The Official Canna Coco & Nutrients Thread

[Tru Bammer]

Bud ignitor..hmmm i never heard of it let me know how it goes or start a journal and ill follow it. I have never used boost because of all the people who say they cant see a difference but BASTIC showed me a HUGE difference and continues to do so every day i look at my girl...Im doing one plant right now and i swear my top bud is bigger than my hand and is super dense. If i had to guess i would say my main cola weighs at least 28g dry and grows daily...CANT WAIT!!!...go check out my grow!!!!!!

 

[Tru Bammer]

I grow hydro, top drip and dwc. I am about to start my third grow with the canna aqua vega a and b and the flores a and b along with rhizotonic. my problem is that it always seems like im using to much or to little. at first i used the amount stated on the bottle and i got nute burn. so i lowered it and it seemed like my plants were lagging. do you have a recommended amount to use and how many days or weeks old to start using the nutes with the plants other than what the bottle says?

I have a great idea....switch to coco...just sayin...lol

 

[PUKKA BUD]

G13 HAZE 28 days from sprout

Hey guys heres sum pics from my thread.... she's doing great
i potted up saterday to my 11l final pot 2inch of clay pebbles an the rest canna coco pro
nutes A&B 10ml/g Rhiz 16ml/g
PH 5.8
goin to switch to my 600w hps soon

​

 

[Snow Crash]

She looks so Indica for being a Haze. Wild.
Looking good though. I just upped my nutes to 10ml per gallon also. Keep an eye on your plant for nutrient issues, make sure you've got enough run off.

 

[dragunn]

they did a side by side on a other form(ic) around a year ago,50 pages long.boost vs mollases.a boost/mollases combo won out.yield,taste and look.it won me over too,frostyiest nuggets yet.

 

[PUKKA BUD]

She looks so Indica for being a Haze. Wild.
Looking good though. I just upped my nutes to 10ml per gallon also. Keep an eye on your plant for nutrient issues, make sure you've got enough run off.

hey snow

how olds your plants an tall? because i didnt no if i was running my nutes to high for the age an hight or to low... she's still only 4 1/2" tall but like 8" wide real busy the blue cfls im usin seem to be doin the trick!

check out my thread for more details on my grow the links in my signature
peace

 

[PUKKA BUD]

It wont grow any faster it will just get taller faster or "stretch". You dont want this because that means less bud sites and a tall ass plant. You want to keep it under blue light so it gets fat and bushy. If you plan on flowering at 12" 15" i would veg under a blue light till about 8-10" then switch to the hps and once it gets where you want it switch the lights to 12/12

thanks for the info bud

 

[kpac]

Nice work pukka

And You cant over nuit with the boost I was doubling up on my boost and the ladies were packing on the weight!!!! Some were doubling in size in a week! Went high at the same time with the calmag. And everything else remained the same.(nuits wise). It cost money but is well worth it!!! Oh yeah you should see how the trich's change during this as well. It looks like the trich's are pouring - gooing out - production is so increased.

 

[PUKKA BUD]

Nice work pukka

And You cant over nuit with the boost I was doubling up on my boost and the ladies were packing on the weight!!!! Some were doubling in size in a week! Went high at the same time with the calmag. And everything else remained the same.(nuits wise). It cost money but is well worth it!!! Oh yeah you should see how the trich's change during this as well. It looks like the trich's are pouring - gooing out - production is so increased.

Cheers kpac

i cant wate to see them buds growin!

