to meet these compliance standards they can’t sell their products in what are often very large markets. For example, California is perhaps today the largest market in the world (given population) for hydroponic nutrient and additive sales; however, California also has arguably the strictest fertilizer compliance regulations in the U.S. This said, as we have seen, even in California the guaranteed analysis doesn’t need to accurately represent what is in the bottle to meet compliance standards.
Based on this, the obvious way around compliance regulations is to make the labels as misleading as possible. Of course, some company’s just falsely list their products in the hope that they aren’t tested by regulatory bodies for compliance. If and when they are caught out, they receive a small fine and are also forced to print new labels (a bit of extra cost) that are compliant. Some companies just see these fines as part of doing business. Better to pay a few dollars out in fines than to provide your customers and competition with your formulas.
Additionally, in some countries and indeed States of the U.S, there is pretty much no compliance testing so manufacturers can list anything they like.
Other than this, organic containing products/nutrients can sometimes contain ingredients that are not listed. For example, kelps are commonly used to mask the presence of synthetic auxins such as IBA (Indolebutyric acid) or NAA (naphthalene acetic acid) and synthetic cytokinins such as 6-Benzylaminopurine (BAP). This is because kelps contain naturally present levels of these phytohormones and when lab tested for manufacturer added synthetic hormones such as IBA or NAA or BAP they can return false positives making synthetic hormones hard to test for in additives and nutrients that contain kelp. Therefore, regulatory bodies such as the CDFA rarely (if ever) test kelp base products for synthetic auxin; i.e. there is simply no point testing because even where they do find the presence of hormones in a product that contains kelp this could be a false positive and they have to give the manufacturer the benefit of the doubt.
More soon!
People I cannot stress enough be wary. Saving a few bucks to only lose more money through yield losses is simply dumb math! Anyway what I have written to date (very rough and more will be added along with an edit needed)
Reverse Engineering Hydroponic Nutrients and Additives from Labels
Something that has concerned me of late is seeing that growers and others are using nutrient label guaranteed analysis to reverse engineer their favourite formulas from. This is an ill-informed and misguided practice.
It is important to note that when reverse engineering, or ‘deformulating’, any chemical formula it is important to have precise data to work from. That is, you require data that specifies very precisely what is found in a chemical formulation to accurately reverse engineer it. This isn’t the case with nutrient labels where in many cases the guaranteed analysis does not provide accurate data to work from.
Fertilizer Labeling Laws
Fertilizers sold across the US and elsewhere are often only required to be listed accurately to within 0.4% to their listed NPK ratios. That is, they can be below the labeled guarantee percent by this percentage. So if a nutrient has 1% in solution, manufacturers can often get away with listing 0.6% on the label.
When looking at Colorado fertilizer labeling regulations, listing requirements are a sliding scale based on the guaranteed percent that is listed. For example, if the guaranteed percentage is 4% or less, a product needs to be listed within 0.49% for N, 0.67% for P, and 0.41% for K. As the guaranteed percentage rises, so does the range of error. This caps at that guaranteed percentage of 32% or more which allows for an error of 0.88% for N, 0.76% for P, and 1.44% for K. This also means manufacturers can get away with not listing the NPK ratio if the product is below 0.49% for N, 0.67% for P, and 0.41% for K. For calcium and sulfur, you don’t even have to list them on the guaranteed analysis if they are below 1% for calcium and below 0.5% for magnesium. For micro nutrients, the cutoff is different with each ion having their own value assigned to them. All of this makes it difficult to know exactly what an off the shelf hydroponic nutrient or additive really contains.
To meet CDFA (Californian Department of Food and Agriculture) compliance, every nutrient is simply required to be labeled above a guaranteed minimum. Unless, according to § 2307, it is “labeled only for hydroponic, continuous liquid feed programs or ready-to-use foliar products.” In which case, “The minimum percentages acceptable for micronutrients stated in Section 2303, do not apply to guarantees for those water soluble nutrients or micronutrients”.
So, many of these liquid blends are labeled in an ambiguous way where manufacturers aren’t required to even specify that micronutrients are in the product. Effectively the legislation surrounding nutrient labeling allows the manufacturers to be deliberately vague about what their formula actually contains.
Where the micronutrients are concerned this doesn’t present as much of a problem to an experienced and skilled formulator; however, in the case of an inexperienced formulator quite the opposite is true. To generalize somewhat, where the macronutrients (e.g. N, P and K) are concerned the plant has some tolerance to excesses or deficiencies in solution. However, the micronutrients are far more critical in terms of their control and management than most of the macronutrients, particularly in hydroponic systems. Most micronutrient deficiencies can usually be corrected, but when dealing with excesses (toxicity) correction can be difficult, if not impossible. Therefore, care must be taken to ensure that an excess concentration of a micronutrient is not introduced into solution via the hydroponic nutrient.
