 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
     |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hydro Hype .... Keeping the Bastards Honest Important Information for Med Users and Growers Contaminants in Cannabis and How to Prevent Them Unedited material - new/additional material to be added shortly Update. New material added Feb 2010. Heavy metal Contaminants in phosphate fertilizers. Update 2. New material added Feb 2010. Other Heavy Metal Contaminants and high THC Cannabis Specific Research.
Update 4. New Material added May 2010. US Lab analysis of AN Sensi Bloom and AN Connoisseur Bloom New Material added August 2010 (Quote) "OK – so Advanced Nutrients use some (minimal) amino proteinates in formulation. However, on the downside they are also using additional synthetic chelators as EDTA tetra sodium (Versene 220) and EDTA Acid (Versene Acid) in formulation. What this means in real/layman’s terms – where heavy metal uptake is concerned – is that Advanced Nutrients should be avoided for use in growing medical grade cannabis." (End Quote) © Integral Hydroponics 2010 (Originally posted Jan 2010) Author’s note: The material covered herein should not reflect on the quality of the Advanced Nutrients™ product range. The following material was posted on integralhydro.com due to the importance of the North American med marijuana movement and the contaminants in med marijuana controversy that recently made press in the US surrounding LA based med dispensaries.
Phosphorous Up in Smoke -Advanced Nutrients™ ... Dubious Marketing in LaLa Land
I was recently given a copy of an advertisement by a Humboldt County based Med (215) grower that Advanced Nutrients (AN) was running in High Times magazine. According to Advanced Nutrients™, high phosphorous levels (among other things) in hydroponic nutrients (namely their competitors nutrients) were the major cause of chemically tasting cannabis. The Ad followed some controversy –media hype- in the US regarding “chem.” contaminated cannabis that was, allegedly, being sold through licensed LA Med cannabis dispensaries. It was therefore an important subject given that negative press had surrounded an already controversial issue –i.e. State sanctioned med cannabis- and less than ideal growing practices were fuelling negative press. Now it seemed Advanced Nutrients were providing the answer to med users via an advertisement that looked somewhat (very much) like an official medical warning. The answer of course – based on ANs marketing- was that med users should ask their dispensary whether their medicine was grown using Advanced Nutrients. To quote aspects of the advertisement (not necessarily in the order that the material originally featured): [Quote] “Med Pot Warning: What Are You Really Smoking? Your Only Clean Safe Source For Pure Grown Medicine As the only hydroponics nutrients company founder who is also an officially-government licensed medical cannabis patient and grower, Yordanov pledges it’s his solemn duty to guarantee Advanced Nutrients produces clean, convenient, yield-boosting formulas that ensure patients’ health and safety. “I want the finest medicine for myself and all patients. Whether you purchase from a medical cannabis dispensary or grow your own, clearly this is so important to your health that you should insist your buds were grown with hydroponics nutrients designed and tested specifically for medical cannabis.” Ask If Your Dispensary Medicine Was Grown With Advanced Nutrients... • Because you want your buds to taste great, and you want your buds grown with fertilizers that contain superior sources of phosphorus and contain top quality, analyzed ingredients that don’t contain any poor quality filler. • Because you want your buds to have the highest potency genetically possible and grown with the correct fertilizer ratios of macro and micronutrients. • Because you want the safest, smoothest smoke and the quality of your health demands it. [End Quote] And more… [Quote] “Nutrient Companies Are Harming You And to make matters worse, nutrient companies are overproviding phosphorus in hydroponic bloom fertilizers. And to compound problems, they use high levels of ingredients like mono ammonium phosphate (MAP) or diammonium phosphate (DAP). These harshness culprits will make you cough a lung out. Really, it’s that bad. Hey, I realize this may sound a bit self serving but obviously I care about what patients and I are smoking and of course the facts are the facts.” “The good news is Yordanov’s researchers found combinations of specialized nutrients, plant and mineral extracts, root enhancers, vitamins, inoculants, growth and bloom co-factors that consistently produce bigger yields, higher amounts of THC, sweeter smelling aromatic compounds and tastier smoother smoking buds. In fact, when Advanced Nutrients formulas were tested by Dr. Mahmoud A. ElSohly, (Director of the US government’s marijuana research farm at the University ofMississippi), ElSohly discovered that Advanced Nutrients increased THC percentages by 40% while increasing plant and bud biomass by 21% compared to the formulations he was using. In the interest of full disclosure, Dr ElSohly is now an Advanced Nutrients customer. And Yordanov requires his company’s scientists and quality control technicians to continually upgrade formulations to produce the absolute maximum bud weight and quality.” [End Quote] Advanced Nutrients have a reputation for sledging their competition but the “Nutrient Companies are Harming You” claim was a new high in aggressive marketing tactics on the part of AN. Not only were their competitors’ nutrients inferior (according to their marketing which states –among other things- their competitors formulas are developed for tomatoes and cucumbers) but also (now) their competitors nutrients were harming med users. Other than this, Advanced Nutrients spoke of contaminants (the “cut”) in fertilizers. The “cut” being very interesting and colorful terminology that I am sure will offend more than one component fertilizer manufacturer. To quote… [Quote] “One of the main causes of all that hacking and coughing is plants are grown with too much phosphorus. Another critical finding that made a significant difference was the particular forms of phosphorus and nutrient ratio’s used to grow with. Even more troubling, what are the rest of the fertilizer’s essential ingredients “cut” with? Take calcium nitrate for instance it’s made up of 15.5% nitrogen and 11% calcium, so what’s the other 73.5% made