Lets debunk AN and other companies products with FACTS.

[TonightYou]

Math for cost is off, Its a $10.46 difference per harvest.

 

[plaguedog]

Nice post, I simply don't have the time or want to put in the effort you did, but this is exactly my point in previous posts. Basically cost per gallon, or the way you have done it.

 

[TonightYou]

Yea I decided to actually contribute what many of us already know.

This is GLARINGLY obvious and laid out based on the manufactures themselves.

So for those who believe AN is better, please explain why? We've put up, now you can. I and many others have pictures of very healthy plants and amazing harvests. This isn't based on feelings, this is based on math and science. You don't see many "Help I fucked up my plants, I'm using Jacks, what do I do" posts here or anywhere for that matter. So I've put in the effort to make this, and I'm trying to show people that you are paying for marketing. Hell I've done it, and to be honest it pissed me off. I was using Fox Farms, which isn't bad, but has a cost structure much closer to AN for usage. During that time, I was having problems and salt lockouts. Switch to a proper fertilizer, problem solved.

 

[burgertime2010]

The yield is not compared however so price is not the only real factor.

 

[lilroach]

Jack's is expensive??!?!?! I feed up to 11 plants at a time for six months on $10....can't imagine getting any cheaper than that.

 

[burgertime2010]

It is hard to say comparatively unless you are using both side by side and all environmental and genetic factors are identical.

 

[TonightYou]

The yield is not compared however so price is not the only real factor.

Its impossible to compare yield but based on the above science as I've laid out, Jacks is a better fertilizer to use, and would be more likely to give the plant EVERYTHING it needs. There for producing better yields. You are basing this on emotion, not science.
Just look at the difference in the quality of Nitrogen used. Do you know the difference between a nitrate and urea?

Jack's is expensive??!?!?! I feed up to 11 plants at a time for six months on $10....can't imagine getting any cheaper than that.

No, as you know, Jacks isn't expensive at all. In my hypothetical, there are 24 plants harvested a year (52 wks/13 wk cycle= 4 cycles * 6 plants per cycle), at a cost of $1.00 each!

 

[Jbone77]

I think that AN is an example of a line of nutes that if used at dosages and intervals that were less than recommended the effectiveness would increase as the cost would become a bit more justified.

Yes, thank you, AN has a feed schedule that uses a lot of bottles at HIGH doses, however a run with AN does not cost that much, but it does cost more than other lines. I have used a bunch of manufacturers line ups and they all work, if the debate is over cost, its a simple debate, minus equipment, electricity, n seeds I can grow a pound with AN for less than $50, that includes my buckets(reuseable), medium(reuseable), time, and my tap water. I grow in 100% perlite, 3.5 gallon hempy buckets and have absolutely no problem paying $50 a pound using AN with reuseable perlite, I also have no problem spending $50 a pound when I build my own soil (not reuseable) and use Jacks. A dirt grower who doesnt account for the money spent on their dirt in a nutrient debate is an idiot. The price/time of buying/building a soil has to be taken into account, why is buildind a soil with 9 bags of different things and then buying "a complete 1 part fert" better than a hydro guy who buys 5 bottles n has a reuseable medium? Hydroponic growing will tell you immediately how complete a persons 1 part fert is because in hydro if you dont supply it, the plant doesnt get it, simple

 

[burgertime2010]

Its impossible to compare yield but based on the above science as I've laid out, Jacks is a better fertilizer to use, and would be more likely to give the plant EVERYTHING it needs. There for producing better yields. You are basing this on emotion, not science.
Just look at the difference in the quality of Nitrogen used. Do you know the difference between a nitrate and urea?


No, as you know, Jacks isn't expensive at all. In my hypothetical, there are 24 plants harvested a year (52 wks/13 wk cycle= 4 cycles * 6 plants per cycle), at a cost of $1.00 each!

I do know the difference and do not use AN exclusively or the way recommended. My issue is that science requires an outcome to show the datas' validity. A cost/benefit analysis is what is needed. I am not saying AN is better..I use less expensive nutrients as well.

 

[plaguedog]

Its impossible to compare yield but based on the above science as I've laid out, Jacks is a better fertilizer to use, and would be more likely to give the plant EVERYTHING it needs. There for producing better yields. You are basing this on emotion, not science.
Just look at the difference in the quality of Nitrogen used. Do you know the difference between a nitrate and urea?