This said, the importance of micronutrients in plant nutrition is high and they should not be neglected although they are needed in very low quantities. This understanding was developed in 1840 by the German chemist, Freiherr Justus von Liebig, who made a major contribution to the science of agriculture and biological chemistry.
He determined the 'Law of the Minimum', often referred to as Liebig's Law, which describes the effect of individual nutrients on crops.
Liebig's Law of the Minimum is a principle developed in agriculture that states that if one of the nutritive elements is deficient or lacking, plant growth will be restricted and not in its full potential even when all the other elements are abundant. Any deficiency of a single nutrient, no matter how small the amount needed in solution, will hold back plant development. If the deficient element is supplied, growth will be increased up to the point where the supply of that element is no longer the limiting factor. Increasing the supply beyond this point will not be helpful, as some other elements would then be in minimum supply and become the limiting factor. Basically, where too low levels of the micronutrients are added to solution deficiencies occur and growth is impacted. Conversely, even if a little too much of some of the micronutrients are added to solution, toxicity is the likely result. Because micronutrients are added to solution at only very low levels this means there is a fine margin for error. In turn, this means that a high degree of precision is involved in ensuring that excess or not enough of any micronutrient is added to a formulation.
Where working from the lab analysis the micronutrients found in the analyzed nutrient are listed in ppm. This makes it very easy to add precise levels of the micronutrients found in the original formula to a reverse engineered solution. However, the micronutrients or some of the micronutrients may not be listed. Therefore, inexperienced formulators could very easily add too much or too little of these elements to solution.
The other thing to be aware of is that the labels of companies are often very misleading since they can list any possible salt combinations in the “derived from” to label the ions they have in solution as the sources. This is a strategy used by some companies to confuse people so that reproducing their formulations becomes harder. For example, if you don't know that you should use potassium nitrate (KNO3) instead of HNO3+KOH you would be making the solution in a much more expensive and dangerous way (since both of these substances are corrosive).
Add to this that some countries may have unique components that can be used in formulation and this adds another layer to what a hydroponic nutrient’s formulation may be derived from re fertilizers used in production. For example, Dutch formulators (e.g. Atami) often use a locally sourced liquid phosphate containing fertilizer in formulating. However, this liquid fertilizer isn’t available in countries outside of Europe.
Other than this, chloride (Cl-) isn’t required to be listed for a product to be compliant. This means that if calcium chloride or potassium chloride is used in formulation, the label won’t indicate this because chloride isn’t listed on the label. For example, recently we tested House and Garden (HGC) Coco nutrient. Through these tests we were able to establish that HGC had added quite high amounts (1% w/v) of Cl- to the solution. The lab analysis therefore told us that HGC were either using calcium chloride or potassium chloride in production. Given the high levels of Cl- this is important information to know when reverse engineering, and only lab tests will provide this information. You can see an example of how we reverse engineered House and Garden Coco from lab analysis here…
It is important to note that many company’s usually only list as little as they can on labels in the most deceiving manner possible to make it hard for any competition to reverse engineer their formulas. This is pretty much standard practice by some manufacturers of nutrients and additives. Look at it this way, if you had invested large amounts of time and money into creating unique formulas would you then list your product in such a way as to provide your competition (or indeed your customers who understand formulation chemistry) with your formulas?
However, regulatory bodies require listing on labels to satisfy compliance standards. If manufacturers fail to meet these compliance standards they can’t sell their products in what are often very large markets. For example, California is perhaps today the largest market in the world (given population) for hydroponic nutrient and additive sales; however, California also has arguably the strictest fertilizer compliance regulations in the U.S. This said, as we have seen, even in California the guaranteed analysis doesn’t need to accurately represent what is in the bottle to meet compliance standards.
Based on this, the obvious way around compliance regulations is to make the labels as misleading as possible. Of course, some company’s just falsely list their products in the hope that they aren’t tested by regulatory bodies for compliance. If and when they are caught out, they receive a small fine and are also forced to print new labels (a bit of extra cost) that are compliant. Some companies just see these fines as part of doing business. Better to pay a few dollars out in fines than to provide your customers and competition with your formulas.
Additionally, in some countries and indeed States of the U.S, there is pretty much no compliance testing so manufacturers can list anything they like.
