The Great Phosphorus Myth?

KaliKali Stoned FreePosts: 369
edited February 2010 in Hydroponics
Or is this just Advanced doing some advantageous marketing.

what I found interesting was how much Nitrogen was used in flowering.

The best tasting pot i've smoked was grown with no Nitrogen in flower...
And the growers own tailored nutrient profile....Maybe he'll chime in and let us know the numbers....

I dont use synthetic ferts for the most part but maybe this could change how i apply my organics.

what do all the canna brains think of this?
Post edited by Kali on


  • Monseigneur StroganoffMonseigneur Stroganoff Posts: 4,536
    edited February 2010

    another company could said the same thing
    just look at him sitting there with plastic plants in the background
    why isnt he pissing on his own products that have high numbers of Phosphorus??
    kushy kush hahahah what a name! playing on the kush craze,.,.,.$$$$$$$$$

    chemistry. it is what it is
  • c-rayc-ray germinating Posts: 15,145
    edited February 2010
    so why is he bringing us this information now? 6 years later?

    does the plant actually need more nitrogen in flower or does it use more when it is available?
    does too much phosphorus actually make the smoke me the science behind that one please, or is it more a case of wasted phosphorus because there is excess P in solution and it is not being used/assimilated by the plant...?

    those graphs are nice and all but they don't mean much without actual first hand smoking experience of those particular do we know that the buds that were tested back in 2003 were actually decent smoke and not mediocre or worse.. not over fed garbage?

    what can we infer from some graphs of some buds that were likely all grown with the same regimen?
    why did they not grow the same plant with various nutrient regimens, and then look at what smoked the best and what smoked the worst and actually got some usable data?

    I personally don't know anyone who grows top notch tasty bud who actually uses the AN program, nor have encountered top notch tasty bud grown according to their programs...
    graphs are nice but can we smoke them?

    thanks for posting this btw

    there are some pretty valid comments on that page too, for instance:
    not disagreeing just feel like a couple things need to be stated, the gas chromatography tests of tissue samples would show what's IN the tissue NOT what the tissue is USING, just because there's lots of N in the tissue doesn't mean it needs lots of N, in fact the inverse could be possibly, maybe the plant isn't using that much N so it's building up in the tissue due to lack of use and maybe the low levels of phosphorus only means the plants are using the phosphorus, a key role of phosphorus is in root development so maybe the levels are higher is the root zone, did you take tissue samples of the root zone? or just buds and foliage
    Maybe the phosphorus was low because the plant uses up the phosphorus quickly!?!

    Maybe the plant tissue samples aren't representative of the correct proportions that the plant actually needs!?!

    If the plant needs that little phosphorus, why did you recently change the formula of Big Bud from 0-1-4 to 0-2-4, where the former seems to better reflect your nice graph?

    It would be nice if someone that maybe understands the study a little better (maybe with a background in science… Eric) could explain it more thoroughly. As it stands not enough info is provided to understand the study… (although that evidently won't stop some people from being amazed at the first sight of a bar chart).
    Umm, yea, right. Your phosphorous myth is BS. Your testing methodology was absolutely flawed, and quite unscientific. Your marketing is weak at best. You say you don't need so much phosphorous but yet you offer products LOADED DOWN WITH PHOSPHOROUS.

    Phosphorous is a main base in DNA. Your levels of phosphorous are absolutely unrealistic. Try the same test with truly DRY material so you don't have water skewing your results. Any real scientist with any Chromatography experience knows that.

    ~Oaksterdam University Student Body
    To accept a test like this, we need to know how it was done.

    As far as I understand, leafs were sent in the lab.

    -what part of the plant were they taken?
    -how many of them?
    -under what conditions were the plants cultivated?
    -were any other parts of the plant tested (stem, flower, roots, buds…)
    "One cannot develop taste from what is of average quality but only from the very best."
    Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe
  • caddiscaddis fish food Posts: 974
    edited February 2010
    Cool link. Whilst surfing some regular planty gaedening forums I came across a thread on phosphorus use or more correctly its over use.
    The guy who started the thread was using dyna-gro nutes so he emailed them to find out their thoughts on the subject. Well he ended up getting the president of the company to answer, he said basically the same thing, that the plant uses way less phosphorous than what nute companys are putting into there mixes. Then why the fuk do they do it? His answer was they do it because "thats what the consumer wants"....

