If there is a feed I like on the market, like the 15-16-17 peat lite special. I would rather buy from a labor issue.
We would save custom blends when we need a small quantity. If we develop a formulation we like we farm out the manufacturing. You only need to buy a pallet of a custom blend at a time.
truth. im constantly testing formulas. working on a blend i like for my home lab.
High guys, I will keep this little game open for another week to see if anyone will play 
Peters 15-5-15:
1.1% NH4 N = 453.6g/lb x 0.011= 4.99g NH4 N/lb x 82.245% N = 4.10g N/lb = 0.9% N by weight
11.8% NO3 N = 453.6g/lb x 0.118 = A = 53.52g NO3 N/lb x 26% N = 13.92g N/lb = 3.07% N by weight
2.1% Ur N = 453.6g/lb x0.021 = 9.53g Ur N/lb x 47% N = 4.48g N/lb = 0.99% N by weight
TOTAL = 22.5 g N/lb = 4.96% N by weight
x 25 lbs/bag = 562.5g N/bag= 0.5625 kg N/bag = B
@$48/bag/B = $85.33/kg N / 2.2 lbs/kg = $38.79/lb N
@$48/bag/A x 25lbs/bag = $16.31/lb NO3
Peters 21-7-7:
10.6% Ur N = 453.6g/lb x 0.106 = 48.08g Ur N/lb x 47% N = 22.60g N/ lb = 4.98% N by weight
10.4% NH4 N = 453.6g/lb x 0.104 = 47.17g NH4 N/lb x 82.245% N = 38.80g N/lb = 8.55% N by weight
TOTAL = 61.4g N/lb = 13.5% N by weight
x 25 lbs/bag = 1.535kg N/bag = B
@$43/bag/B = $28.01/kg N / 2.2lbs/kg = $12.73/lb N
Price of NO3 is undefined
Peters 15-16-17 Peat-Lite:
3.15% ammoniacal nitrogen = 453.6g/lb x .0315 = 14.29g NH4 N/lb x 82.245% N = 11.75g N/lb = 2.56%N by weight
9.25% nitrate nitrogen = 453.6g/lb x 0.0925 = A = 41.96g NO3 N/lb x 26%N = 10.91g N/lb = 2.4%N by weight
2.60% urea nitrogen = 453.6g/lb x 0.026 = 11.79g Ur N/lb x 47%N = 5.54g N/lb = 1.2%N by weight
TOTAL = 28.2g N/lb = 6.2%N by weight
x 25 lbs/bag =0.705 kg N/bag = B
$42/bag/B= $59.58/kg N/bag / 2.2 lbs/kg = $27.08/lb N
$42/bag/Ax25 lbs/bag = $18.20/kg NO3
Making the Peters 21-7-7 the most cost effective source of Nitrogen
âŚwhile the Peters 15-5-15 is the most cost effective source of Nitrate
However I would only use one of them with hard water 
Max solubility is listed on each bag, no need to regurgitate it here.
No responsible grower would use a âbalancedâ fertilizer. NO plant species use nutrients in a 1:1:1 ratio. They all use N in much higher quanitities which leads to fertilization rates tied to N, leading to leaching of P into ground water (leading to eutrophication in freshwater systems) and buildup of K in many soils.
The organic problem is really a trick question as they generally do not contain specific forms of nitrogen like the synthetics do, but mixtures of various amino acids, sometimes with other nitrogenous compounds, in highly variable ratios. However there is one easy one that is technically âUSDA organicâ:
Chilean Nitrate
98.11% NaNO3 x 62gNO3/mol NaNO3 / 85g/mol NaNO3 = 71%NO3 x 50lbs/bag = 35.78lbs NO3/bag x 26%N/lb NO3 = 9.3 lbs N/bag
@ $31.75/bag the price of N is $3.41/lb
http://www.7springsfarm.com/sodium-nitrate-allganic-50-lb
However the real price of using NaNO3 nitrogen may be higher in weathered soils as additional Mg and Ca would be called for to prevent the Sodium replacing the Alkaline Earth metals in the CEC.