No, as you know, Jacks isn't expensive at all. In my hypothetical, there are 24 plants harvested a year (52 wks/13 wk cycle= 4 cycles * 6 plants per cycle), at a cost of $1.00 each!

Urea is basically piss, the cheapest form of nitrogen around which has to be changed for lack of a better term to the ammonical form to be of use by the plant. This is why I said AN uses some of the cheapest sourced bull shit around.

Sure yield is a factor in this, but there are a ton of variables at play. Environment, lighting, experience, genetics....etc. the bottom line is AN isn't exactly a complete line, unless you use some of it's ridiculously priced supplements.

 

[TonightYou]

Yes, thank you, AN has a feed schedule that uses a lot of bottles at HIGH doses, however a run with AN does not cost that much, but it does cost more than other lines. I have used a bunch of manufacturers line ups and they all work, if the debate is over cost, its a simple debate, minus equipment, electricity, n seeds I can grow a pound with AN for less than $50, that includes my buckets(reuseable), medium(reuseable), time, and my tap water. I grow in 100% perlite, 3.5 gallon hempy buckets and have absolutely no problem paying $50 a pound using AN with reuseable perlite, I also have no problem spending $50 a pound when I build my own soil (not reuseable) and use Jacks. A dirt grower who doesnt account for the money spent on their dirt in a nutrient debate is an idiot. The price/time of buying/building a soil has to be taken into account, why is buildind a soil with 9 bags of different things and then buying "a complete 1 part fert" better than a hydro guy who buys 5 bottles n has a reuseable medium? Hydroponic growing will tell you immediately how complete a persons 1 part fert is because in hydro if you dont supply it, the plant doesnt get it, simple

Medium costs would be the same regardless of which fertilizer one chose to go with. You'd be an idiot to think they are any different based on what fertilizer you chose to use, fertilizer use and medium are independent of one another. They'd be the same cost regardless. I was focusing on the fertilizer cost only. I am soilless by the way, Happy Frog cut with about 40% perlite. I don't reuse, so my expenses on mediums is a bit higher, but that doesn't change what my fertilizer costs are per grow. Even counting the time is miniscule for picking up medium supplies, one 20 minute run on my lunch break 3 times a year.

And I will say that yes, fertilizer amounts are a bit high but when you adjust them to usage, it is close to being equal, a tablespoon of jacks is about 750 ppm, and it seems that AN may be a bit higher at .4ml or .5 ounce/gallon. Even if you adjust downwards for both, as I'd agree its a bit high, it still favors Jacks. Even saying going full hydro, Jacks has a product for that, which can easily be adapted to my scenario removing Classic and Jacks. I'd anticipate it would cost a little more than my predictions, but it would still be far less than the $16.46 a grow with AN.

What you haven't even touched on is the complete nutrient make up of Jacks. How could AN be better with an incomplete formula, and less available nutrients for the plants themelves?
I mean, look at this funny fuckin' chart
This is what makes up "science" at AN. "Satisfaction of ADVANCE GROWERS!". No, Science is comparing nutrient availability, and how available the nutrients are for a plant to utilize. This is emotion, not quantifiable data, such as what I've laid out.

 

[plaguedog]

Yes, thank you, AN has a feed schedule that uses a lot of bottles at HIGH doses, however a run with AN does not cost that much, but it does cost more than other lines. I have used a bunch of manufacturers line ups and they all work, if the debate is over cost, its a simple debate, minus equipment, electricity, n seeds I can grow a pound with AN for less than $50, that includes my buckets(reuseable), medium(reuseable), time, and my tap water. I grow in 100% perlite, 3.5 gallon hempy buckets and have absolutely no problem paying $50 a pound using AN with reuseable perlite, I also have no problem spending $50 a pound when I build my own soil (not reuseable) and use Jacks. A dirt grower who doesnt account for the money spent on their dirt in a nutrient debate is an idiot. The price/time of buying/building a soil has to be taken into account, why is buildind a soil with 9 bags of different things and then buying "a complete 1 part fert" better than a hydro guy who buys 5 bottles n has a reuseable medium? Hydroponic growing will tell you immediately how complete a persons 1 part fert is because in hydro if you dont supply it, the plant doesnt get it, simple

What you don't understand is most of the dry BULK soil amendments you can use for hundreds of grows are pennies on the dollar compared to dumping 5 over priced, watered down bottles into a nutrient reservoir. It really isn't close in terms of cost per grow. When you are mixing a few cups of a dry soil amendment into a cubic foot of soil it's not even comparable considering you can get kelp, rock phosphate, oyster shell, CRF (20-50lb bags)...etc for very cheap from the right sources and use so little of it. And then you can reuse this soil mix cutting down the cost even more while having a balanced, and healthy growing medium just by adding a little more amendment each time.

