Nutrients - powders vs liquids

Comments I’ve seen elsewhere are that DC leaves a residue and its contents are under-specified, throwing the nutrient mix off.

What I have seen work, as long as you can make it through a complete cycle without clogging, is to use a dry acid flush at the end of the run. The one I’m familiar with is specific to GrowoniX, but citric acid may work also.

Easy cleaning is one of the several benefits of high flow emitters.

4 Likes

It seems to me that maximum plant health and yield requires minerals and micro-nutrients as well. Boron, for example, at 0.02 - 0.05 ppm for cannabis is a micro-nutrient which helps the plant metabolise calcium.

It also seems that, typically, powder users are more challenged with lower yields and bugs/health issues.

Guess what, they all seem to use only five or so elements in their mix. Coincidence?

3 Likes

I should add that sometimes, saving money is the most expensive thing one can do. Like when you buy an inexpensive tool which breaks down on you at that remote job site.

For me, the most valuable use of powders for a commercial cultivator or genetics provider is when the Master Grower can experiment and tune the mix for his specific genetics.

3 Likes

Very true!

The manifold that I built filters my pond water, mixes nutrients, and filters a second time before hitting the diplines.

2 Likes

Interesting to read all the points of view on this. I have been making and using dry nutrients for almost 30 years. I have no problems running them through fertigation equipment and drip emitters. I have not seen a clogged emitter in over 20 years in any of the systems I have built. The one that did get clogged was from the customer deciding to switch to a liquid organic product.

As far as plant nutrition is concerned, you can’t just take a few dry components off a shelf and mix them in water and think you will be fine. You have to be sure you are getting a formulated complete nutrient with a guaranteed analysis and the proper licensing and registration. All of my products go through testing to be sure they meet the states standards that they are being sold in. As far as heavy metals goes, it’s public information and you should really check out what brand you are using to see what the levels are. As much as no one wants to believe it, “organic” nutrients are typically much higher in heavy metals than their non-organic counterparts. The thing to understand though is that these tests are on undiluted product and the measurements are most usually in parts per billion. Every single fertilizer that is being manufactured and sold LEGALLY in any state will have been tested and passed the states requirements. While it makes for a great argument online between growers on who is growing the best or cleanest product, you should be much more concerned about pesticides being used rather than what nutrient line a grower is using. I have seem some horrible misuse of pesticides on crops that were then sold to unsuspecting customers without a second thought by the person that used them. Mandatory pesticide screening needs to become a requirement in every state as soon as possible. I am also all for required heavy metal testing for end products and have submitted most of our flower lots for testing even though Washington does not require it. the results have all come back at “ND” for everything the lab tests for.

5 Likes

In my experience, lots of liquid input producers use commercially available powdered formulas at their proprietary concentrations and blends; many potassium silicate products in liquid form on the cannabis specific market utilize the same source of potassium silicate supplied by PQ Corp.
Companies that make liquid nutrients typically do not get a special lot of product from mines and producers with higher purity. It is upto the specific liquid nute companies QC practices to ensure there is no heavy metal contamination.

Line issues typically stem from pH problems and improper carbonate calculations on outgoing fertigation, imo. When the ingredients hit the base water there is no practical difference from a dry or liquid nutrient. Poor pH/carbonate monitoring will result in salt residues on drip emitters regardless of type of inputs.

That being said, salts are typically cheaper in both price and freight but require a much higher level of practical usage knowledge to adjust and use. However, since salts could be had by the needed element (sodium moly for moly) one could create ideal solutions without compromise to specific input needs.
Hope this info helps!
good luck!

2 Likes

That is why you need a double PHD (chemistry and microbiology) and 30 plus years of experience to formulate your minerals and chelate them accordingly like our line. DaKine 420.

3 Likes