Itâs not waterâŚthose are unicorn tears youâre paying for and they have been proven to increase Cannabis yields by 100%
âŚover not using any fertilizer at all
The sisters of Saint Agnew thanking you for finding a use for unicorn tears. They found unicorn tears hard to sell, except tp the most divoted. Canned Unicorns may be found here. Unfortunately they are out of stock at this time. 
Ethan
In field production a balanced firtilzer for big 3 crops in this county keeps food prices low. If haddled correctly little problems with run off. When handled badly lots of pollution. Timing is everything.
In the greenhouse only useful in a base for mixing your own. Depending on the nitrogen type. We looked for balance firtilzer that nitrate was primary source. Our temperatures would make a ammonium and urea toxic. To cold at night for good conversation through normal channels in the greenhouse. We looked for root zone Temps of 61 F or 16 C. For our winter crops. This temp was a compromise between latherous and anenome. The peas wanted lower root zone Temps than the anemones.
We where forced to mix our own basic fertilizer before we mastered our water. Phosphoric acid was required in our mix. Once we figured out the base we could go to WR Grace at the time and they would blend out base fertilizer. Only a single palate was required for purchase.
My only issue with organic food for plants is finding one that meets a chemical standard for consistency. When thay are listed as plant food, I mostly paying for a water shipping. Large dryed sources were hard to find in the 1990âs.
In sideby sides of end products, floricultue in nature, a top drawer organic grow can match plant for plant. Average organic growers struggles and create site pollution with Tea production. I spent long hours with a friend who had a good tie in with organic food groups in Kansas City. But, I spent hours every quarter titating his latest tea run. So he could have a consistent grow. He paid me in old organic laying hens cleaned the way I liked. He also helped me with to getting to fields certified organic, I paid in sweet peas for his wife. I was convicted child 3 to 6 where from flowers I gave her husband. 
Remember, there is a place for both organic and inorganic fertilizer. It is the responsibility grower to make sure what the feed does not end up in the drain.
Phosphorus is so key in great flowering production. I was a flower grower.
In our CLF method we collected run off for analysis. If the plants where not using what we feed adjustment where made. I did not want anything from my pocket book waisted.
Marketing also plays a role in choices. If you pay me more to grow cirtified organic I will grow organic. If you pay me the same. I am going to produce with the best cost/return basis. Rember, you have to put food on your family table first.
You get a big star for showing your work. But, not all the entries are in. 
How would you teach growers bucket chemistry?
@Growernick, here is our first finalist.
One more thought half of the country grows in areas that water hard with high buffer. Think of chunks of calcium coming out of the pipe. Think of the areas with karst topography.
15-5-15 can be a good starting point.
Our water was so hard that insectidale soap would separate in the tap water.
We used phosphoric acid to deal with the hardness and adjust everything around this hard fact.
Each grow has to pick feed based on the limiting factors of the grow.
My comment about using balanced fertilizers also applies to organics. Composted manure is probably the most commonly used organic fertilizer and itâs basically a balanced fertilizer with a NPK around 1:1:1.
The farm I currently work at has been fertilized heavily with compost over the years and now we have a situation where our soil has built up so much potash that levels in the soil are bordering on toxicity for many crops. Luckily Cannabis is great at taking up potash and weâre in the process of bioremediating it. Unfortunately this means we have to remove all that biomass rather than returning it to the soil. As a result weâve had to resort to finding and using unusual sources of fertilizers and organic matter that do not contain significant amounts of K until we can get these levels down.
My point is that any balanced fertilizer, natural or synthetic, can be deleterious to a soil over time because plants simply do not take up macronutrients at an even ratio. This just highlights the need for monitoring soil nutrient levels and using fertilizer blends that roughly match those a crop uses. It is far less important in container grown systems because the grower is not re-using the growing media from season to season. Perhaps even more important is the development and use of varieties that have high nutrient use efficiencies, something that most breeding programs donât even think about. Conventional breeding has been all about high inputs for high outputs since WWII. Hopefully Cannabis wonât end up down the same route.
All farmers have problems, 80% if my time was indoor production. But, my really hard core organic field growing friends where generally good agronomist. Some where poor chemist and I would trade lab time for produce we did not grow for regular soil testing. The best was old laying hens from an organic grower.
