Reverse Engineering everyone's nutrients

MisterBlah said:
As I mentioned, I take water samples and send them off to a lab for testing. This gives me a number for the exact amount of macro and micro nutrients that are being used.
Click to expand...

Are you having the fertilizer analyzed to reverse engineer? That's totally cool. I think that's one shortcoming in my spreadsheet method. I just go by the labels. I get the impression the labels aren't accurate because they're minimum guarantees.

For example, some of the more flim-flammy multi-bottle products might completely mis-state those numbers to protect their proprietary "formula." I.e., people aren't buying the product for nutrient content--the quantity of K you get for you dollar. People buy it for the name-recognition, the schedule.

What does that cost to have it analyzed? (I've got one in mind I'd like to do.).
 
hyroot said:
Phosporic acid is the most common preservative in fertilizers. The other 2 are either sulfuric acid or formic acid. All 3 not safe. Over time will cause disease when crops are consumed. Eating or smoking. Your body absorbs those harmful chemicals and can't purge them out so they build up and cause disease. There's several others too. Like ehylenediaminetetraacetic acid which is used as a chelating agents in most bottled nutes.

Phosphoric acid is known for causing skin cancer, eye disorders, kidney disease, and several respiratory and / or lung disorders. It's also in many processed foods and soda.
Click to expand...

Phosphoric acid is not used as a preservative. It's used to provide phosphorus and also reduce the ph of the solution, as a 5.8-6.2 ph is usually best.

Phosphoric acid is actually used in a lot of sodas. Legally of course.

Sulfuric acid and formic acid are the only two on that list that are, for the most part, more harmful than phosphoric acid. But they can still be used responsibly.

az2000 said:
Are you having the fertilizer analyzed to reverse engineer? That's totally cool. I think that's one shortcoming in my spreadsheet method. I just go by the labels. I get the impression the labels aren't accurate because they're minimum guarantees.

For example, some of the more flim-flammy multi-bottle products might completely mis-state those numbers to protect their proprietary "formula." I.e., people aren't buying the product for nutrient content--the quantity of K you get for you dollar. People buy it for the name-recognition, the schedule.

What does that cost to have it analyzed? (I've got one in mind I'd like to do.).
Click to expand...

Contrary to popular belief, fertilizers can't have a proprietary and unknown blend. All the information on what the elemental makeup of a blend is easy to find. Either at the dept of ag or on the bottle. They are required to list this information, by law. The accuracy of these numbers are typically pretty good.

But yes, you are right that people buy it for name recognition. What I'm doing here is showing that name recognition is pointless.

The cost to get a water sample analyzed ranged from $50-100 or so, depending on what you want tested. A lot of universities do it. What bottled blend are you thinking about getting analyzed? I'd happily look into it.
 
MisterBlah said:
Phosphoric acid is not used as a preservative. It's used to provide phosphorus and also reduce the ph of the solution, as a 5.8-6.2 ph is usually best.

Phosphoric acid is actually used in a lot of sodas. Legally of course.

Sulfuric acid and formic acid are the only two on that list that are, for the most part, more harmful than phosphoric acid. But they can still be used responsibly.



Contrary to popular belief, fertilizers can't have a proprietary and unknown blend. All the information on what the elemental makeup of a blend is easy to find. Either at the dept of ag or on the bottle. They are required to list this information, by law. The accuracy of these numbers are typically pretty good.

But yes, you are right that people buy it for name recognition. What I'm doing here is showing that name recognition is pointless.

The cost to get a water sample analyzed ranged from $50-100 or so, depending on what you want tested. A lot of universities do it.
Click to expand...


phosphoric acid is used to stabilize ,., ie a preservative
 
hyroot said:
phosphoric acid is used to stabilize ,., ie a preservative
Click to expand...

A preservative is a substance used to preserve materials from decay.

In chemistry a stabilizer is a chemical which tends to inhibit the reaction between two or more other chemicals.

The way phosphoric acid is used is to lower the ph of the fertigation water. By lowering the ph of the fertigation water, you are actually making most of your fertilizers more available for use by the plants. So, it's actually promoting the reactions and uptake of the chemicals.

It is neither a stabilizer nor a preservative, in context.
 
MisterBlah said:
Contrary to popular belief, fertilizers can't have a proprietary and unknown blend. All the information on what the elemental makeup of a blend is easy to find. Either at the dept of ag or on the bottle.
Click to expand...

I take it that means you haven't found the lab analysis results to be too different from the labeled "minimum" guaranteed analysis?

I was thinking of analyzing something from Advanced Nutrients (pH Perfect, or Jungle Juice). I speculated they might publish 1-5-3 on a label, but actually use 1-6-4. They would meet the legal requirements to publish minimum nutritional content -- without giving away the details.

But, if you're not finding much disparity with other products, it's probably no reason. I just thought, if anyone would engage in that subterfuge... well... never mind.
 
az2000 said:
I take it that means you haven't found the lab analysis results to be too different from the labeled "minimum" guaranteed analysis?