out of? Well, as it turns out, actually it matters a lot, especially the composition and purity level of that “cut.” “When calcium nitrate is not analyzed or sourced incorrectly, the remaining percentage of filler material slows crop growth and adds harshness to your buds. And calcium nitrate is just one example – what about all the other ingredients in a nutrient? Obviously it all matters. But here’s the most important part... the correct ratios of a cannabis fertilizer’s macro and micro nutrients make a huge difference in your medicine’s smoothness. Plus it’s a known fact that the further you move away from feeding cannabis plants their ideal nutrient ratios, potency and yield rapidly deteriorate. You see, cannabis uses a small amount of phosphorus during flowering, what it really loves to use is nitrogen and potassium. We discovered this because our scientists have taken thousands of weekly tissue samples from buds, stems, leaves and roots of many varieties using gas chromatography analysis throughout all phases of cannabis growth.” [End Quote] Author’s note: AN speaks of calcium nitrate being “11% calcium and 15.5% nitrogen” but in reality component fertilizers (e.g. calcium nitrate) come with varying elemental percentages. I.e. there is no one/single calcium nitrate product and all component fertilizers based on brand, manufacturer and –for that matter- batch-to-batch variations differ in elemental percentages and levels of contaminants. In fact, an 11% Ca and 15% N calcium nitrate component fertiliser represents an unusual product (higher N to Ca ratio which I haven’t encountered before) with less than impressive purity numbers (for instance, a Chinese product I have worked with in the past is 16.6% Ca, 11.76% N or an Israeli calcium nitrate product I work with is 19% Ca, 15.5% N, or a Yarra product I have used is 19% Ca and 15.5% N or yet another product I work with is 17% Ca, 11.9% N and so on. In all cases you will note there is higher levels of Ca to N, which makes ANs quoted Ca (lower than N) and N (higher than Ca) percentages in their calcium nitrate product interesting and somewhat unimpressive when considering fertilizer purities). As for contaminants. There is contamination of all kinds in the chemicals unless you are using analytical grade or pharmaceutical grade chemicals and even then there are minute amounts of contamination. Even when using the same brand of fertilizers you will get contamination variances between batches. For instance, the same brand potassium nitrate product on a batch-to-batch basis may be slightly higher in contaminants between one batch certificate of analysis and another. The molar ratio is usually not perfect and will vary from batch to batch. Let's throw in a couple of fertilizers batch analyses to look at these contaminants. Spec on Magnesium Sulphate Spec on Calcium Nitrate SPECIFICATIONS
The chem theory - just off the top of my head …. (Avoid this material if technophobic) 1 Mole is a constant number of atoms or molecules which is Avogadro’s No. or constant which is 6.022 something X 1023. This number = 1M or 1mole or 1mol-1. The number actually comes from the number of atoms in exactly 12 grams of Carbon12. So you can have 1 mole of sodium atoms or 1 mole of sodium chloride molecules which is exactly the same number. So molar ratios are like this. The formula for NaCl (sodium chloride) is in equal ratio 1 atom of Na and 1 atom of Cl so one mole of NaCl would be 1M of Na + 1M of Cl Which = 1 mole of sodium chloride. Or Calcium Chloride which is CaCl2 so the ratio is 1 Ca atom to 2 Cl atoms or 1:2. So to make one mole of calcium chloride you need 1 mole of Ca and 2 mole of Cl ions. The atomic weight of an atom or the molecular weight of a molecule is the weight of 6.022 X 1023 (1M) of atoms or molecules. Now back to where we were when the product is say potassium nitrate. The molar ratio of atoms making up the potassium nitrate may be slightly out because of some extra free ions of one or the other or it may still contain some of the reactants that it was produced from which haven’t reacted completely or 2 products may be formed from the reaction and it is contaminated from one of the by-products. So usually there are two products being formed or the reaction is an equilibrium reaction.
CaCO3 + 2HCl ? CaCl2 + H2O + CO2? This reaction gives water and carbon dioxide as the by products 2NaCl + CaCO3 ? Na2CO3 + CaCl2 This reaction used to produce calcium chloride as well has sodium carbonate as a by-product; therefore, it could easily be contaminated with sodium carbonate. CH4 + H2O <--> CO + 3H2 This reaction is an equilibrium reaction i.e. it is a reversible reaction. So the products formed on both sides will be balanced or in equilibrium. If you remove products from the right more of the products on the left will react to form products on the right to keep it in equilibrium. Chemically confused?? Let’s simplify this a bit. Rule: The higher the grade of fertiliser used in production (e.g. tech grade versus agricultural grade versus pharmaceutical grade) the less contaminants –theoretically- you will have. This equates to a more pure (‘cleaner’) nutrient.
MICRO PROTEINATE MIX 28.375kg BATCH /1000L Iron Proteinate (Fe) 10kg 529g/1000L To touch on amino proteinate theory.
This type of marketing could be influential and it is important that it is dissected on a scientific/chemical level. I.e. Are AN nutrients the answer to non contaminated cannabis or are AN leading med growers and users up the garden path.
Next - keep in mind that some countries (e.g. America) list P as P2O5 and K as K2O %w/v so sometimes manufacturers list with elemental numbers while in other cases these numbers (listed as P as P2O5 and K as K2O) appear much higher. Phosphorous as P2O5 is only 43% elemental phosphorous and potassium as K2O is only 83% elemental potassium. Therefore, if a product is listed under North American standards as PK 13-14 it is actually: P = 13 (%w/v as P2O5) x 0.43 (% elemental P in P2O5) = 5.59 (%w/v elemental P) and K = 14 (%w/v as K2O) x 0.83 (83% elemental K in K2O) = 11.62 (%w/v elemental K) = PK 5.59- 11.62. After looking at the numbers and the formulation of the Dutch PK 13-14 product I pick up on some Advanced Nutrients marketing material surrounding their Hammerhead™ PK additive. To quote myself…. [Quote] “I’m going to deviate for a moment (take a breather from the heady world of chemistry) and point out some industry jargon to reinforce an important point (the moral to the story).