Other than this, organic containing products/nutrients can sometimes contain ingredients that are not listed. For example, kelps are commonly used to mask the presence of synthetic auxins such as IBA (Indolebutyric acid) or NAA (naphthalene acetic acid) and synthetic cytokinins such as 6-Benzylaminopurine (BAP). This is because kelps contain naturally present levels of these phytohormones and when lab tested for manufacturer added synthetic hormones such as IBA or NAA or BAP they can return false positives making synthetic hormones hard to test for in additives and nutrients that contain kelp. Therefore, regulatory bodies such as the CDFA rarely (if ever) test kelp base products for synthetic auxin; i.e. there is simply no point testing because even where they do find the presence of hormones in a product that contains kelp this could be a false positive and they have to give the manufacturer the benefit of the doubt.
More soon!
Last edited:
Actually MrBlah I just looked at your AN Sensi Grow formula which you have on your DB as
Advanced Nutrients
PH PERFECT SENSI GROW PART A 3-0-0
Calcium Nitrate: 157,894.7 mg/l
Ammonium Nitrate: 16,253.87 mg/l
PH PERFECT SENSI GROW PART B 1-2-6
Potassium Sulfate(Sulfate of Potash): 72,222.2 mg/l
Mono Potassium Phosphate: 38,457.32 mg/l
Potassium Nitrate: 21,367.93 mg/l
Ammonium Nitrate: 20,927.44 mg/l
Mate where are the micros? If anyone were to use this formula their plants would quickly keel over and die!
BTW chap I have the original manufacturer direct AN formulas that were used in production in Australia (now sold as Cyco Nutrients) and I can assure you that unless you spend many thousands of dollars on lab analysis you won't be able to reverse engineer them.
It seems to me that to your credit you are at least not shilling but instead being upfront about the fact that you are a Canna capitalist looking to cash in on selling ferts to growers who frequent forums. Here's the thing though - when your formulas kill their plants because you haven't done your homework properly and instead pumped out dodgy formulas that are nothing like the originals in order to line your pockets with cash what are going to do when angry growers come after you for destroying their crops?
Like I said I like where you are going with this if you do things right but let's cut through the bullshit and say that the way you are doing things now is highly unethical and is money motivated while not being driven by care for the consumer also.
Fuck me mate even what you do have in the AN formula is horribly wrong. What's with all the freaking NH4 N??? Dude to help you out they use shit loads of urea not NH4 N. Even with micros of any form the formula is a disaster that will likely harm plants. Surely you understand this? Or have you no idea about formulation? Do us a favour and pull that formula down - its a disaster!
I've just added this to the article I'm working on. Unedited and I can assure you it will be edited and fact checked when it goes up on the site .....
What largely inspired this article is that recently as of Feb 2016 a MrBlah has been running rampant on grow forums claiming that he has reverse engineered numerous formulas where the grams or mg per litre for these formulas can be found at his open salt database (here).
However, having spoken to this individual and having established his true identity it quickly became obvious that 1) he either works for or owns a company that markets towards, among others, Med growers 2) he has reverse engineered the formulas from labels 3) he intends to sell dry agricultural base fertilizers to the growers who use his formulas and 3) most importantly, having looked closely at some of his formulas, these formulas are in some cases miles away from the originals.
Just one example is this:
Advanced Nutrients
PH PERFECT SENSI GROW PART A 3-0-0
Calcium Nitrate: 157,894.7 mg/l
Ammonium Nitrate: 16,253.87 mg/l
PH PERFECT SENSI GROW PART B 1-2-6
Potassium Sulfate (Sulfate of Potash): 72,222.2 mg/l
Mono Potassium Phosphate: 38,457.32 mg/l
Potassium Nitrate: 21,367.93 mg/l
Ammonium Nitrate: 20,927.44 mg/l
This formula doesn’t even have microelements listed and if anyone were to use it their plants would quickly die. Other than this, as someone who has the original Advanced Nutrients formulas used for production in Australia this formula looks nothing like the originals. In fact, given the macronutrients that are listed MrBlah has posted a formula that even where micronutrients were added would possibly harm plants. Just quickly, he has listed too much NH4 N (ammonium N) without realizing that this formula is formulated using among other N fertilizers, urea.
Urea ((NH2)2CO) is a form of water soluble Nitrogen. Urea is an organic molecule which slowly decomposes in water to yield ammonia and carbon dioxide. If the media or nutrient is slightly acidic, the ammonia released will get protonated to form ammonium (NH4+), a form of nitrogen which can be readily assimilated by plants. Thus, for urea to become plant available it must first be converted into NH4N (NH4+) in solution or the substrate which can take some time. For example, Aminuddi et al. (1993) showed that urea hydrolysis in NFT growing systems, “was rapid from the 7th day onwards and ended by the 20th day. At the same time, ammonium concentration in solution increased and reached its maximum on the 20th day.”