There are a ton of ways to grow good plants, but like I said nothing beats experience.

 

[TonightYou]

What you don't understand is most of the dry BULK soil amendments you can use for hundreds of grows are pennies on the dollar compared to dumping 5 over priced, watered down bottles into a nutrient reservoir. It really isn't close in terms of cost per grow. When you are mixing a few cups of a dry soil amendment into a cubic foot of soil it's not even comparable considering you can get kelp, rock phosphate, oyster shell, CRF (20-50lb bags)...etc for very cheap from the right sources and use so little of it. And then you can reuse this soil mix cutting down the cost even more while having a balanced, and healthy growing medium just by adding a little more amendment each time.

There are a ton of ways to grow good plants, but like I said nothing beats experience.

Oh I absolutely agree with you, and that is even a more cost effective, and very complete way of growing. If I had a greenhouse or some nice land, this is exactly what I'd be doing

I'm in an apartment. That really isn't the most feasible method for me. As such, like many others growing indoors, we rely on bottles or tubs. I'm trying to show the comparison between using these two different products. At the end of the day, Jacks is more complete with higher nutrient availability, and costs far less per plant.

 

[burgertime2010]

Medium costs would be the same regardless of which fertilizer one chose to go with. You'd be an idiot to think they are any different based on what fertilizer you chose to use, fertilizer use and medium are independent of one another. They'd be the same cost regardless. I was focusing on the fertilizer cost only. I am soilless by the way, Happy Frog cut with about 40% perlite. I don't reuse, so my expenses on mediums is a bit higher, but that doesn't change what my fertilizer costs are per grow. Even counting the time is miniscule for picking up medium supplies, one 20 minute run on my lunch break 3 times a year.

And I will say that yes, fertilizer amounts are a bit high but when you adjust them to usage, it is close to being equal, a tablespoon of jacks is about 750 ppm, and it seems that AN may be a bit higher at .4ml or .5 ounce/gallon. Even if you adjust downwards for both, as I'd agree its a bit high, it still favors Jacks. Even saying going full hydro, Jacks has a product for that, which can easily be adapted to my scenario removing Classic and Jacks. I'd anticipate it would cost a little more than my predictions, but it would still be far less than the $16.46 a grow with AN.

What you haven't even touched on is the complete nutrient make up of Jacks. How could AN be better with an incomplete formula, and less available nutrients for the plants themelves?
I mean, look at this funny fuckin' chart View attachment 2929902
This is what makes up "science" at AN. "Satisfaction of ADVANCE GROWERS!". No, Science is comparing nutrient availability, and how available the nutrients are for a plant to utilize. This is emotion, not quantifiable data, such as what I've laid out.

I also think that nutrient ratios make up a key aspect to a good fertilizer. This has not been addressed....just scientifically speaking. So, a conclusion cannot be made without yield, relative nutrient ratios, and a cost/benefit analysis.

 

[lilroach]

I'm guessing I've harvested 10 plants (more actually, but going with 10 for easy math) since June. I averaged around 3.5 ounces per plant, that's just shy of 3 lbs using one $10 tub of Jacks. I would say that's a favorable cost/benefit analysis.

 

[TonightYou]

I also think that nutrient ratios make up a key aspect to a good fertilizer. This has not been addressed....just scientifically speaking. So, a conclusion cannot be made without yield, relative nutrient ratios, and a cost/benefit analysis.

And the nutrient levels are listed right in my post and linked to the respected product websites. That has been addressed, you either didn't read it, or don't understand the difference. Trying to be engaging, not trying to be a dick, as you are being an engaging contributor to the conversation. What is your take away from the two different compositions of the fertilizers?