“Ha! Ha! Ha!” I thought… “That’s odd – what a load of nonsense!” What the company’s promotional material had to say about the product (among other things) was the ratio of PK 13-14 (in European formulations) was incorrect and that a well balanced potash formula should have double the K to P ratio…. therefore, their formula had double the ratio of K to P ….therefore it was superior to European PK 13-14 products (which are, based on our European PK 13-14 formula, in fact PK 5.6 – 11.6 or roughly double the elemental K to P ratio that this company was promoting as the right P to K ratio, if you see my point). Actually, here’s what Advanced Nutrients had to say. [Quote] PK 13-14 Is An Old, Ineffective PK Ratio Appropriate Only for Outdoor Farming Crops... Not the Kind of Crops You Grow Indoors
What was clear was that this company either knew very little about chemistry or they were proliferating misinformation (arguably via subversive marketing) regarding their competitors’ products. Next, AN listed their Hammerhead™ product as PK 9 – 18. This of course would make it, according to US standards (given that they are a North American company), PK 3.87 – 14.94 and that certainly is way more than double the K to P ratio that they promote – at least according to US standards of listing P as P2O5 and K as K2O. However, from this I then took (perhaps incorrectly) that they couldn’t be listing their product in line with North American standards… Unusual, given they are a North American company but who am I to argue? OK, so maybe, they’re listing it as elemental PK 9-18 I thought. Or maybe they were trying to say double the K20 to P2O5 ratio - who knows!!! Next, I went to the North American manufacturer’s Australian PK (potash) formulation and calculated the elemental P to K ratios that the formula contained. Without going into yet more mathematical equations (we simply don’t need to), what I came up with was that in a 1000L batch of their formulation, there was 59.88Kg of elemental K and 41.125Kg of elemental P (or elemental PK 6- 4.1 or under US standards of listing P as P2O5 and K as K2O PK 14- 5). That’s right!! Nowhere near double the K to P ratio AN was promoting as optimum (while criticizing/sledging their European competition – who according to ANs own jargon - seemingly had got it right, while AN had seemingly got it wrong…. If you take my point). I could break this down further to ppm (% w/v) but why bother? Their formula (or, at least, their Australian formulation) is miles out. The moral of the story…. I’ll let you decide.” [End Quote] Let’s look at a lab analysis of Sensi Bloom. The lab analysis was conducted in Australia in 2005 (on an imported product) and it is possible that the formula has changed somewhat or may differ on a country-to-country basis. We’re awaiting a new lab analysis from the US on Sensi Bloom and ANs Connoisseur range (given the advertising was targeted towards the US market) and will post this data shortly (View US Lab Analysis conducted 2010 - new material).
Sensi Bloom, in this instance, has an elemental NPK %w/v ratio of 8.8- 2.7- 7.78 with Ca of 1.1. I found this analysis interesting. AN uses high levels of ‘urea’(NH2)2CO in both their Sensi Grow and Bloom products. Firstly,urea is the cheapest source of N. Other than this, urea use in hydroponic nutrient formulations is typically avoided due to slower absorption (particularly in early growth), translocation and assimilation of urea to that of other nitrates (such as NO3 N) in hydroponic systems. However, recent research seems to suggest that urea, in hydroponic tomato crops, is a “suitable source” of N and that its translocation is improved during the latter stages of growth. This aside, most hydro nutrient and agricultural premixed fertilizer manufacturers (e.g. Scotts Co, USA and Haifa, Israel) do not use urea in hydroponic tailored formulations (e.g. Scotts Co Peters Hydro-Sol/Combi-Sol contains 5% N as NO3 and Haifa Polyfeed contains 6% N as NO3). Author’s note: Use of a brand name does not constitute an endorsement. Briefly…. about nitrogen (N) in hydroponics. There are two commonly found types of nitrogen (N) in hydroponic nutrient concentrates. When you look at a lab analysis of a hydroponic nutrient you will typically see something like this:
NH4 N refers to ammonium nitrogen and NO3 N refers to Nitrate N. NO3 N is more suitable than NH4 N in hydroponic fertilisers. NO3 N is available immediately to plants while ammonium N (NH4 N) becomes available more slowly.
Urea (NH2)2CO is another form of water soluble nitrogen. (NH2)2CO (Urea) doesn’t supply any ammonium nitrogen or NO3 N and is completely different from ammonium and nitrate nitrogen. Another interesting factor is AN Sensi Bloom contains (comparatively to many other nutrient brands) extremely low levels of calcium, indicating that low levels of calcium nitrate (comparatively to most other brands) have been used in formulation. Perhaps this is why they note calcium nitrate (albeit perhaps mixing up the numbers) in their advertising (re contaminants) but let’s not get too excited about this – all component fertilizers (e.g. urea, potassium nitrate, magnesium nitrate, MAP, MKP) contain contaminants and low levels of calcium nitrate in a nutrient tells us very little about the overall levels of contaminants in a given fertiliser (in fact phosphorous containing fertilizers - as AN point out - are more of an issue).
Other than this (more importantly), Sensi Bloom –based on the lab analysis- contains about the expected –or thereabouts- levels of phosphorous that you would expect to find in a standard bloom nutrient. So far nothing unusual or unexpected about phosphorous. Now let’s compare Sensi Bloom to a multi national “crop specific” European bloom formula (lab analysis) to demonstrate the point.