 

[vapors]

yo jberry, dont have any questions, honestly just signed in to say thank you for starting this thread. I came upon it by accident after having given up long ago on trying to find many of the answers to questions addressed here. Ive read through every page in here and honestly acquired more insight here than everywhere else combined. (im canna coco obviously). Mostly its a relief to know that there is someone who understands that people at all levels of experience(and/or intelligence/resourcefulness) need help, and if someone asks a simple question that you have already answered 15 times, you dont respond with the narcissistic heir of entitlement that so often accompanies a response from some of the self-appointed 'gods gift to plants' (ub). I've been at this about 6 months, following this thread for a couple weeks, i had no idea i was misreading the confusing canna feeding chart, no idea canna is designed for 200 ppm water, was suspicious about the effectiveness of boost......etc.... So, like i said i've got no specific questions right now, just felt a responsibility to express my appreciation from myself and on the behalf of the thousands of "scanners" out there without a voice.
Also gave up on researching the effects of music on plants many months ago, when i looked into ur thread regarding music it is by far the best collection of information i have seen, its very surprizing that thread isn't more popular, same for mycorrhiza...etc. Peace

it could not be said any better, thank you jberry, (reps to both of you..)

 

[Snow Crash]

(N-P-K::Ca/Mg)

Canna Coco A+B is a 5-4-3::4.5/1.2

Let us think of these numbers as "values" rather than "percentages."

What I'd like to do is determine the ppm level of each element in solution. To do this I...

Multiply the Nutrient Value with the Nutrient Volume to get a new value. For the sake of this thread, I am using 10ml of A and 10ml of B in one gallon of water to make 5-4-3::4.5/1.2 become the new value of 50-40-30::45/12

Now, use the constant value of 2.6 (ironically about the number of cm per inch) to determine the ppm level of each nutrient in the 1 gallon solution. Multiply 2.6 with each Nutrient Value and this provides a VERY APPROXIMATE ppm level for each element in solution.

Nitrogen = 50*2.6 = 130ppm
Phosphorus = 40*2.6 = 105ppm
Potassium = 30*2.6 = 80ppm
Calcium = 45*2.6 = 120ppm
Magnesium = 12*2.6 = 30ppm

10ml of Canna Coco A+B at a level of 10ml per gallon should add up to about 465ppm plus the ppm levels of the water and any unlisted elements like Sulfur or Sodium. I would expect the extra elements to add up to about 70 or 80 more ppms.

Now, I wouldn't be saying all this if it were completely inaccurate. In my test I mixed two gallons of 60ppm water with 20ml of A and then 20ml of B. I mixed the solution and waited 10 minutes.

The total ppm level measured out at ~600ppm on my Hanna meter. Given that I expected a ppm level of ~525 (465 plus the 60ppm water) that could mean there's an additional 75ppm of unaccounted for elements like Sulfur and other trace elements like chromium. It could also mean that my constant of 2.6 is a little low. Since I'd expected about 75ppm of "junk" elements it would seem this system is pretty close, perhaps within 5% of the actual ppm levels of each element.

What this has shown me is that I can approximate the ppm levels of each nutrient in my mix by applying a very simple formula. In the future this might help me hone in on a problem element. Seeing the ppm level balance at exactly what I was expecting was very cool to see.

When looking at the approximate nutrient values in the 600ppm solution I recognize some things. First of all, the level of Calcium is already pretty high. Adding more Calcium to this system would seem like a bad idea. Also, the ratio of Phosphorus to Nitrogen and Potassium seems a little out of whak to me. This is probably why high P bloom supplements cause more burning issues with Canna than they are worth.

Finally, my conclusion is this:
Canna Coco A+B must be supplemented with additional Nitrogen, Potassium, and Magnesium. These elements are not what I would consider to be in proper ratio with Phosphorus and Calcium.

After looking around quite a bit I've determined that the nutrient with the most ideal ppm levels of all elements, the one that requires the least amount of supplementation, to be Botanicare's Pure Blend Pro Grow. At 3-1.5-4::1/0.5 this nutrient system expands to what myself and Botanicare consider to be almost perfect ppm levels. Yes, I know of CNS17 but it has more Phosphorus than I'd like, I would much rather add phosphorus with a bloom supplement at the appropriate time.

I don't want to discredit the natural properties of the coco, I know it retains Calcium and Potassium and can become rich in these elements requiring lower levels over the entirety of the grow. Still, if I'm going to be working with an inert, soilless, media I'm going to run the best levels available.