Other than this, more recent studies have found that the plant can uptake some urea as the urea molecule.
However, for the most part, what seems apparent is that unlike NO3N and NH4N, urea isn’t, for the most part, immediately available for plant uptake. This makes urea in hydroponic situations a somewhat inefficient and unpredictable source for nitrogen and an N source that if present at high levels in hydroponic solutions can potentially contribute excessive ammonium nitrogen (NH4+) to the nutrient solution.
What appears to be the case is that manufacturers who use urea in formulation need to list it as NH4 N because there is no listing for (NH2)2CO on e.g. California (CDFA) compliant labels. What then has happened in the case of MrBlah is he has misinterpreted the data listed on the labels of Sensi Grow and added too much NH4 N to solution as ammonium nitrogen (“Ammonium Nitrate”). Had he instead worked from lab analysis he would have understood that the Sensi Grow contained urea because many labs test for urea in their standard lab nutrient tests.
For example, JR Peters Lab (based in Allentown, PA) who we use in the U.S. run a comprehensive water analysis for pH, soluble salts, total alkalinity, total nitrogen, nitrate nitrogen, ammonium nitrogen, urea, phosphorus, potassium, calcium, magnesium, sulfur, iron, manganese, copper, boron, zinc, molybdenum, aluminum, sodium and chlorides for $40.00. So had MrBlah sent A and B samples of Sensi Grow to JR Peters Lab at least he would have known that the listing for NH4 N was urea and not ammonium nitrogen.
It is important to note that the ammonium nitrogen (a cation) to nitrate nitrogen (an anion) ratio in solution is critical in ensuring pH stability and cation-anion uptake regulation. Therefore, the ammonium nitrogen to nitrate nitrogen ratio becomes an important factor when formulating hydroponic nutrients.
Nitrogen is a very important constituent of cellular components in plants. Alkaloids, amides, amino acids, proteins, DNA, RNA, enzymes, vitamins, hormones and many other cellular compounds contain nitrogen as one of the elements. It is not an exaggeration to say that nitrogen is the most important of the nutrient elements because it is the most important constituent of proteins and nucleic acids. Plants can absorb nitrogen either as nitrate (NO3-) or ammonium (NH4+) and, therefore, uptake of nitrogen usually consists of a combination of these two forms. Many studies have reported that a mixture of NO3− and NH4+ supply is better for plant growth compared with NH4+ or NO3− alone (Ali et al., 2001; Guo et al., 2002; Zhang et al., 2007).
However, ammonium is a cation (positively charged ion), so it competes with other cations for uptake. Therefore, too high addition of NH4+ as a replacement of NO3- in solution can reduce the uptake of other cations, like K+, Ca2+ and Mg2+. The proportion of these effects depends of different factors like crop, growing conditions and the adjustments made in the ionic balance of the nutrients. Thus, while some ammonium in solution is shown to be beneficial to growth, a nutrient with too high ammonium N to nitrate N ratio, might result in deficiencies of other cations such as calcium and magnesium.
Other than this, nitrate nitrogen (NO3 N), when compared to ammonium nitrogen, is shown to be the most efficient source of nitrogen for plants. In contrast, ammonium nitrogen, while being required for pH and cation-anion uptake regulation is a less efficient source of N. Therefore, high levels of nitrate nitrogen, over ammonium nitrogen, results in increased yields.
For example, Kalkafi et al (1971) studied the effect of nitrogen forms (NO3- and NH4+) on tomato yield and demonstrated the advantages of nitrate nitrogen over ammonium nitrogen. See following table (source: U. Kafkafi et al. 1971):
NO3- NH4+ Ratio EC (mmho/cm) Yield (kg/plant)
100:- 1.7 2.5
70:30 2.4 1.98
63:37 2.9 1.20
59:41 3.5 1.00
100:- 3.1 3.43
For optimal uptake and growth, every plant species requires a different ammonium/nitrate ratio. The correct ratio also varies with temperature (season), growth stage, pH and the substrates properties. However, to generalize somewhat, the optimum ammonium to nitrate ratio in indoor, under light crops where environmental conditions are at optimum (or thereabouts), should be between 5-10% and definitely no more than 15% of the total N in solution. I.e. 90 – 95% of total N should be supplied to the plant as nitrate N with 5-10% being supplied as ammonium N.