NPK %w/v 5.58- 1.7- 6.3. Ca = 3.342. When comparing the NPK numbers of formulas, dilution rates (concentration) need to be factored into the equation. In this case, the Sensi Bloom is a more concentrated formula than the European product and this reflects in the numbers. However, the AN Sensi bloom product has 3.3%w/v more N, 1%w/v more P and 1.48%w/v more K so overall the NPK numbers are very different (Sensi Bloom is arguably heavy on N and about the same on P –when dilution factors are considered- as its’ European competitor). Other than this, compare the Calcium (Ca) %w/v numbers. The AN formula has less than half the Ca %w/v (while being more concentrated) than that of the European formula... Quite simply, they are extremely different looking products/formulations and yet both companies claim to have conducted extensive crop specific research. (Odd??) Of course, the next thing we need to consider is ANs extensive feed chart (recommended feed regime or feed calendar) that requires/recommends the use of numerous (13) AN additives (including the P and K boosters –Bud Blood, Big Bud and Overdrive- during bloom) in conjunction with their Sensi nutrients…. Of course, according to Advanced Nutrients, these additives are required to realize optimum yields (near genetic potential) and all of the AN additives come at an additional cost. Ok – let’s consider the European company’s feed chart first. The European company produces a PK 13- 14 (theoretically, elemental PK 5.67- 11.6) additive that they recommend should be used at 1 – 1.5ml/L for 1 week only in week 3 of flower. What this tells us is that by using this company’s recommended PK booster and nutrient regime (boosting existing P and K levels in the overall NPK at week 3 of flower) we are adding –based on a dilution rate of 1ml/L- approximately 567ppm of P (56,700ppm P in PK 13- 14 concentrate divided by 1000) and approx 1106ppm of K to the nutrient (feed) for one week at week three of flower. Without conducting tissue analysis we can only speculate as to what this means in terms of residual phosphorous levels in the crop (at harvest) but what I can safely say is that the use of additional phosphorous, in this instance, is minimal (when comparing some other companies –including ANs- P and K additive recommendations). Now to Advanced Nutrients who go in an entirely different direction with their recommended feed regime. Firstly, they recommend using Bud Blood in week 1 of flower. Bud Blood has an NPK ratio of 0-39-25, which, assuming it is listed under US standards, is elemental NPK 0- 16.77- 20.75 (in both listing scenarios, not double the K to P ratio that AN promote as the ideal in PK ratios). However…. Here’s where things get interesting. Advanced Nutrients then recommends using Big Bud (NPK 0-15-40) from week two to week four and then Overdrive (NPK 1- 5- 4) for week five and six – with week seven (week before harvest) without P and K additives.
[Quote]
[End Quote]
What this means is that based on Advanced Nutrients feed chart (and based on the phosphorous/phosphate levels in Sensi Bloom, Bud Blood, Big Bud and Overdrive) we are adding higher phosphorous levels for 6 weeks of flower than we otherwise would be using the European producers feed chart and products. I.e. The European producer recommends the use of PK 13- 14 at week 3 for 1 week, which allows several weeks for excess phosphorous (provided by PK 13-14) to clear (i.e. theoretically the additional phosphorous derived from PK 13-14 is used by the plant and converted into biomass). Advanced Nutrients, on the other hand, advise the use of a phosphorous/phosphate containing product at week 1 of flower and then throughout the next five weeks of flower, meaning that at least some extra phosphorous (on top of what is already in Sensi Bloom) is provided far closer to harvest (or, in some cases, until harvest). To their credit ANs feed chart also allows for a weeks flush at week 7. I’ll let you do the math on this one – it isn’t rocket science… Which nutrient line (when contextualising additives) contains lower levels of phosphorous? ANs PK additive feed calendar with Sensi Bloom (per 100L) Week 1 40grams Bud Blood Week 2, 3 and 4 Big Bud Powder 32g wk 2, 34g wk 3, 36g wk 4 Wk 5 and 6 Overdrive 200ml wk 5, 160 ml wk6 Wk 7 no PK and no nutrients (Author's note: In just about all instances, nutrient manufacturers advise to flush on nutrient calendars and therefore AN don't differ in this aspect) Now for a dose of reality Rule 1: No matter which brand of hydroponic nutrient (and/or additives) you use it is critical to flush. Rule 2: When purchasing med marijuana ask your dispensary whether your favorite genetics have been flushed. Rule 3: When purchasing med marijuana ask your dispensary whether your favorite genetics have been grown using ethical growing practices (covered shortly). The Flush
What Causes Toxicity in Hydro Produce?
Contaminants in hydro Cannabis (material added Feb 2010) - more material will be added shortly Rock Phosphates (phosphorous) and Cadmium Advanced Nutrients hits on an important point – albeit missing the primary issue associated to contaminants in phosphate (phosphorous) fertilizers. The key problem regarding contaminants in hydroponic fertilizers are the heavy metals’ arsenic, cadmium, selenium, cobalt, mercury and lead, with cadmium being the most notable of these where plant uptake is concerned. Cadmium is a widespread, naturally occurring, element that is present in soils, rocks, waters, plants and animals. The chemical symbol for cadmium is Cd. It occurs naturally with deposits of zinc and phosphorus but, unlike these nutrients, it is not considered essential for life. Phosphorus containing fertilizers can contain high levels of cadmium depending upon the source of rock phosphate used in manufacturing. For this reason, many countries (e.g. Australia, USA, UK, EU/EC members) have adopted regulations that determine acceptable levels of cadmium in phosphate fertilizers. For instance, the ‘Fertilizer Industry Federation of Australia’ (FIFA) initiated a program in the 1990s to reduce the levels of cadmium in phosphate fertilizers. This was achieved by using low cadmium phosphate rock in the manufacturing of superphosphate and importing low cadmium, high phosphorus analysis fertilizers. Cadmium and its compounds may travel through soil, but its mobility depends on several factors such as pH and amount of organic matter, which will vary depending on the local environment. Cadmium binds strongly to organic matter (e.g. humus and manure) where it will be immobile in soil and be taken up by plants, eventually, entering the food chain. (1) Research conducted in New Zealand demonstrates that equivalent levels of cadmium can exist in both organic and inorganic soils. [Quote] “Total cadmium concentrations were higher in the organic soil than those in the allophonic (non-organic) soil and may be explained by difference in bulk density. Without consideration of bulk density, the organic soil appeared to have much higher cadmium concentrations compared to the allophanic soil. However, when converted onto a volumetric basis, the organic soil appeared to have similar concentrations of cadmium to the allophanic one.” (2) [End Quote] While there is little data on the health risks that cadmium poses to cannabis users, cigarette smoking is a significant source of cadmium exposure. Although there is generally less cadmium in tobacco than in food, the lungs absorb cadmium more efficiently than the stomach. Jarup, L (1998) notes that the population group at the highest risk of cadmium exposure is tobacco smokers. The absorption of cadmium in the lungs is 10-50%, while the absorption in the gastrointestinal tract is only a few percent. Smokers have about 4-5 times higher blood cadmium concentrations (about 1.5 micrograms/l), and twice as high kidney cadmium concentrations as nonsmokers.