Next up: Botanicare CocoGro plus PBP, Cal-Mag Plus, Liquid Karma, and Sweet VERSUS Canna Coco, A+B, Rhizotonic, and CannaZym. I cannot justify the cost of the Boost Accelerator.

 

[LesterBurnum]

Snow,
Nice analysis bro! I look forward to your next one. I agree that the boost seems too pricey for the good. But this is my first run with coco and I am using the boost. I think when that bottles gone I will try another one and see what the difference is myself too.
Lates

 

[jberry]

(N-P-K::Ca/Mg)

Canna Coco A+B is a 5-4-3::4.5/1.2

Let us think of these numbers as "values" rather than "percentages."

What I'd like to do is determine the ppm level of each element in solution. To do this I...

Multiply the Nutrient Value with the Nutrient Volume to get a new value. For the sake of this thread, I am using 10ml of A and 10ml of B in one gallon of water to make 5-4-3::4.5/1.2 become the new value of 50-40-30::45/12

Now, use the constant value of 2.6 (ironically about the number of cm per inch) to determine the ppm level of each nutrient in the 1 gallon solution. Multiply 2.6 with each Nutrient Value and this provides a VERY APPROXIMATE ppm level for each element in solution.

Nitrogen = 50*2.6 = 130ppm
Phosphorus = 40*2.6 = 105ppm
Potassium = 30*2.6 = 80ppm
Calcium = 45*2.6 = 120ppm
Magnesium = 12*2.6 = 30ppm

10ml of Canna Coco A+B at a level of 10ml per gallon should add up to about 465ppm plus the ppm levels of the water and any unlisted elements like Sulfur or Sodium. I would expect the extra elements to add up to about 70 or 80 more ppms.

Now, I wouldn't be saying all this if it were completely inaccurate. In my test I mixed two gallons of 60ppm water with 20ml of A and then 20ml of B. I mixed the solution and waited 10 minutes.

The total ppm level measured out at ~600ppm on my Hanna meter. Given that I expected a ppm level of ~525 (465 plus the 60ppm water) that could mean there's an additional 75ppm of unaccounted for elements like Sulfur and other trace elements like chromium. It could also mean that my constant of 2.6 is a little low. Since I'd expected about 75ppm of "junk" elements it would seem this system is pretty close, perhaps within 5% of the actual ppm levels of each element.

What this has shown me is that I can approximate the ppm levels of each nutrient in my mix by applying a very simple formula. In the future this might help me hone in on a problem element. Seeing the ppm level balance at exactly what I was expecting was very cool to see.

When looking at the approximate nutrient values in the 600ppm solution I recognize some things. First of all, the level of Calcium is already pretty high. Adding more Calcium to this system would seem like a bad idea. Also, the ratio of Phosphorus to Nitrogen and Potassium seems a little out of whak to me. This is probably why high P bloom supplements cause more burning issues with Canna than they are worth.

Finally, my conclusion is this:
Canna Coco A+B must be supplemented with additional Nitrogen, Potassium, and Magnesium. These elements are not what I would consider to be in proper ratio with Phosphorus and Calcium.

After looking around quite a bit I've determined that the nutrient with the most ideal ppm levels of all elements, the one that requires the least amount of supplementation, to be Botanicare's Pure Blend Pro Grow. At 3-1.5-4::1/0.5 this nutrient system expands to what myself and Botanicare consider to be almost perfect ppm levels. Yes, I know of CNS17 but it has more Phosphorus than I'd like, I would much rather add phosphorus with a bloom supplement at the appropriate time.

I don't want to discredit the natural properties of the coco, I know it retains Calcium and Potassium and can become rich in these elements requiring lower levels over the entirety of the grow. Still, if I'm going to be working with an inert, soilless, media I'm going to run the best levels available.

Next up: Botanicare CocoGro plus PBP, Cal-Mag Plus, Liquid Karma, and Sweet VERSUS Canna Coco, A+B, Rhizotonic, and CannaZym. I cannot justify the cost of the Boost Accelerator.