I was thinking of analyzing something from Advanced Nutrients (pH Perfect, or Jungle Juice). I speculated they might publish 1-5-3 on a label, but actually use 1-6-4. They would meet the legal requirements to publish minimum nutritional content -- without giving away the details.

But, if you're not finding much disparity with other products, it's probably no reason. I just thought, if anyone would engage in that subterfuge... well... never mind.
Click to expand...

If anything, the company is going to list 1-5-3 and actually provide 1-4.5-2.5 in the blend, and just round up. As a business, it makes sense to cut costs where you can, right? I mean, I run a business and I know all about cutting costs in places where it doesn't matter. Hence why I do things like this. The thing is, a fertilizer blend had to be accurate in it's analysis and synthesis of nutrient blends as they are analyzed by the department of agriculture.

I'm working on the Advanced Nutrients products and I'll have some of them today, more tomorrow.
 
Dumme said:
...all that knowledge going though all that trouble.

Why not just listen to your plant's needs, and feed accordingly with your own mix, based on their needs? Is way you could introduce better, safer products, as well.
Click to expand...
Yea, right, lets don't bother posting unless its non informative posts.
 
Dumme said:
I didn't say anything about not posting info.
Click to expand...

He's pointing out the fact that your post was a feel good platitude with no methodology, and therefore no substance. I agree with him.

You completely failed to answer the essential question; 'HOW'.

The OP isn't even trying to address that question, he's actually answering WHAT is in the waterbottles, in chemical terms that can then be used for true comparisons or to replicate on one's own.

Therefore, if you'd like to discuss your question further, it makes more sense for you to start another thread. The OP has already requested a minimum of off topic discussion here.
 
Rrog said:
Jesus... Makes me grateful as shit for soil
Click to expand...

...right up until you have to mix and move several cubic yards of it.

You don't see me going around bashing on organics all the time, but the approach has its limits.

Same with hydroponics; not a panacea, but definitely a better mousetrap for a lot of situations.
 
Last edited:
My question was completely rhetorical, and not meant as a debate. I can agree its an interesting read. I just failed to understand why to copy a formula of another for and exact replica, but that's ok. By all means, carry-on as I humbly bow out of the thread.
 
Rrog said:
Jesus... Makes me grateful as shit for soil
Click to expand...

I think you'd be surprised as to how your fertilizer blends should be changed when you grow in soil. I opted out of growing in soil for small stuff because it requires three tests to be accurate with what I'm feeding the plants.

I need to do a water source quality test in order to know what is in my water and whether or not I need to do RO filtration.
I need to do a soil quality test to know what the soil has to offer.
I need to do tissue sampling tests to know what the plant is using or not using, etc.
Then my fertilizer blend is adjusted based on all of that information. With hydroponics, it's simple. Just water quality.

I'll save this for another thread some other time though. I can go a lot more into depth.
 
MisterBlah said:
I think you'd be surprised as to how your fertilizer blends should be changed when you grow in soil. I opted out of growing in soil for small stuff because it requires three tests to be accurate with what I'm feeding the plants.

I need to do a water source quality test in order to know what is in my water and whether or not I need to do RO filtration.
I need to do a soil quality test to know what the soil has to offer.
I need to do tissue sampling tests to know what the plant is using or not using, etc.
Then my fertilizer blend is adjusted based on all of that information. With hydroponics, it's simple. Just water quality.

I'll save this for another thread some other time though. I can go a lot more into depth.
Click to expand...

Don't wait too long, I'm in RDWC and I'd very much like to see what you have to say on the subject.
 
Dumme said:
I just failed to understand why to copy a formula of another for and exact replica, but that's ok.
Click to expand...

I find it informative to see what the multi-bottle "schedules" produce. For example, if someone's deeply pleased with their "lineup," knowing what the actual nutrient profile is could help them recreate it using less expensive products. Or, to play with the profile and learn to "read their plant" (as you suggested.). It's one way to promote that freedom.
 
az2000 said:
I find it informative to see what the multi-bottle "schedules" produce. For example, if someone's deeply pleased with their "lineup," knowing what the actual nutrient profile is could help them recreate it using less expensive products. Or, to play with the profile and learn to "read their plant" (as you suggested.). It's one way to promote that freedom.
Click to expand...

This is why I'm doing it. Lots of people are happy with what they are using. In fact, I'd imagine more than 60 or 70% of us are happy with the blends we are using. That is, we've had good results. So, now here I am providing you with a less expensive way to apply the same blends.

Also, I know that the scales can be an expensive investment for a lot of people. I'll be honest, I didn't initially consider it to be, based on some cash flow analysis I have done, but I digress. Maybe I'll expand my business to add some of this. Maybe not. I've got so much stuff going on that it's hard to find the time to measure out nutrients all day.

Also, I'll get around to sharing my cash flow analysis of Cultured Solutions vs dry blends.
 
Unfortunately, I can't go back and edit the main post to add more due to time limits(they are stupid for main posts). So, I'll finish compiling more blends and I'll post at least 5 at a time from here on out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top