    I'll try to find the web page.

    “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.” JFK
  • caddiscaddis fish food Posts: 974
    edited February 2010
    Some of you may recall that I have long maintained that high phosphorus(P) fertilizers are pointless.

    I also am a fan of Dyna-Gro fertilizers for container usage.

    I was asked recently 'If high P fertilizers are so useless then why does Dyna-Gro make and market them?'

    My answer was simply to have a product that people wanted, but that was just my opinion. I decided to ask the company (Dyna-Gro) about this. At first I got a very brief response from a representative that wasn't at all satisfying so I asked that rep to forward my question to someone responsible for deciding what their formulations would be. I ended up getting a response from the CEO. Here it is, I think you will find it interesting.


    You are correct. We market a high P (Liquid Bloom) "believe" they need this. As you have noted, our Foliage-Pro does a great job start to finish. However, it is simpler to give the market what they think they need than to try to reeducate it. There is some evidence to believe that low N helps to convince a plant to stop its vegetative growth and move into its reproductive phase (flowering), but environmental factors are probably more important. P is typically 5th or 6th in order of importance of the six macronutrients. There is little scientific justification for higher P formulas, but marketing does come into play for the vast majority of users who lack any real understanding of plant nutritional requirements. Therefore, the market is flooded with a plethora of snake oil products that provide little benefit and can actually do harm. For example, one exhibitor at a hydroponic trade show had a calcium supplement with 2% calcium derived from calcium chloride. Can you guess what continued application of 2% chloride would do to plants?'\
    I hope this answers your question and am sorry for Zina's inaccurate response.
    Dave Neal, CEO
    Dyna-Gro Nutrition Solutions
    2775 Giant Rd.
    Richmond, CA 94806
    800-Dyna-Gro, Fax: 510-233-0198

    Follow-Up Postings:
    “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.” JFK
  • Monseigneur StroganoffMonseigneur Stroganoff Posts: 4,536
    edited February 2010
    AN is the number one snake oil seller so its kinda difficult to take them serious
    Am I alone having that view?? They do have some good products but much is just :bs:

    Yes! Why come 6 years after he found out? So he could sell more nutrients??

    All the latest products they come with looks like a new wrap up. They even say that the Bud Candy is just a mix of sweet leaf and carboload. Couldt they just say that people should go get a big sack of molasses?? The information they give is marketed science and its not for us farmers is it?

    Money is the motive of enlighten dont you all see?? Even they are right in sickening high P numbers to sell more.

    "specially designed for kush plants"
    what about other plants?

    what happends out in the nature? In the fall? Isnt it about stimulating genes? Why havent the trillion other growers in the world found out this ages ago?

    too many stupid thoughts going tru my head right now, I rather puff on this joint...
  • LokiLoki Banned Posts: 188
    edited February 2010
    Somebody just gave me a copy of their magazine "Rosebud". There's an ad (or 20 or 30) in there with AN's complete nutrient product lineup. There's over a dozen jugs pictured in the ad. What a scam that company is.
  • ParabolaParabola lex injusta non est lex Posts: 1,072
    edited February 2010
    "Let him who wishes to be deceived, be deceived" - Maxim of Law

    "The man who craves disciples and wants followers is always more or less of a charlatan. The man of genuine worth and insight wants to be himself; and he wants others to be themselves, also." ~ Elbert Hubbard
  • crazy cootercrazy cooter Occasional Visitor Posts: 94
    edited February 2010
    I didn't read the link but...

    I'm convinced that no extra P is needed in flowering and that insoluble forms of nitrogen are fine in flower. A good 5-5-5 fertilizer will carry you all the way through the life of a plant and using mild applications of fish hydrolysate in flowering actually encourages fungal growth which increases a the plant's access to P sequestered in the soil.

    I'm also convinced that this is only true when you have soil with thriving populations of microbes, which can't be done using AN soluble nutrients.
  • sammo Junior Member Posts: 1
    edited February 2010
    Anyone using pure water, such as distilled in their mixing?
Sign In or Register to comment.