Well you got some of the numbers close but i have to burst your bubble here to save you some unwanted problems...

At 10ml per gallon of:

Canna Coco A (4-0-1):
N = 107 ppm
P = 0
K = 22 ppm

Ca = 120 ppm (Ca total)


Canna Coco B (1-4-2):
N = 27 ppm
P = 47 ppm
K = 44 ppm

Mg = 29 ppm (Mg total)...

*Total NPK of Canna Coco A + B @ 10ml per gallon:

N = 134 ppm
P = 47 ppm
K = 66 ppm

Here's why:

* 1.) The total of part 1 (A) + part 2 (B) needs to be divided by the number of parts:

I will explain: lets do the nitrogen part of the formula first.
Using equal parts, if the nitrogen value of part 1 is 1% and the nitrogen value of part 2 is 4% then the sum is 5. Since we have 2 parts we divide 5 by 2. This equals 2.5. This means if we combine one teaspoon of part 1 and one teaspoon of part 2 their combined percentage value is 2.5% nitrogen. The P and K percentages are calculated the same way.

** 2.) How to read a label from a fertilizer bag or bottle:

All fertilizer labels should contain three numbers
representing the percentage (by weight) of nitrogen,
phosphorus, and potassium contained in the fertilizer.
For nitrogen, the value listed represents the actual
percentage of nitrogen contained in the fertilizer.
However, for historical reasons, fertilizers sold in the
United States (and much of the rest of the world) list the
percentage of phosphorus as P2O5 and potassium is listed
as K2O. To calculate the actual percentage of phosphorus,
multiply the listed value by 0.43, and for potassium,
multiply the percentage by 0.83. For example, 20-20-20
really contains 20% nitrogen, 8.6% phosphorus (actual
P), and 16.6% potassium (actual K).
Nutrients other than nitrogen, phosphorus, or
potassium are voluntarily listed on the label under the
“guaranteed analysis” section and the values listed
represent the actual percentage in the fertilizer. To be
listed on the label, they either have to reach a minimum
level (Ca at 1%, Mg at 0.5%, S at 0.5%, Fe at 0.1%, Mn,
Zn, Cu at 0.05%, B at 0.02%), or they can be in the
fertilizer but left off the label, or the label can contain
“For continuous liquid feed programs” which exempts the
fertilizer from the minimum critical level on
micronutrients.

Fertilizers that call themselves "speciality fertilizers" (like canna) are also exempt from legally listing complete total percentages and ingredients which is exactly why they and others do that... the hydro industry is a shady shady business and you rarely get what you pay for.

I think ive layed it all out for you, but if u have any questions, i will try to be back in the next few days to help.

-Potassium competes with magnesium and calcium and therefore both magnesium and calcium levels have been raised in this formulation to compensate for natural potassium levels within the coco media... keep your calcium between 150-250 ppm imo. -Ive never had any issues with burning from high P nutes but i do recommend cutting back on base nutrients when using them, and dont use them too early into flowering.



Peace, -J

 

[Snow Crash]

What you're trying to tell me, Jberry, is that of the 600ppm's in solution.
60ppm is the water starting point.
200ppm is the total of NPK

and the other 340ppms is just junk?

You also didn't provide ppm levels for the Calcium or Magnesium.

I derived this information by inference. It is by no means accurate, or scientific, and it was not advertised by myself as such. Botanicare posts their ppm levels of each element based on a mixture of their products. By working "backwards" I could take the ppm levels they provided and compare that to the listed nutrient levels by percentage on the bottle.

Some elements were closer to 2.5 (like Iron), some elements had a higher ratio. I just rounded it to about 2.6. Their system depends on one bottle though, and I wasn't entirely sure how to formulate the percentages of elements in A plus B. I considered doing them separate and adding them together but obviously got the same answer as before.

I'm not totally sold on your "divide it by two because it comes from two bottles for an actual ratio of 2.5%." But as I think about it, it does start to make some sense. I'm going to have to come to terms with that on my own...