(3) The national geometric mean blood cadmium level for adults is 0.47 μg/L. A geometric mean blood cadmium level of 1.58 μg/L for New York City smokers has been reported. The amount of cadmium absorbed from smoking one pack of cigarettes per day is about 1–3 μg/day. Direct measurement of cadmium levels in body tissues confirms that smoking roughly doubles cadmium body burden in comparison to not smoking. (4) This information has telling implications for cannabis users. Cadmium accumulates predominantly in the leaves of Cannabis sativa L, indicating that heaviest concentration of Cd is present in leaf and bud material. (5) According to current knowledge, renal tubular damage is probably the critical health effect of cadmium exposure. Cadmium is first transported to the liver through the blood. It then bonds to proteins to form complexes that are transported to the kidneys. Cadmium accumulates in kidneys, where it damages filtering mechanisms. This causes the excretion of essential proteins and sugars from the body and causes further kidney damage. It takes a very long time before cadmium that has accumulated in kidneys is excreted from a human body. Where immunosuppressed individuals are concerned excessive cadmium levels can further impact on the immune system. (6) Cadmium in Nutrients/fertilizers Let’s have a look at how much cadmium is found in phosphate fertilizers; firstly, a horticultural grade product from Australia. Monopotassium phosphate (MKP) Certificate of Analysis Monopotassium Phosphate (MKP) 0- 52- 34, Horticultural Grade Phosphor (P205) min 51.5% In this case, the manufacturer doesn’t list heavy metals separately. However, looking at this analysis we can see that there is a maximum of 10ppm (10mg/kg or 0.001%) of total heavy metals in our MKP product. When you consider that there is 1000mg in 1gram and 1000grams in one kilogram, and that a liquid concentrate, two-part fertilizer may contain approximately 15g/L (averaged) of MKP this number doesn’t seem unreasonable. I.e. With this information we have 0.000015ppm/L of total heavy metals in a fertilizer concentrate (max value) derived from MKP. Next - let’s say that in a worst-case scenario we have a “max” of 10mg/kg of heavy metals present in the MKP product and that 1/3 of this is cadmium. This would leave us with 3.333mg/kg of Cd in the phosphate fertilizer product or 0.000005 mg/L of Cd in our hydro concentrate solution (with A and B this gives us 0.000010mg/L). Keep in mind that I’ve used conservative numbers and Cd levels are likely to be lower. Additionally, I’ve oversimplified this for now and I’ll come back to it later. I.e. we also need to account for cadmium drawn from other sources (e.g. potassium nitrate, calcium nitrate etc). Here are a few more examples of phosphate fertilizers. In this instance, the heavy metal contaminants are listed separately. You’ll note that two of these examples (MAP and DAP) are the phosphate fertilizers that Advanced Nutrients mention in their “nutrient companies are harming you” advertising. These products derive from China (horticultural grade). Monopotassium Phosphate (MKP 0- 52- 34) Main content, min 99.0 % Monoammonium Phosphate (MAP 12- 61- 0) Main content, min 99.0 % Di-Ammonium Phosphate (DAP 21-53-0) (NH4)2HPO4 99% In all cases only 2mg/kg of Cd.
Organic Phosphate Sources Let’s have a look at an organic phosphate (phosphorous) source and compare the Cd numbers against non-organic fertilizers. . Bat Guano TYPICAL ANALYSIS Looking at this analysis we have 3mg/kg of Cd (vey low by guano standards) – which puts us on track with non-organic sources of phosphate fertilizers – or at least at first glance. However, our non-organic phosphate fertilizer has 51.5% (515g/kg) elemental P while our organic phosphate fertilizer has 5% (50g/kg) of elemental P so to achieve the same levels of P in NPK %w/v we are adding much higher levels of cadmium to an organic liquid fertilizer. For instance, to achieve a 1%w/v target in a fertilizer concentrate we would use 19.4g/L of our Australian MKP product or 200g/L of bat guano giving us 10.3 times the amount of Cd in the organic solution. When you compare the numbers (the chemistry of organic vs. non-organic) things become much clearer… Here’s a couple more examples of organic guano products that are sold in the US. BAT GUANO 0-7-0 Arsenic 11.7000 BAT GUANO NATURAL ORGANIC PHOSPHATE FERTILIZER 0-7-0 Arsenic 13.3000 Author’s note: Heavy metal contaminants in organic fertilizers become more problematic when you consider that kelp and other organic components used in formulation (e.g. fish by-product) contain high levels of Cd. Burger J et al, studied Alaria nana kelp in Alaskan waters and found it contained high levels of cadmium, lead and selenium.(8) Research investigating heavy metals in aquatic food chains has yielded similar findings.(9)
Other Heavy Metal Contaminants
Arsenic (As) The chemistry of arsenic leads to multiple chemical species that differ in Arsenic uptake and translocation occurs more readily in high phosphorous environments.(11) However, research conducted in 2001 – 2002 indicates low arsenic uptake by Cannabis sativa in both hydroponic and soil settings (tissue analysis equals <0.1mg/kg As in all instances). (12) Nickel (Ni) Nickel is moderately soluble. The likelihood of nickel toxicity in cannabis appears quite low. It is a nutritionally essential metal for some plants. There is no known biochemical function for nickel in humans. Contamination with nickel in fertilizers and related products seems an unlikely human health issue. Lead (Pb) While plants are known to concentrate lead in the roots, lead translocation to the shoots is very low.(13) This view is further supported by a finding that demonstrated significant lead translocation to the shoots of Indian mustard was observed only at relatively high concentrations of lead in a hydroponic nutrient solution and after the lead-binding capacity of roots was partially saturated. (14) Further research has demonstrated that lead uptake by Cannabis sativa is very low (0.6%). (15)
Selenium (Se) Depending on its concentration and chemical form, Se functions as an essential element or potential toxicant to human. Factors that will influence selenium uptake by plants are pH, and selenium concentration in soils and nutrients. Research demonstrates that selenium uptake by cannabis is moderately low. (16)