I'll drop a link on this thread when I'm done. Meantime as someone who does give a shit about growers and med consumers - PEOPLE please hold off using any formulas Mr Balh has posted until I can have a good look at them and dissect them. What I have looked at to date isn't good.
What also is very apparent to a skilled formulator is MrBlah knows shit all about formulating nutrients because if he did understand the science of formulating hydro nutrients he would have known there was no way on gods green earth that Sensi Grow could contain the levels of ammonium nitrate he has listed without it being a bit of a worry
Advanced Nutrients
PH PERFECT SENSI GROW PART A 3-0-0
Calcium Nitrate: 157,894.7 mg/l
Ammonium Nitrate: 16,253.87 mg/l
PH PERFECT SENSI GROW PART B 1-2-6
Potassium Sulfate(Sulfate of Potash): 72,222.2 mg/l
Mono Potassium Phosphate: 38,457.32 mg/l
Potassium Nitrate: 21,367.93 mg/l
Ammonium Nitrate: 20,927.44 mg/l
Mate where are the micros? If anyone were to use this formula their plants would quickly keel over and die!
BTW chap I have the original manufacturer direct AN formulas that were used in production in Australia (now sold as Cyco Nutrients) and I can assure you that unless you spend many thousands of dollars on lab analysis you won't be able to reverse engineer them.
It seems to me that to your credit you are at least not shilling but instead being upfront about the fact that you are a Canna capitalist looking to cash in on selling ferts to growers who frequent forums. Here's the thing though - when your formulas kill their plants because you haven't done your homework properly and instead pumped out dodgy formulas that are nothing like the originals in order to line your pockets with cash what are going to do when angry growers come after you for destroying their crops?
Like I said I like where you are going with this if you do things right but let's cut through the bullshit and say that the way you are doing things now is highly unethical and is money motivated while not being driven by care for the consumer also.
Fuck me mate even what you do have in the AN formula is horribly wrong. What's with all the freaking NH4 N??? Dude to help you out they use shit loads of urea not NH4 N. Even with micros of any form the formula is a disaster that will likely harm plants. Surely you understand this? Or have you no idea about formulation? Do us a favour and pull that formula down - its a disaster!
I've just added this to the article I'm working on. Unedited and I can assure you it will be edited and fact checked when it goes up on the site .....
What largely inspired this article is that recently as of Feb 2016 a MrBlah has been running rampant on grow forums claiming that he has reverse engineered numerous formulas where the grams or mg per litre for these formulas can be found at his open salt database (here).
However, having spoken to this individual and having established his true identity it quickly became obvious that 1) he either works for or owns a company that markets towards, among others, Med growers 2) he has reverse engineered the formulas from labels 3) he intends to sell dry agricultural base fertilizers to the growers who use his formulas and 3) most importantly, having looked closely at some of his formulas, these formulas are in some cases miles away from the originals.
Just one example is this:
Advanced Nutrients
PH PERFECT SENSI GROW PART A 3-0-0
Calcium Nitrate: 157,894.7 mg/l
Ammonium Nitrate: 16,253.87 mg/l
PH PERFECT SENSI GROW PART B 1-2-6
Potassium Sulfate (Sulfate of Potash): 72,222.2 mg/l
Mono Potassium Phosphate: 38,457.32 mg/l
Potassium Nitrate: 21,367.93 mg/l
Ammonium Nitrate: 20,927.44 mg/l
This formula doesn’t even have microelements listed and if anyone were to use it their plants would quickly die. Other than this, as someone who has the original Advanced Nutrients formulas used for production in Australia this formula looks nothing like the originals. In fact, given the macronutrients that are listed MrBlah has posted a formula that even where micronutrients were added would possibly harm plants. Just quickly, he has listed too much NH4 N (ammonium N) without realizing that this formula is formulated using among other N fertilizers, urea.
Urea ((NH2)2CO) is a form of water soluble Nitrogen. Urea is an organic molecule which slowly decomposes in water to yield ammonia and carbon dioxide. If the media or nutrient is slightly acidic, the ammonia released will get protonated to form ammonium (NH4+), a form of nitrogen which can be readily assimilated by plants. Thus, for urea to become plant available it must first be converted into NH4N (NH4+) in solution or the substrate which can take some time. For example, Aminuddi et al. (1993) showed that urea hydrolysis in NFT growing systems, “was rapid from the 7th day onwards and ended by the 20th day. At the same time, ammonium concentration in solution increased and reached its maximum on the 20th day.”
Other than this, more recent studies have found that the plant can uptake some urea as the urea molecule.