The information regarding Bi-Phosphate (?) and Potassium Oxide was pretty interesting being that these elements are not electrically balanced and would precipitate if present. I think something like P2O3 or K3O2 would make a lot more sense, but I don't know so I'm going to have to go find out.

I'm not totally sold on your ppm levels of Phosphorus and Potassium because it leaves SOOO much junk ppm's in the reservoir. 300+ of what? Sodium? Who even knows??? So, for the sake of all these people dedicated to Canna nutrients I hope that your formula has over thunk itself.

 

[jberry]

Yea look into it... its commonly known information about the P/K conversions and I used a computer program designed to convert nutrients from percentages to ppm's.

As far as the "300 ppm's of junk", I think if you add up MY numbers and then add your waters ppm's (60?), you will find that it does not leave 300 ppm's of junk... More importantly if you read the bottom half of my post you can see that the fertilizer companies are not obligated to list all their micros for speciality fertilizers and/or if they do not meet a certain strength. -That doesnt mean that its junk, which im told its not.

"Canna Coco A (4-0-1):
N = 107 ppm
P = 0
K = 22 ppm
Listed Ca/Mg Below:
Calcium:
Ca = 120 ppm (Ca total)


Canna Coco B (1-4-2):
N = 27 ppm
P = 47 ppm
K = 44 ppm
...and Mg here:
Mg = 29 ppm (Mg total)...

*Total NPK of Canna Coco A + B @ 10ml per gallon:

N = 134 ppm
P = 47 ppm
K = 66 ppm"

 

[PUKKA BUD]

Hey j

nice to see you rollin in your thread bud its been a while!

an can i just say the stuff you guys are talkin about above blows my mind, i ant got a scooby doo what your talkin about lol,.. hope some day i do
peace

 

[Snow Crash]

Yea look into it... its commonly known information about the P/K conversions and I used a computer program designed to convert nutrients from percentages to ppm's.

I've seen something similar to this in Jorge Cervantes Indoor Marijuana Horticulture. The book is only 6 or 7 years old so I get what you're saying. You can drop the hostility and the high horse. I've explained where I got my numbers from, I get what you're saying, but it just doesn't add up with the actual results.

For reference here's the quote:

Do you think the N-P-K numbers on the label give the percentages of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium?
Well, yes and no. The scale measures the nutrients with different scales. Nitrogen is listed as "total combined element." Most hydroponic fertilizers break nitrogen into slower acting nitrate (NO3) and ammonium (NH4). Phosphoric anhydride (P2O5) is listed as the form of phosphorus, but this figure understates the phosphorus content by 44 percent. It gets worse! The balance, or 56 percent, of the phosphorus molecule is comprised of oxygen. Twenty percent P2O5 is 8.8 percent actual phosphorus. Potassium (K) is listed in the potash form (potassium oxide) (K2O), of which 83 percent of the stated value is actually element potassium...

If you really pay attention to the language here you can see how high Jorge was when writing this. If the figure did understate the amount of phosphorus that would mean there was more phosphorus in the solution than advertised.

So... As much as I'd like to believe him... The mental editing leaves something to be desired when it comes to validity. Read it a couple times if you don't see it the first time, the statements are contradictory but you get what he's trying to say anyway.

He goes on to say:

...Nutrients in the United States are measured in parts-per-million (PPM), even though they are expressed as percentage concentration on the label. The PPM scale is simple and finite, almost. The basics are simple, one part per million is one part of 1,000,000. Divide by one million to find parts per million. To convert percentages into PPM, multiply by 10,000, move the decimal four (4) spaces to the right. For example: 2 percent = 20,000 ppm.

I'll continue this thought later on...

As far as the "300 ppm's of junk", I think if you add up MY numbers and then add your waters ppm's (60?), you will find that it does not leave 300 ppm's of junk... More importantly if you read the bottom half of my post you can see that the fertilizer companies are not obligated to list all their micros for speciality fertilizers and/or if they do not meet a certain strength. -That doesnt mean that its junk, which im told its not.