 

[burgertime2010]

And the nutrient levels are listed right in my post and linked to the respected product websites. That has been addressed, you either didn't read it, or don't understand the difference. Trying to be engaging, not trying to be a dick, as you are being an engaging contributor to the conversation. What is your take away from the two different compositions of the fertilizers?

I am just offering the variables I see missing, not making a case for AN or Jacks. The Ideal composition is not simply values it is results based upon experimentation. Science is referred to and I am just making a complete list of variables here.

 

[Jbone77]

Medium costs would be the same regardless of which fertilizer one chose to go with. You'd be an idiot to think they are any different based on what fertilizer you chose to use, fertilizer use and medium are independent of one another. They'd be the same cost regardless. I was focusing on the fertilizer cost only. I am soilless by the way, Happy Frog cut with about 40% perlite. I don't reuse, so my expenses on mediums is a bit higher, but that doesn't change what my fertilizer costs are per grow. Even counting the time is miniscule for picking up medium supplies, one 20 minute run on my lunch break 3 times a year.

And I will say that yes, fertilizer amounts are a bit high but when you adjust them to usage, it is close to being equal, a tablespoon of jacks is about 750 ppm, and it seems that AN may be a bit higher at .4ml or .5 ounce/gallon. Even if you adjust downwards for both, as I'd agree its a bit high, it still favors Jacks. Even saying going full hydro, Jacks has a product for that, which can easily be adapted to my scenario removing Classic and Jacks. I'd anticipate it would cost a little more than my predictions, but it would still be far less than the $16.46 a grow with AN.

What you haven't even touched on is the complete nutrient make up of Jacks. How could AN be better with an incomplete formula, and less available nutrients for the plants themelves?
I mean, look at this funny fuckin' chart View attachment 2929902
This is what makes up "science" at AN. "Satisfaction of ADVANCE GROWERS!". No, Science is comparing nutrient availability, and how available the nutrients are for a plant to utilize. This is emotion, not quantifiable data, such as what I've laid out.

your joking arent u? My perlite is inert, it supplies no nutrients and is reuseable, why would Jacks be a "complete fert" when they make a hydro version? Jacks also sells calcium nitrate that is 5x the cost of everyone elses, is it a better calnit? ....no, they labeled it, marked it up A LOT, n sold it, just like AN n Canna. I will play the game with ya if u want, what is Jacks made from? What is the cal, mag, and nitrogen ratio? Why is spending money buying/building a soil better than spending the same money on nutes with a inert/reuseable medium? Is Fox farm soil reuseable? I can grow a pound using AN for less than $50 including my medium so how much does it cost u to grow a pound using fox farm dirt n Jacks?

 

[churchhaze]

No, I recommend getting generic (yara) calcium nitrate. It's way cheaper, and interchangeable with the Jack's calcium nitrate.

Great question btw. Jack's calcium nitrate is overpriced, but I still really like the way they have the line setup.

Again, for everyone else, you should not use Jack's classic in a hydroponic setup. The Jack's hydroponic version has low ammonium and urea content, lots of calcium, and lots of nitrate from the calcium nitrate.

http://www.cropking.com/HydroponicSupplies/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=264_265&products_id=342

And since Jacks is such a respectable company that doesnt sell snake oil, why is their calcium nitrate so expensive? Is it special calcium nitrate?

 

[TonightYou]

Since I don't grow in hydro I cannot speak of how well Jack's works with that grow medium. I knew they had a hydro formula, but didn't feel I could recommend something I've never used.

As far as lime in the soil......I use Jack's with Happy Frog or Ocean Forest....not sure if either has lime, but I can say it works with these two soils.

Bagged "organic" soil is indeed a convenience more than anything. Some of us just don't have the room or the inclination to go through the hoops required to make our own soil.

Lilroach, if you are using Happy Frog or OF, it is more of a soil less medium. You provide the majority of the nutes needed, its actually closer to growing hydro than soil as it is primarily humus. Humus is broken down, stable material which no longer (for the most part its fuzzy here) can decompose any further. Ocean Forest contains humus (which we covered), sandy loam (used for drainage, retaining water and nutrients, inactive made of sand, silt), and sphangum (just moss, holds water and nutrients). So it really isn't soil, more of a medium which can be somewhat charged with nutrients but needs at least for cannabis, additional fertilization.