Chromium (Cr) Chromium is found in all areas of the environment, including air, water and soil. Due to its wide industrial use, chromium is considered a serious environmental pollutant. As plants lack a specific transport system for Cr, it is taken up by carriers of essential ions such as sulfate or iron. Research has shown that Cr distribution in crops does not depend on soil properties and concentration; the maximum quantity of element contaminant was always contained in roots and a minimum in the vegetative and reproductive organs of sample crops. This indicates low translocation of Cr. (17) Further research has demonstrated that where cannabis is grown in soils containing high concentrations of Cd, Ni and Cr, Cd and Ni were considerably accumulated in the plant roots and only partially translocated to the above-ground plant tissue, while chromium uptake was negligible. (18) Mercury (Hg) Mercury is released by natural sources like volcanoes, by evaporation from soil and water surfaces, as well as through the degradation of minerals and forest fires. Mercury is also contained as a trace element in coal. The use of coal-fired power plants for generating electricity, make mercury emissions to the atmosphere from this source among the world’s largest sources of Hg pollutants. Mercury and its compounds are highly toxic to humans, ecosystems and wildlife. High doses can be fatal to humans, but even relatively low doses can have serious adverse neurodevelopmental impacts, and have recently been linked with possible harmful effects on the cardiovascular, immune and reproductive systems (19) The efficiency of mercury absorption through the intestinal tract is approximately 10% as efficient as that of the lungs (WHO Task Group 1976). Approximately 80 (75 – 85%) percent of inhaled Hg vapors are absorbed by the lung tissues. This vapor easily penetrates the blood-brain barrier and acts as a neurotoxicant. (20) Batariova et al note significant differences of Hg levels are found between smokers (0.80 μg/l) and non-smokers (0.92 μg/l). Therefore, mercury in vegetative matter that is smoked can have a far more significant impact than that which is ingested orally. (21) Less than one percent of the mercury present in tobacco leaf remains in the ash after combustion; the rest of the Hg is inhaled into the lungs. Smoking Cannabis therefore, can also introduce virtually the entire mercury burden into the lungs, where 75 -85% of inhaled mercury is absorbed and retained. (22) Plants uptake elemental mercury vapor (Hg0) through their leaves from air, and ionic mercury is taken up via the roots from soils. Subsequently the plants return part of this mercury as Hg0 to the environment. (23) Factors affecting plant uptake of Hg include organic content in soils, carbon exchange capacity, oxide and carbonate content, redox potential, and Hg contaminant levels in fertilizers. Mercury uptake in plants is typically related to environmental Hg contaminant levels (pollution levels). Aquatic plants such as kelps are bioaccumulators (hyperaccumulators) of Hg. Many fish species also contain high levels of Hg. The consumption of fish is by far the most significant source of ingestion-related mercury exposure in humans, although plants and livestock also contain mercury due to bioaccumulation of mercury from soil, water and air. (24) Plants growing in volcanic regions typically contain high levels of mercury. For instance, cannabis sativa L. growing in Hawaiian soils has been demonstrated to contain mercury at about 1.5 to 4.6 ng (1000000000 ng = 1gram) of mercury per gram of plant material. (25) The Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on food additives (1972) recommended, for the average adult, a "provisional tolerable weekly intake" of 300 ug of total mercury. In view of the recognized higher efficiency of the pulmonary route relative to intake, the smoking of cannabis containing high levels of mercury creates an additional risk to the cardiovascular, immune and reproductive systems and neurological well-being. In extreme cases, Siegel et al note that smoking as little as 100 grams of marijuana per week may lead to more mercury being taken into the body than the prescribed "provisional tolerable weekly intake." (26) More recent research, conducted in 2001 on 6 samples of high THC cannabis (3 outdoor organic and 3 indoor hydro), however yielded <0.1mg/kg Hg in all samples. (27) The Influence of pH on Heavy Metal Uptake (new material added April 2010) Among the many organic media properties that influence heavy metal uptake by plants, pH plays an important role. (5) In experiments run by Autumn S. Wang et al (2005) cadmium uptake significantly increased in low pH (acidic) high metal concentration soils. The highest rates of Cd uptake occurred at pH 4.8 with a marked decrease in uptake at a higher pH of 5.28, with the lowest uptake rates at pH 6.07.(6) This looks positive due to the optimum pH range for nutrient availability (re cannabis) being 5.8 – 6.0 (with contaminant uptake being minimized within these ranges). Chelators and Heavy Metal Uptake Well-formulated hydroponic nutrients ensure that there is a high level of nutrient availability in the correct forms and ratios. Nutrition that offers a diverse range of bioavailable elements will prove more effective than nutrition that has less diversity, particularly where trace elements (metals) are concerned. For this reason combinations of organic and synthetic chelates are demonstrated to benefit yields. The common types of chelates used by most hydro nutrient manufacturers are the synthetic chelates, EDTA (ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid) and to a lesser extent DTPA (Diethylene triamine pentaacetic acid). Chelates such as EDTA and DTPA have a high affinity for e.g. iron and generally form stable complexes with the metal across a pH range from 4 to 7. DPTA, Cu EDTA, Zn EDTA are large molecules that aren’t taken up by the plant. Put simply, the chelator leaves the metal ion (micro element) on the roots for uptake and then remains intact in the solution, soil or media. What this means is the chelator remains active in the soil/media and can then chelate heavy metals making them more bioavailable for uptake (I.e. the chelator bonds with heavy metals such as cadmium and delivers them to the roots of the plant for uptake). All manufacturers use synthetic chelates in formulation. For instance, typically Iron will be supplied as Fe EDTA, with some manufacturers using Fe DTPA and/or Fe EDDHA. The bottom line - chelates aid micro element (metals such as copper and zinc) uptake - the downside is that heavy metals such as cadmium also become more bioavailable to cannabis when they are chelated 1 Some manufacturers are now identifying with this issue. For instance, Yarra (an agricultural fertilizer manufacturer) is currently working on producing biodegradeable chelates for use in agriculture. Organic Chelators
Amino Proteinates/Glycinates (Organic Chelates) Amino acids are the "building blocks" of protein without which the formation of any living tissue is impossible. Amino acids such as glycine are organic chelating agents that are naturally occurring in plants. Glycine is the simplest amino acid with a molecular weight of 75. Chelates of glycine with cations such as iron, zinc, and copper have been extensively studied. For instance, research conducted in USSR established that glycinates greatly stimulate the growth of plants. The results concluded that zinc glycinate (zinc glycine chelate) increased the total, stem, root, and foliage weights by 194, 215, 254 and 147%, respectively. Respective effects of manganese glycinate (manganese glycine chelate) were 79, 108, 110, and 15%.