Canna Coco A (4-0-1) at 10ml per gallon
N = 107 ppm
P = 0
K = 22 ppm
Ca = 120 ppm

Canna Coco B (1-4-2)at 10ml per gallon
N = 27 ppm
P = 47 ppm
K = 44 ppm
Mg = 29 ppm

Total of Canna Coco A + B @ 10ml per gallon: 396 ppm NPK plus Ca and Mg
N = 134 ppm
P = 47 ppm
K = 66 ppm
Ca = 120 ppm
Mg = 29 ppm

Okay... so 145ppms of excess, unexplained, ppms...
(look, I can use font effects too )

To think about this another way... ppm's are also a percentage. Doing a conversion off of the percentages should be fairly simple.

Let us assume we have 3760 milliliters of water with 0-5ppms of unfiltered elements. To this we add 10ml of a solution:
Nitrogen = 40,000 ppms (4%)
Phosphorus = 0 ppms (0%)
Potassium = 10,000 ppms (1%)
Calcium = 45,000 ppms (4.5%)

Then we add 10 ml more of:
Nitrogen = 10,000 ppms (1%)
Phosphorus = 40,000 ppms (4%)
Potassium = 20,000 ppms (2%)
Magnesium = 15,000 ppms (1.2%)

The total is 3780 milliliters of solution.

40,000 ppms of Nitrogen is now in 378 times less concentrated.
40,000/378 = 105.8
And so is the other 10,000 ppms of Nitrogen from the second solution.
10,000/378 = 26.5

Add these together to get 132.3 ppms of Total nitrogen in the 1 gallon solution.
Compared to your estimate and mine... Pretty much dead on.

40,000 ppms of phosphorus is pretty easy to figure out since we did that already. 105.8 is the ppm level there. When I look at my original estimation this matches up. But here is where you and Jorge have informed me that it's 44% of the underestimated that is 56% of 20% which is 8.8% and 60% of the time it works every time... (j/k)
So, following the math and theory here, if I were to take 56% from the 105.8 I should get the actual concentration of elemental phosphorus.

Doing this leaves 46.6, which is pretty much dead on with your ppm levels.

So... I'm just not sure what to believe at the moment. I see the logic there, I just need to see it totally spelled out from a less stoned source I think. My initial formula was ignorant regarding the need to cut the phosphorus level by 56% because it has been overstated on the packaging... for whatever reason...

Potassium is 10,000/378 and 20,000/378 to equal 79.4 ppms. Which is very near my estimate. Cutting that value by 17% I get 65.9, which is closer to your estimate. Same situation here, me not knowing about the need to cut the potassium.

So... I have found a source for your reasoning jberry, but the source isn't necessarily the most credible (because of how it was said, not who said it). When I look at the actual ppm levels of the solution when mixed... It is more comforting for me to use the ppm conversions I've done rather than yours. I have a hard time coming to grips with the difference of 140ppm in the solution compared to your, and Jorge's, calculations. With my calculations this leaves a good 70 ppm's still unaccounted for... which is a lot...

Regardless, 140 ppms is 100% more than 70 ppms, and that's a pretty big deviation of advertised versus actual.

I'm hoping you can find a way of explaining why the Oxide in P2O5 must be calculated out of the final ppms when the Oxide in NO3 is not calculated out. I can think of a few possible reasons (like plants using NO3 as is but having to break the P2 from the O5 because they need the elemental phosphorus alone) but I'd really like someone to clarify what you and Jorge are getting at. I think I get it but I'd like to be sure because there is such a difference between calculation and experimentation.

Thanks, Good Growing.

 

[Snow Crash]

I'd like to make a second point.

This information should be made sticky somewhere. Considering all the problems growers have with element deficiencies and toxicities I think having some simple calculations a person can do to determine more accurately what exactly is being thrown at the plant would make a difference for a lot of people. I don't think I'm about to take it upon myself, because I'm no expert on the matter, but really...