Nutritional testing in the field is just as important in the greenhouse.
If my bad memory serves me, there was a good book written in the early 1980âs on professional organic field production, for certified production. The two authors, one was an agronomist and the other was a hard core certified organic grower. I canât think of the title.
K03 is a funny salt. I think the field midigation method for excess potassium was a cover crop of flowering clover produced for animal feed. Clover can use and sequester potassium in the flowers.
As a rule we over feed.
I do want to push my crops but on the nitigen side I am looking for 200 to 400 ppm in the greenhouse. More than that I see more nitrogen and the rest of my nutrition profile in my run off. The big nitrogen pigs I have grown are renuculus for cut flowers and poinsettia (other places, as I hate them after producing 20 million cuttings one season) these two crops grew best at 400 to 600 ppm of nitrogen.
My best guess is cannabis will feed heavier in the vegetative cycle up to 400ppm of nitrogen and Calcium with good light, CO2. But, post vegetative 200 ppm for nitrogen and Calcium. Light and CO2 are the most likely limiting factor in the vegetative cycle. Less likely CO2 as a limiting factor post flower instantiation.
When I see plants with really good dry wieght at the end of the vegetative cycle, the grower had done everything right. Regardless of the crop grown. Most plant do not significantly add much dry weight one flowering is induced. Most of the work in flowering is moving existing stores of food and production of new carbohydrates go to the flowers. But, dry wieght just does not significantly change in flowering crops.
In plants that that have multiple flushes of flowers and fruit throw out everything I said. For example tomatoes, feed a bit differently.
But, cannabis definitely follows this pattern. Dry wieght is mostly achieved during the vegetative cycle.
My feed style is a bit different from the rest of the group.
Cutting stage 1:1:1:1 NPKCa at 50 to a 100 ppm of nitrogen rooted in oasis with a good mist system. Light and temperatures closely controled. I like warm roots cool tops
Vegetative cycle I want 1:1:1:1 at 200 going up to 400 ppm at the high end.
Pre flower induction I switch to a 1:3:2:1 at about 200 ppm about two weeks before flowering.
Post flower instantiation about 2 weeks after my dark cycle start date. I switch back to 1:1:1:1 feed in a tapered fashion at 200 ppm.
I begin reducing my feed from the first visual signs of flowering to two weeks prior to my target end date. I start reducing feed from 200 ppm to 50 ppm. I bases this by what is in my affluent from the crop 24 hours after the feed I do a controlled flush and measure the amount of nutrition that washes out of the pot, using a titration of each macro nutrient. If things are correct all is good feed is adjusted on what the plant tells me. I listen.
About two weeks prior to target harvest I start clean water treated water.
The thing I just learned from @ron that I probably have my perferd pH to high for cannabis product. Ron, thinks and I think from reading last night that I need to look at a lower pH in my production practice. I use to target 6.8 for most of my soiless crops. I would be willing to try 6.2, but I am scared to try lower without a lot of side by side production, trials. I donât think my Latherous would grow that low but all my other crops would tolerate and thrive a Lower pH. Latherous would start showing toxisity of some micro nutritional elements, and bud drop would kill me.
You can correct an indoor feed problem over night with very visual signs. In the crop health.
I also pick a final size container from the planning phase. From starter to finish container size. I donât want any transplant stress more than once. We move containers for spacing two to three times during the grow. I suspect we are loosing potency in the finished product with the stress of transplanting to larger and larger containers. A plant will grow to the size of the container. If dry wieght is the goal and we use grams of dry wieght per square foot week I bet we can get the optimal out put at 5 gallon container size.
The question is are you limited by the number of plants in your license or square feet of production. If square feet is my limitations I am going to go smaller in container size because as a grower I can more influence in the grow. I would probably grow in a 3 gallon size. If I was limited buy number of plants I would up my container size.
If I was growing hydroponicly spacing is going to be my driver from the get go. Maybe one of the larger net baskets the tomato growers use.