However, for the most part, what seems apparent is that unlike NO3N and NH4N, urea isn’t, for the most part, immediately available for plant uptake. This makes urea in hydroponic situations a somewhat inefficient and unpredictable source for nitrogen and an N source that if present at high levels in hydroponic solutions can potentially contribute excessive ammonium nitrogen (NH4+) to the nutrient solution.
What appears to be the case is that manufacturers who use urea in formulation need to list it as NH4 N because there is no listing for (NH2)2CO on e.g. California (CDFA) compliant labels. What then has happened in the case of MrBlah is he has misinterpreted the data listed on the labels of Sensi Grow and added too much NH4 N to solution as ammonium nitrogen (“Ammonium Nitrate”). Had he instead worked from lab analysis he would have understood that the Sensi Grow contained urea because many labs test for urea in their standard lab nutrient tests.
For example, JR Peters Lab (based in Allentown, PA) who we use in the U.S. run a comprehensive water analysis for pH, soluble salts, total alkalinity, total nitrogen, nitrate nitrogen, ammonium nitrogen, urea, phosphorus, potassium, calcium, magnesium, sulfur, iron, manganese, copper, boron, zinc, molybdenum, aluminum, sodium and chlorides for $40.00. So had MrBlah sent A and B samples of Sensi Grow to JR Peters Lab at least he would have known that the listing for NH4 N was urea and not ammonium nitrogen.
It is important to note that the ammonium nitrogen (a cation) to nitrate nitrogen (an anion) ratio in solution is critical in ensuring pH stability and cation-anion uptake regulation. Therefore, the ammonium nitrogen to nitrate nitrogen ratio becomes an important factor when formulating hydroponic nutrients.
Nitrogen is a very important constituent of cellular components in plants. Alkaloids, amides, amino acids, proteins, DNA, RNA, enzymes, vitamins, hormones and many other cellular compounds contain nitrogen as one of the elements. It is not an exaggeration to say that nitrogen is the most important of the nutrient elements because it is the most important constituent of proteins and nucleic acids. Plants can absorb nitrogen either as nitrate (NO3-) or ammonium (NH4+) and, therefore, uptake of nitrogen usually consists of a combination of these two forms. Many studies have reported that a mixture of NO3− and NH4+ supply is better for plant growth compared with NH4+ or NO3− alone (Ali et al., 2001; Guo et al., 2002; Zhang et al., 2007).
However, ammonium is a cation (positively charged ion), so it competes with other cations for uptake. Therefore, too high addition of NH4+ as a replacement of NO3- in solution can reduce the uptake of other cations, like K+, Ca2+ and Mg2+. The proportion of these effects depends of different factors like crop, growing conditions and the adjustments made in the ionic balance of the nutrients. Thus, while some ammonium in solution is shown to be beneficial to growth, a nutrient with too high ammonium N to nitrate N ratio, might result in deficiencies of other cations such as calcium and magnesium.
Other than this, nitrate nitrogen (NO3 N), when compared to ammonium nitrogen, is shown to be the most efficient source of nitrogen for plants. In contrast, ammonium nitrogen, while being required for pH and cation-anion uptake regulation is a less efficient source of N. Therefore, high levels of nitrate nitrogen, over ammonium nitrogen, results in increased yields.
For example, Kalkafi et al (1971) studied the effect of nitrogen forms (NO3- and NH4+) on tomato yield and demonstrated the advantages of nitrate nitrogen over ammonium nitrogen. See following table (source: U. Kafkafi et al. 1971):
NO3- NH4+ Ratio EC (mmho/cm) Yield (kg/plant)
100:- 1.7 2.5
70:30 2.4 1.98
63:37 2.9 1.20
59:41 3.5 1.00
100:- 3.1 3.43
For optimal uptake and growth, every plant species requires a different ammonium/nitrate ratio. The correct ratio also varies with temperature (season), growth stage, pH and the substrates properties. However, to generalize somewhat, the optimum ammonium to nitrate ratio in indoor, under light crops where environmental conditions are at optimum (or thereabouts), should be between 5-10% and definitely no more than 15% of the total N in solution. I.e. 90 – 95% of total N should be supplied to the plant as nitrate N with 5-10% being supplied as ammonium N.
I'll drop a link on this thread when I'm done. Meantime as someone who does give a shit about growers and med consumers - PEOPLE please hold off using any formulas Mr Balh has posted until I can have a good look at them and dissect them. What I have looked at to date isn't good.
