I watch him every chance I get. Great teacher.
4 Likes
I think Dr. Bugbee is a nice person who is legitimate just like the Skunkman. These people had a vision and used the system to make it come to fruition. You listen to Dr. Bugbee or the Skunkman and they are very knowledgeable people who are more than happy to give out information to help people and make growing easier and more scientific. Knowledge and the truth are what they are. I don’t think it is wrong for a person to make a living all the while improving quality of life so…
I think Bugbee being a bad ace well don’t see it; what people do with his information is well up to them. We in this community are a family oriented folk and we do look out for each other but there is a business side to this plant and probably always will be so… We need these people to keep knocking down doors and pushing the legitimacy of this plant and ultimately help people.
I have used the Dr.'s techniques and they work! Science and backed with data. We make observations, we find patterns and formulate hypothesis. We test hypothesis and check the data to see if there are any correlations with the hypothesis. If the data is reproducible then you can test it over and over and find an equation or method that describes what has been observed. Science?
5 Likes
Yes have used his method for a couple years and this method of making nutes for the DWC for my plants works great! Dr. Daniel Fernandez has a free program to make the proper ratio’s or fertilizing rates. He is working with Dr. Bugbee for optimizing cannabis growth. Has a leaf tissue analysis from various Universities; this is something I have been watching and using lower rates of fertilizers especially phosphorus is good for the environment and way lower consumption of water.
3 Likes
For the record I love bruce!
But I would love to hear anything that suggests he may have it wrong.
I personally have not seen 1 thing to lead me to believe he is wrong on anything.
But my mind is open to it.
I mean the guy does work for NASA, Those folks would never lie, would they? 
5 Likes
I don’t know what that means; if you look at things in yes or no then I suppose it is possible. When you look at things as approximations then things make more sense. If you know that a line has an equation and say it is x=y then you have a straight line and can easily take (x)(y)/2 = area If you have a more complex function and say y = 2x^2 and want to know the area. You could take up a series of differential sections like they did prior to Newton and Liebniz and add them all together or look for something like calculus to make an even better approximation then you get y= 2*( x^3)/3 and find the area by your range you pick. Everything evolves changes and new techniques and science come from observation. All Good!
The only “distrust” example I can think of…and it’s wacky anyways… Phosphorus is an environmental pollutant, and every regulating body involved wants to limit it’s use. State governments have limited the concentration of P in fertilizer for example, https://www.cga.ct.gov/2012/rpt/2012-r-0076.htm
Now… what side of the fence are we on here? Do we think his team might cherry pick data/cultivars with low P need to demonstrate that elemental P levels can be reduced in nutrient mixes? Not sure, but the motivation is there, and it’s for greater good too.
What if they discovered that certain elusive characteristics of good herb are the result of high P (i.e. the result of NOT going deficient in P during flower)… would they publish that result? I mean, the USU data is literally unaware of high produced by the plants they grow. They are destroyed. Right? So, they are studying inflorescence yield per watt, exclusive of the high/effect that I’m actually growing for, while being good stewards of public P policy.
That is the jist of the messaging I’ve received. And remember, all Bugbee followers buy themselves a bag of 20-10-20 peat lite and run it through flower… Dot dot dot!
2 Likes
The one thing I have learned is that the plants grow well with lower nute rates and they don’t need to be pushed to extremes. Also making nutes using this free hydro calculator saves so much on bills. Also what I think @LD50 is getting at is some plants are different and need more customized nutrition to maximize their potential. I think that is where we as growers need to extend our growing knowledge and make our nutes to fit our plants if we want to get to that advanced level like we do with our breeding. I like all aspects of growing and I like the liberty to pick for ourselves.
2 Likes
Ahh, I see, he may have to play the game NASA wants him to play.
I do agree with this statement.
If it was found triple the P grows great cannabis, then I do feel his hands would be tied to tell the truth.
The world today seems to follow a narrative, if facts you find do not fit said narrative then they must be omitted.
Crazy times we live in.
This is definitely the Dis-information age.
3 Likes
You need to elucidate what great weed is, and what PPM (P) value we are tripling!!!
See, yes it’s info overload but (in kindness) it’s because we aren’t using specific, rich language (sorry!!!)
Edit: Here’s some threads to pull on. I linked this video at timestamp 27:41 when you hit play… he discusses “responsible phosphorus”. Now, he does mention that some varieties need more P (up to and beyond 90 PPM which is off his own chart, in red arrow no less like a green/red pen negotiation at your local Subaru dealership) and for that I’ll buy him a beer!
Does higher yeild = higher quality?
2 Likes
@LD50 You do realize he is growing I probably the CBD rich type variant with low 0.3% < THC not that they might make much of a difference but the science for it is there. I have messed with the phosphorus and NCSU is finding some success with various rates. I think this is where we as growers have to perform our own trials and see what patterns are there. Always wanting to peel back the onion and get to the deeper layers.
1 Like
I don’t realize that at all! I don’t think any of us know what cultivars they’ve run, for what commercial interests, and/or what they’ve studied before/after legalization in 2015. But I know they don’t all sit around and smoke the cured bud after class and discuss effects like we do. 
1 Like
A guy named spurr at ICrag was sayin’ many years ago we use too much P and he showed why he felt more than 50 ppm P was a waste.
I tend to agree but LEDS are more of a factor now, and I really try to push Calcium so I am finding what I think is a P deficiency, still investigating things.
So I feel low P probably works in most cases but, as it has been said here, we need to adjust all things to our individual grow environment.
One more thing…
Spurr was promoting your boy danny here, way back then too.
Look for spurrs groundbreaking ferts…I can link ya if need be, just ask.
3 Likes
I feel there is something to be said for that. 
Outta like for the day already…LOL
3 Likes
Well the School gets funding help via from federal sources and since THC is still schedule 1 then I would have to deduce that the plants being grown meet the 0.3 < THC threshold. JMO?
@Cactus “Most of USU’s funding comes from large-scale growing operations across the United States. Because it was illegal to grow cannabis in Utah for so long, a lot of the university’s preliminary testing is debunking claims related to growing the plant.”
“Another grad student at USU is hoping to study the flower produced through Bugbee and Westmoreland’s research for CBD and THC degradation over time to see if that kind of behavior can be profitable for farmers who don’t immediately sell.”
Edit, yes they included a hit piece on Phosphorus too. 
1 Like
I guess this is where I was getting my data from?
See now I’m going to write an email and ask! I mean I’m with you, I assume the same things you do on fed scheduling. I guess I leave room to assume some plausibility that there are commercially funded works within Utah state that don’t violate any federal laws. I assume it because the THC component of cannabis is too high value to assume that this 2019 USU page is still accurate to a T. I have zero clue! I just tug on these strings until a box falls from the top shelf of closet, sometimes right onto my head.
2 Likes
@LD50 I think the whole process is what it is all about. I am a firm believer of kicking the tires and taking it for a test run before you buy. I can’t help but like Bugbee as well as Dr. F.
This is such a wonderful system of how the plant works with its environment. I have some info that I can share on here to get some opinions on Dr. Bugbees research and would welcome some input from all you here if that would be okay.
3 Likes
@Cactus By all means! I don’t speak for all of us or anything, but YES please share.
2 Likes
Guess I’m a fan girl then cause I own enough 20-10-20 Peat lite… 
Anyway, I found the Vansil W10 pretty cheap at the link below.
4 Likes