Which brings us to our next point. That is, Advanced Nutrients recommends the use of 'Final Phase' during the flush. To quote … [Quote] “Q. What is in Final Phase that helps flush chemicals out of plants?
"We recommend using Final Phase only at the last 4-7 days of a crop cycle, as blooming finishes. In healthy growing crops, all mid-cycle "rinses" should be done with pure water followed by lower-strength nutrient solution, which will sufficiently "reset" nutrient ratios for the blooming phase. [End Quote] It is important to note that not all nutrients can be chelated. Iron, zinc, copper, manganese, calcium, cobalt, and magnesium can be chelated while other nutrients cannot. This means P, K, and N – the key nutrients in solution cannot be chelated. Other than this, again we are faced with synthetic chelators (as EDTA) that not only sequester Fe, Zn, Cu, Mn, Ca, Co and Mg but will also sequester heavy metals such as cadmium, mercury and lead, thus making them more bioavilable for uptake. Ref 1. B. Kos and D.Lestan Soilwashing of Pb, Zn and Cd using biodegradable chelator and permeable barriers and induced phytoextraction by Cannabis sativa CEC and Heavy Metal Uptake CEC relates to a soils/substrates ability to attract, retain, and exchange cation elements. Cation elements are elements with positive electrical charges; these being potassium (K+), ammonium (NH4+), magnesium ( Mg++), calcium (Ca++), zinc (Zn+), manganese (Mn++), iron (Fe++), copper (Cu+) and hydrogen (H+). While hydrogen isn’t a nutrient it affects the degree of acidity (pH) of a substrate and, for this reason, is important. Some nutrients have negative electrical charges. These are called anions and include nitrate (NO3 N), phosphate, sulfate, borate, and molybdate. The word "ion" (as in cat –ion and an – ion) simply means a charged particle; a positive charge is attracted to a negative charge and vice-versa. This means both positive and negative charged nutrients/elements form a symbiotic relationship and are available for uptake. High CEC values indicate that a soil or substrate has a greater capacity to hold cations and where there is high CEC there is a large nutrient reserve. Coco substrate has high CEC. On the downside… High CEC favors the presence of Cd and other heavy metals in organic media. Put simply, heavy metals bond with organic particles and these are made available for uptake. Epstein (2003) notes that soils with low CEC such as sands have a much lower binding power as compared to clays with a higher CEC. (7) Due to this, it is imperative that plants grown in high CEC medias are fertilized with the cleanest nutrients/fertilizers possible. This makes product choice (re organic or inorganic nutrients) in formulation imperative. E.g. Low contaminant fertilizers can be manufactured using low contaminant base components. In the case of home formulation, nutrients containing some analytical, tech and pharmaceutical grade elements can be produced for about the same cost you are now paying for standard nutrients (formulated with hort grade components) from stores. For instance, phosphate fertilizers can be purchased in food grade (often sold as analytical grade but are in fact food grade) and analytical grade calcium nitrate could be used to reduce overall heavy metal contaminants. This is yet another advantage of manufacturing nutrients at home. I.e. Medical grade nutrition for growing medicine Author’s note 1: Over the years I have seen various “hydro” manufacturers make claims as to the use of analytical or pharmaceutical grade elements in their nutrients. After analyzing some of these products (and investigating through other means) it became clear that while they may (and I stress “may”) be incorporating some low contaminant fertilizers in formulation their use – if any - was extremely low, with the bulk of the formula being manufactured from standard hort grade base components. For instance, having looked at formulas from a company who claims to use pharmaceutical grade elements in formulation it became clear that the use of pharmaceutical grade components was minimal/minute (0.27% of the total mineral weight used in production). Other than this, after running lab analysis on another brand that claims to use analytical grade elements it became clear that if they were using analytical grade, the contaminant levels looked very much like standard fertilizers produced from hort grade products. I.e. it looked like this particular company was engaging in suspect marketing. Author’s note 1a: Due to the higher purchase cost of analytical, food and pharmaceutical grade elements one must be wary of claims as to blends containing these (stated) elements (this may change and I will keep you advised/updated). Put simply, the hydro industry is a cost driven market and manufacturers simply can’t formulate using expensive base components while maintaining existing retail prices on shelves. By way of example, one manufacturer claimed to or, claims to use British Pharmaceutical grade elements in production. As a guestimate (based on component purchase prices, wholesale and retail markups) a product entirely formulated with these elements would need to retail at $400.00USD plus. Beware the hype! References) 5. Autumn S. Wang1,5, J. Scott Angle1, Rufus L. Chaney2, Thierry A. Delorme3 6. Autumn S. Wang et al (2005) 7. Epstein, E., 2003. Land Application of Sewage Sludge and Biosolids. High THC Cannabis Specific Research In 2001, the NSW Government (Australia) issued a permit to Nimbin local Andrew Kavasilas to allow a limited amount of high THC cannabis to be grown for research and analytical purposes. The research was undertaken with the assistance of the Centre for Phytochemistry (and its commercial arm Australian Phytochemicals Ltd) at the Southern Cross University in Lismore NSW.