What also is very apparent to a skilled formulator is MrBlah knows shit all about formulating nutrients because if he did understand the science of formulating hydro nutrients he would have known there was no way on gods green earth that Sensi Grow could contain the levels of ammonium nitrate he has listed without it being a bit of a worry
Attachments
Last edited:
Um, as far as I can tell he, Mr. Blah has made no attempt to even use the same reagents that AN does list on their labels.
For instance the label lists derived from for Grow part A as calcium nitrate and magnesium nitrate.
Mr. Blah uses ammonium nitrate instead of the magnesium nitrate along with the calcium nitrate.
So certainly not a very close replication.
I can understand trying to use more easily obtained reagents, but why substitute ammonium nitrate for magnesium nitrate?
Why the fixation on ammonium nitrate at all, you use it in both your AN replications, yet it is not listed on AN's labels?
For instance the label lists derived from for Grow part A as calcium nitrate and magnesium nitrate.
Mr. Blah uses ammonium nitrate instead of the magnesium nitrate along with the calcium nitrate.
So certainly not a very close replication.
I can understand trying to use more easily obtained reagents, but why substitute ammonium nitrate for magnesium nitrate?
Why the fixation on ammonium nitrate at all, you use it in both your AN replications, yet it is not listed on AN's labels?
Attachments
Yeah I mean isn't ammonium nitrate regulated in the US due to it being great (fun fun fun) for making bombs? Also I know that you can't post potassium nitrate in the US and it needs to be collected from where it is stored. Either way man there is far too much NH 4 N in these formulas. Gnarly stuff! MrBlah did your Smart! software give you these formulas?
MrBungle
Well-known member
NH4 is very useful in formula at the right amounts, but should never be used to replace a salt that doesnt even contain NH4 like mag nitrate....
I never followed up on his reverse engineered stuff.... I still think its a waste of time to do that.. when you could be formulating your own artisan blend... If you are gonna do it.. do it right
I never followed up on his reverse engineered stuff.... I still think its a waste of time to do that.. when you could be formulating your own artisan blend... If you are gonna do it.. do it right
Probably a very good thing Mr Bungle -
Anyway put this quickly on the site tonite http://www.manicbotanix.com/hydropo...e-engineering-a-nutrient-from-the-label-.html
I will work on a much fuller article over the next few days. I'd have a look at a compliance test that I have included with the article - I think a lot of people who are using labels to reverse engineer from will be shocked
Anyway put this quickly on the site tonite http://www.manicbotanix.com/hydropo...e-engineering-a-nutrient-from-the-label-.html
I will work on a much fuller article over the next few days. I'd have a look at a compliance test that I have included with the article - I think a lot of people who are using labels to reverse engineer from will be shocked
MisterBlah
Member
I admit I am actually wrong on a few here, so I really appreciate you guys calling this out here. I'm pretty sure I did those AN products really early on and wasn't paying as close attention as I should have and that is clearly a problem. That being said, I'll pull it from my website for now until I can get a lab analysis on it. I'll be going back through everything I have posted over the next week or two to double check everything. The first time I do something, I usually don't have the due diligence down as well as I should and this is clearly no different. It's an ongoing project after all.
Now, I know one of you mentioned something about using what is labeled as the derivatives of the product. It actually doesn't necessarily matter if I use what the label says in every case. In the case of the AN products, it's does. In others, I can often create the blend a number of different ways.
Now, I know one of you mentioned something about using what is labeled as the derivatives of the product. It actually doesn't necessarily matter if I use what the label says in every case. In the case of the AN products, it's does. In others, I can often create the blend a number of different ways.
MisterBlah
Member
Might I ask then, what is it you gain from not sharing these in this thread? Additionally, I can get lab analysis done for $33/sample.
MisterBlah
Member
Have a look here: http://agr.wa.gov/PestFert/Fertilizers/InspectionCompliance.aspx
The state of Washington puts out a report every year for the results of analysis of official samples of fertilizer within the state as compared with the analysis guaranteed on the label.
What you'll see is that most are pretty close. Obviously not all are exact. But the variation that is allowed on a label is something I want to talk about here.
Let's look at the report for 2014. See AN PH PERFECT TECHNOLOGY CONNOISSEUR PART B 2-4-10
Here's the guaranteed analysis:
Total N: 2%
Available P2O5: 4%
Soluble Potash: 10%
Sulfur: 0.4%
Here's the results of their tests:
Total N: 2.6%
Available P2O5: 5.4%
Soluble Potash: 11.3%
Sulfur: 1.05%
Lets for a second forget about the fact that the micronutrient concentrations are below the required levels for labeling. We'll get back to that in a second.