Someone should make a thread with the equations and the explanations behind them to help people estimate their NPK Ca and Mg ppm levels. I think that could be a good resource for growers looking for information on nutrient systems. Like how Dutch Master's Gold line has a pretty desirable concentration and profile for hydroponics without media. Or how H&G has an assload of Potassium in their coco formula compared to Canna.

 

[jberry]

Gimmie a break guy, I was trying to save you from believing the crap you taught yourself last night but now that you want to be a dick I'm thinkin I'm just gunna try to save everyone else from believing your crap. Do you really think that you got this right and the whole world has got it wrong??

(look, I can be a rude dick too )

I tried to let you know you got it wrong for your own sake and because I'm the one who started this thread that your speading your groundbreaking theories on and I felt like I should let the other readers know that your new DIY overcomplicated conversion methods won't work.

You think my formula "has over thunk itself" ?? Well it's not my formula or Jorge Cervantes either (FYI, Jorge's profession is journalism and he is as clueless as you are when it comes to horticulture). The method I used is a factual conversion formula that can be easily documented and verified and is the only method I know of that is being used in the industry.. This is the conversion method that nutrient calculators use as well and it has been used since way before you or Jorge came along.
I know you are trying to save face but now your just grasping at straws... Use whatever methods you like bro but you're not understanding that the nute companies dont want you or their competition to know their formula (good or bad). The left over ppm's are not junk according to the government fertilizer product data base and Canna claims that their Coco A/B is over 99% absorbable essential elements.

 

[Snow Crash]

Gimmie a break guy, I was trying to save you from believing the crap you taught yourself last night but now that you want to be a dick I'm thinkin I'm just gunna try to save everyone else from believing your crap. Do you really think that you got this right and the whole world has got it wrong??

(look, I can be a rude dick too )

I tried to let you know you got it wrong for your own sake and because I'm the one who started this thread that your speading your groundbreaking theories on and I felt like I should let the other readers know that your new DIY overcomplicated conversion methods won't work.

You think my formula "has over thunk itself" ?? Well it's not my formula or Jorge Cervantes either (FYI, Jorge's profession is journalism and he is as clueless as you are when it comes to horticulture). The method I used is a factual conversion formula that can be easily documented and verified and is the only method I know of that is being used in the industry.. This is the conversion method that nutrient calculators use as well and it has been used since way before you or Jorge came along.
I know you are trying to save face but now your just grasping at straws... Use whatever methods you like bro but you're not understanding that the nute companies dont want you or their competition to know their formula (good or bad). The left over ppm's are not junk according to the government fertilizer product data base and Canna claims that their Coco A/B is over 99% absorbable essential elements.

I think what is pissing you off are the results from the actual testing. In practice the ppm levels are much higher than your equations suggest they should be. Hell, higher than in mine too...

10ml of A and 10ml of B in one gallon of water adds up to 540 ppms on my Hanna Meter. Tested it myself just the other day and was maybe a little over-excited when I read the results of my experiment and compared them to my hypothesis.

Yet, based on your method, 140+ ppms of that total is not NPK, Ca, or Mg. Am I wrong to wonder what that 140 ppms might be??? That's my real concern, what's all this extra crap, if it isn't NPK Ca or Mg? You say that Canna says it's all absorbent elements essential to plant growth... but 140ppms worth? I'd like to trust you, and I'm not saying you're wrong, but that value is so high that I MUST take it upon myself to try and determine why.

I'm not saying your method is wrong, or that my method is wrong. I'm just trying to understand why P2O5 is accommodated when NO3 is not. Just seems odd to me and I'd love, love, love to learn why. Can you enlighten me or are you just going to continue bashing?

The original numbers I got were from a little math I did off of the Botanicare web site, this I've stated. It was pretty easy to figure out, took a look at their ppm levels and their nutrient concentrations and divided. I just didn't know that the advertised amount of phosphate was not the actual amount of phosphate. How would I know this???

Doesn't seem true with Botanicare based on their ppm levels. It was impossible for me to infer that the PK levels should be reduced, based on where I developed my idea from.