*1 Kavasilas grew Afghan, Durban and Skunk x Northern Lights outdoors. Leaf tissue analysis found 1.10mg/kg of lead in Durban with <0.1 in both the Afghan and Northern Lights x Skunk. Chromium was 4.10 (Durban), 4.30 (Afghan) and 2.40 (Skunk x Northern Lights). If no other variables (i.e. nutrition, heavy metal content in soil, and feed rates) were influencing determinants this indicates that various strains of cannabis may uptake heavy metals at differing rates.
Glow (left) and Andrew Kavasilas, Nimbin Australia 2005
Recommendations for minimizing cadmium and other heavy metal exposure
References 1. Department for Health and Human Services, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease 19. European Commission (2005) Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on Community Strategy Concerning Mercury 27. Andrew Kavasilas (2003) Medical Uses of Cannabis, ISBN 0-9751806-0-6
Grow well
Send this link to a friend
Read more about the shady marketing practices of Advanced Nutrients - 'The Med Deception'.
Please note: The author has no affiliation to any hydroponics industry nutrient and additive manufacturer/s. The author has never accepted any advertising revenue from any manufacturer or other hydroponics industry entity (ever) and no ‘Hydro Hype’ story has been (or ever will be) influenced in any way by competition of any of the companies mentioned in ‘Hydro Hype’. The aim of ‘Hydro Hype’ is to expose the rorts and scams that for far too long have taken place in an industry which has operated unhindered and unregulated by the consumer protection policies that underpin and govern the practices of other industries.
|
|
Purchase AN's Australian Formulas (manufacturer direct).... SENSI GROW SENSI BLOOM HAMMERHEAD B52 CARBOLOAD OVERDRIVE REVIVE WET BETTY(organic) SENSIZYME SENSICAL GROW SENSICAL BLOOM SUPERBUD BLASTER WET BETTY ORIGINAL VOODOO JUICE TARANTULA PIRANHA SWEETLEAF BUDBLOOD BIG BUD LIQUID MONKEY JUICE GROW MONKEY JUICE BLOOM BARRICADE FULVIC AND HUMIC HEAVY HARVEST (Spring, Winter, fall) Comprehensive support and instructions on mixing included Note: We can match the Sensi formulas to those used in the US if requested. We can even improve them.
Some AN Advertising "Fountain of Youth™ A break-through Egyptian process that allows for your plants to produce offspring. Using this Egyptian fertilization process, one can ensure the preservation of the genetics for years to come by creating your own seed stock. This process was released to the public after being discovered in an ancient tomb." "Ancient Secret™ For many years, there was a myth in ancient Egyptian times about a potion that was applied to a farmers garden that would increase the overall growth of vegetative growth by inches daily. Today, that myth has proven true with a break-through potion that will increase daily growth by inches." Organic B (author’s favorite) "We got an amazing letter from Roberto Rodriguez, a Southern California weightlifter who’s also a hydroponics grower. He wrote us saying he keeps his bottles of Organic B, our powerful, all-organic plant growth B vitamin formula, in the same place where he keeps his sports power powders and drinks. On a day when he was exhausted and distracted preparing for an important weightlifting competition in Los Angeles, Roberto drank a glass full of our Organic B, instead of the powerlifting vitamin formula he’d intended to drink…. Two days later, Roberto competed and won the gold medal in bench press and squats. This was the first time he’d won a competition. He’d never even placed before. Now of course we don’t recommend that anybody consume our products that are meant for plants- but if Organic B can have this effect on a 210 pound weightlifter, just think what it can do for your plants." The Sledge Marketing of AN "Our research program compared SensiCal Grow to all Calcium products made by competitors. We found that their products only contain inferior grades of....." "If you use bloom fertilizers made by our competitors, you’re using formulas made for tomatoes and cucumbers that are manufactured with the cheapest ingredients possible." "Our competitors’ fertilizers have the wrong combination of elements: field testing shows that some of them actually slow and decrease bloom growth." "Our scientists visited a bunch of hydro stores and bought enzyme products made by our competitors. Then they tested them for enzyme concentration, variety and viability. The tests showed that our competitors’ products were dead in terms of enzymatic units of activity..." "Enzyme products made by our competitors were found to contain far fewer types of enzymes and they had inferior manufacturing standards. To put it bluntly, their enzyme formulas were junk." "It won’t do you any good to spend money on our competitors’ enzyme products because their products are dead." "PK 13-14 Is An Old, Ineffective PK Ratio Appropriate Only for Outdoor Farming Crops!" "You might ask yourself: if PK 13-14 formulas are so bad, why do they dominate the marketplace?" "Most companies use cheap synthetic vitamin ingredients."
AN spokesman speaks of defamation and business libel “It’s a vicious industry and that’s one of the challenges we’re facing: defamation, business libel, people trying to narc our company – that’s what happened three years ago when we got raided." (Advanced Nutrients spokesman. Source: Vancouver Sun, Friday Jan 21, 2005. Ian Mulgrew) Some AN Product Names Voodoo Juice, Piranha, Tarantula, Scorpion Juice, Wet Betty, Hammerhead, B52, Kushi Kush, Sensi, Rhino Skin, Bud Factor X, Bud Ignitor, Bud Candy, Bud Blood, Big Bud, Overdrive, Very High Output, Heavy Harvest....
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