Now tell me, if I provide you with a fertilizer blend that is exactly what their guaranteed analysis is, would you think it would perform much differently than what a blend based on the results of their tests would? Aside from being more concentrated than what they claim on the label, you'd still grow some plants.
Back to the micronutrients: Yes, I am well aware of their lack of presence on the label and I know it's simply due to the laws behind them. But a lack of micronutrients in a fertilizer does not mean the plants will die. Your soils often contain it to some extent. Regardless though, I think you are right that I should take down any blend that should have those micronutrients but does not list them. That is, any blend where a lab analysis is necessary.
Now, this doesn't mean I am correct in my analysis of a fertilizer blend. I admit the first round of a number of these were done incorrectly, obviously the AN products. It's clear to me right now that I should not consider listing ammonium nitrate as an ingredient in any of these due to the difficulty in acquiring it. However, please note that it is in fact possible to ship ammonium nitrate and potassium nitrate through UPS or FedEx.
Last edited:
MisterBlah those formulas actually cost me 10K (bad debt was paid with them). Now why would I give them away?
And yeah mate your lack of expertise is showing big time as is your lack of concern for the fact that you are putting crop killers online. Mate there's enough hacks on this forum where in comes to growing info given out - now we have you here giving out extremely bad formulas that clearly demonstrate you have very little knowledge about the science of formulation.
And lesson one, when you reverse engineer you need to know what you are testing for and clearly this is well above your skill level.
That is, if you run a standard cheap lab analysis in a lot (many) of cases you will miss ingredients so you need to know what to ask the lab to test for. All your $33 gets you is a standard test for macros and micros - nothing else. So then you formulate from these and ultimately it isn't as good as the original (in your case it also may be nothing like the original re macros and micros)
Some tests for components you really ought to be testing for BTW can cost hundreds of dollars and some cases these tests (a single test) can even cost you thousands of dollars.
I'll be sure to go over more of your formulas - some of which I have lab analysis for now but what I can tell you is the formulas I have looked at that I am familiar with (e.g. the GH 3 part) you have butchered!
Gad man your knowledge is so limited surrounding formulation you didn't even understand that you never work from labels. I had to school you in this here. Then and only then did you go wow!!! oops!!! Better get them lab analyzed then. What this tells me is you are an utter novice where it comes to formulation chemistry and this worries me greatly that growers out there are going to think you are actually providing them with their favoured formulas when it actual fact you seem to be happy providing utter crap with your real motivation being to flog them fertilizers.
MisterBlah
Member
One last thing Glow.
You mentioned that what I am doing is valuable, that you liked my work, but clearly a little inaccurate and needs work. I agreed with you. I still agree with you.
Why have you gone on the offensive and attacked me without giving me the time to fix things?
You mentioned that what I am doing is valuable, that you liked my work, but clearly a little inaccurate and needs work. I agreed with you. I still agree with you.
Why have you gone on the offensive and attacked me without giving me the time to fix things?
MisterBlah
Member
Please tell me which of the following costs thousands of dollars to test for: pH, EC, HCO3, CO3, Alkalinity, NO3-N, NH4-N, P, K, Ca, Mg, SO4-S, Fe, Mn, B, Cu, Zn, Mo, Na, Al, and Cl.
http://www.qal.us/schedule-of-fees.html
You bet you're not even close (your formula will kill plants) and again you are showing your lack of expertise. You don't work from regulatory body listings either because often what manufacturers list are nothing like what is in the bottle. You are also still just talking about macros and micros by the way - there's way more to it then this in many good formulas you are attempting to copy these formulas through very flawed practices. Practices that tell me you know very little about the game you are in. And yes thanks for the info about UPS and FedEx - I said post. This said I wasn't sure about ammonium nitrate regulations in the US so that is somewhat insightful although we are looking into these regs now.
MisterBlah
Member
You are a very egotistical individual.
Clearly the fact that you know more than I do on a few things makes you a better person than I am.
Do you really need me to answer this or are you taking the piss? Yes you can check for macros and micros for under $40.00 but this does not tell you everything about the formula. BTW I pay $40 for these tests in the US with JR Peters Lab. Again though you need to test for more than this in many cases. And I expect you know this and if you don't know this it is extremely worrying given you are making formulas publicly available (without seemingly understanding even the basics)
MisterBlah
Member
My formula will kill plants? You do realize how easy it is to grow a plant, right?
I've stated before, and I will state again: I currently only care about mineral based fertilizer blends RIGHT NOW.
I know all about organics, b vitamins, hormones, amino acids, etc. I know a normal lab analysis won't give any information on them.