@ron will you teach our nutrition posts? I was going to try to see if Jack Peterson Jr. would join and do the class but you are here first. Please read the whole post and correct my mistakes. We all can learn. And I am happy to admit when I am wrong b
@omykiss1953, can you do a post harvest handling primer? From a food safety and preserving the secondary matabolites we have worked so hard to produce. I bet we are introducing some bad things by poor practices.
Last call for submitting an answer.
There will be a prize for best answer.
From the voices in my head.
Ethan
And the winner is @Farmer_Dan.
Can you please find the highest price for Nitrogen âplant foodââ vs a balance soluble source of nitrate.
Why one over the other
@Growernick what is the swage for Mr Dan?
Dan idea for another topic. Like what it means to run a business. Some good growing numbers from nexus. Go there site lots of hard data and maybe get some state numbers. I think I have a set of metrics and maybe a way for seven to eight turns in 12 months with a big return. But, not sure it can scale. I am betting 20k to an 40k sqft and a steady workforce and food four a family to six and schools. Interest?
Iâm not sure what the MOST expensive is, but I am sure it comes from a bottle of mostly water. I just looked around at what I know to expensive branded bottles fertilizer and House & Garden Bio-1 Component comes in at $4.35/gN, when bought at 200L ($1729). 0.2-0.2-0.5 (0.16% is nitrate N, 0.04% is ammonical). 
I think the biggest difference is the ânutrient calculatorâ, to which I have told people that you can find something that with a little math l, you can recreate any recipe and us the same feed schedule.
Sure, Iâm will to contribute numbers to a business thread. I actually just met with a chemical engineer that trains cannabis lab personnel. We were talk about costs of running a business, he said he hasnât met anyone who tracks costs like I do. He said the one grower told him that he âdidnât write it downâ because he didnât want anyone to know how much his costs were, where as I published an article detailing all of my costs. 
I think people are getting better overall, or the worst money managers have hemorrhaged enough money to fail by now. Tracking COGS is business 101. I get it though⌠When I was getting a solid $3200/lb black market, I didnât track cost like I do now (I still tracked cost), but we are all in the real business world now.
I am going to see if I can find one more expensive. 
From the voices in my head
Ethan
How about a plant food that has no NPK at all for 180 a liter. They recommend to use promix to grow in. 
From the voices in my head
Ethan
So $â/gN?
Loads of overpriced items and just plain old snake oil out there, but it has been this way for years.
How about $22 for 2lbs of sugar?
22 dollars OY! I have a bridge for you.
How about sand at $4 dollars a pound? 
I agree that H&G is one of the most expensive lines out there when you look at how they break up their formula into 13 parts and even more so when they figured out how to size their bottles so you will never run out of all of them at the same time if you follow their feeding charts. Brilliant marketing but ridiculous to think that any commercial grower would ever touch this stuff. I also want to point out that they use a loophole in the labeling laws which is why you see the NPK numbers as fractions. As long as the bottle contains AT LEAST what is on the label itâs legal. You can be hundreds, or in this case thousands of times higher than whatâs on the label but if you are under at all, they will(department of ag) fine you. If you do the math on their product labels and then send in the resulting feed tot he lab, you will see that these numbers are false. You can also see that they list their base nutrients as being derived from pH up and pH down and nothing else! As long as they donât claim an element on the label, they donât have to list it in the derivative statement. As an example, their labels on their base formula shows no magnesium or calcium or trace elements but once mixed and tested, they are in there. They have to be or plants wonât grow but since they donât list them, they arenât required to show them. I think itâs in fear of people figuring out their formula and then realizing how much they have been getting ripped off! A couple of dollars worth of raw materials and a lot of water for a crazy high price!
Thank you Ron. You have any new business I can generate. And that is hard for an old peters user.
Do you have a small amount of general purpose feed. I would need 8oz just to play home gardener. Something like the peat light special 15:16:17 I use about a pound total a year theses days. This way I can say I have used your product.
There are a lot of snake oil salesman out there. All the âPlant Foodâ suppliers fall in this space. If you canât provide a legal fertilizer label to me, your are selling crap!
Your labels are beautiful HGV great label
From the voices in my head.
Ethan.
