Hi guys,
A reliable indicator of thread failure is when one must continually read the thread title in order remind oneself of what the argument is about. Threads are in danger of being consigned to the dustbin of irrelevance when the posts become personal or when the content of the posts indicate disinterest and/or disillusionment.
I would rather that our forum develop a reputation as a source of accurate and insightful information as well as of inspired discussion. In an attempt to salvage what should be an intriguing debate regarding the merits of this ADA product, I took Woodsman's advice and attempted to reconstruct what valid arguments I could find:
Consistent with other ADA products, Brighty K is hideously expensive. Most EI anoraks find the purchase of this product, which I presume is essentially Potassium, hard to swallow. SuperCorley1 bought up a point that I had completely overlooked though, in that Brighty K is part of a system and therefore must be used in conjunction with other elements of the system in order to ensure success. EI is also a system and in the same way, KNO3 must be used in conjunction with the other powders in order to achieve success.
SKS has a valid point in that it may not be enough to merely come close in synthesizing Brighty K. There may be other nutrients in the mixture which, if left out, could cause the system to fail. The effort therefore is to determine exactly what Brighty K is composed of, to determine whether these other compounds are at all relevant to plant growth, and if so to reproduce them. Although it is beyond the capability of the average hobbyist to determine the content of Brighty it is far from impossible. Any Chemistry Lab with spectrometry tools can do this. In fact, Tom Barr is doing this very thing. SKS, this is why we should care about Tom Barr, Amano and others. They test or invent products, and they push back the boundaries of our knowledge. It is up to each individual to determine the limits of his/her knowledge. If someone is content to buy this product without understanding it's chemical composition, then fine. But possibly, by determining the composition I may learn something that I had not known before, or, I may confirm something that I already knew. I feel that it is therefore worth the bother.
Like many other ADA products, Brighty K surely has it's merits but if it has to be used in a system comprised of other hideously expensive products, then it's value diminishes.
Some time ago, during the dawn of aquatic gardening (remember the scene from 2001?) Dupla formulated a product called "Dupla Drops". It too was atrociously expensive and it seemed that on the rich and famous would ever have the privilege of lush growth. A chemical analysis revealed that Dupla Drops was composed of essentially Potassium Nitrate, Magnesium Sulfate, and some trace elements. This revelation led to the development of the home brew PMDD - Poor Man's Dupla Drops. After years of EI we take this for granted now but at the time it was revolutionary because it brought nutrient dosing within the grasp of the average (and less affluent) hobbyist. The high price of Dupla Drops actually stifled the growth of the hobby. Contemplating Brighty K generates a feeling of deja vu.
So is it worth it? Well, it seems if you use it within the context of the system - and are prepared to pony up the cash, and if you have an aversion to the dry powder or PMDD or PPS-Pro methods then yes. But you should purchase Brighty with eyes wide open - know that there are less expensive alternatives and that if you are just willing to study a bit more you can achieve equal levels of success with any of the alternative systems listed above.
Cheers,