You claim it is easily cited and factual, part of these "nutrient calculators" but I can't seem to find any of the information you're talking about, except from the source that does back you up whom you've also felt it necessary to discredit. You don't like me, and you don't like Jorge, even though the information he provided in his book backs up your position. Fucking hilarious that you'd discredit someone on your side.

They don't do the same thing with Nitrate and Ammonium, calculating out the Oxygen and Hydrogen, so I have to ask the question again... Because in your blinded rage you failed to recognize it...

Why does Phosphorus Anhydride and Potassium Oxide get some special calculations when Nitrate and Ammonium does not?

I cannot find any reasoning online for this and I'm hoping you'll be able to easily cite this info for anyone interested, as you've claimed. Or are we here to just take you at your word?

Am I really in the wrong place to ask questions?

So let us take a look at the calculated values once again

Snow Crash Original:
Nitrogen = 130ppm
Phosphorus = 105ppm
Potassium = 80ppm
Calcium = 120ppm
Magnesium = 30ppm

jberry original:
N = 134 ppm
P = 47 ppm
K = 66 ppm
Ca = 120 ppm
Mg = 29 ppm

As it is very clear to see jberry has accounted for the molecular weight of the Phosphorus Anhydride and Potassium Oxide to determine the ppm levels of elemental phosphorus and potassium. There is (likely) only 44% of the phosphorus advertised, and 83% of the Potassium advertised. Looking at the ppms from myself and jberry it is no surprise that jberry's levels reflect this loss with the phosphorus 56% less than my calculation and the potassium 17% less than my calculation.

Let us go over the supposedly complicated formula of mine.

1. Multiply the nutrient value on the label by the number of milliliters per gallon.
2. Multiply that outcome by 2.6.

A whole two steps... Sooo complicated and convoluted, huh?

Now let us take a look at how jberry figured out his levels...
Oh wait... no math to review? No formula to present? Just some numbers arbitrarily tossed at us.

Then I went back and did another calculation based on ppm levels.

1. Multiply the nutrient value on the label by 10,000 to get parts per million.
2. Divide by the number of milliliters of the final solution by the number of milliliters of nutrient used.
3. Divide the outcome of step one by the outcome of step two.

Wooo! A whole 'nother step. All of 3 steps is just far too confusing for some people I suppose. Yet, the numbers from both methods come out very similar, so there must be some validity behind both methods.

To take it just a few steps further...
4. Multiply the ppm of Phosphorus by 0.44
5. Multiply the ppm of Potassium by 0.83

And this gets us from my ppm levels using my equation to your ppm levels using your equation.

Both of us used different methods to determine the final ppm estimations, had I known about the difference regarding Phosphorus and Potassium advertised versus actual. I would have accommodated it. I am ever so sorry... This isn't about saving face or grasping at straws, it's infuriating to have to try and defend that and I have no reason to.

In addition, at no time did I try and advertise myself as the expert end all be all of nutrient mixing. I even stated on several occasions that this whole concept is brand new to me and that I just wanted to see what others would say.

I'm not going around spreading misinformation because I'm not claiming my values are 100% perfectly true. I'm providing some information for a person to apply. Yes, you did start this thread, so does that make you King Dick?

You could have been cool about it and said "Oh dude, you probably don't know this, but you have to make secondary calculations for Phosphorus and Potassium because they aren't listed correctly on the labels. Your Phosphorus should be 56% lower and your Potassium 17% lower. Here's a link for you to check out about this." But you didn't. In classic fashion you just came off as the most arrogant and irritated hemorrhoid on the angriest of anuses. Get over yourself. I've lost any and all respect for you. Fuck you dude, I'll be unsubbing from your thread and placing you on ignore, I couldn't care less what your self appointed role is around here.

This discrepancy between stated and actual is my issue. I will be contacting Canna nutrients today so that forum users don't have to take anyone at their word. So that they can get it from the horses mouth.

Total dick move, I know...