RDWC growing, not best results

If the plants are healthy throughout, it's genetics. Otherwise, the ratio/concentration of the formual is at fault. Those are liquid nutes, so you probably need to deal with specific gravity -- find an app or online ppm calculator that can also factor in specific gravity if necessary. It's good to keep track of this when using soilless/hydro methods. You provide 100% of the nutrients, so there's no unkowns.. it makes diagnosis easier and makes consistently awesome results virtually guaranteed. RDWC may need a slightly lower overall concentration, but that will depend on how often you swap out the rez etc... The more evaporation that occurs the more you need to adjust down to counteract that effect. If the system is as closed as possible - except for top of pot etc - not too much evaporation will occur. I give a fairly low formula to start... 1.2EC is probably safe (this is not counting what your water adds.. only what is calculated from the guaranteed analysis labels. A better app/calculator will tabulate all the products together or oyu can add them up individually. I'm a big spreadsheet guy, so made a spreadsheet that calculates and addsd it up for me. PPMs at 6.0 pH +/ 0.2pH 120-130 N - drop this to 100-110 in bloom while the others remain the same. 40-60 P 180-200 K 100+ Ca 50-75 Mg - i find marijuana needs more than 50, and i have hard water which likely contributes some. 100+ S Mg, Ca might be impacted by your local water supply. No biggie as any adjustments from this formula Same with the rest, for that matter. Any issue seen with this starting formula will be slow progressing at worst. An easy diagnosis and adjustment for future use. Trial and error will always be needed as local variables are not all the same. Outside of a tweak to Mg or Ca, I would wager 90% of adjustment will have to do with the overall concentration. This is near 1.2-1.3 EC, i beleive. Depending on VPD and how much light is applied, which is CO2 limited, you may need a higher EC at similar ratios... in those cases you just add X-percent to everything you add to the formula and you'll get X percent higher EC with same exact ratios. Ratio of nutes is equally important to overall concentration. they impact eah other... See "Mulder's Chart." You add one thing and it may require more of other things... due to a stimulative relationship or beacuse it reduced the availability of the other nute (could be more than 1 related and the relationship is not always bi-directional). Several companies stick to this rough formula. It is not something i made up on my own. Jacks (J,R, Peters), Souther Ag, Masterblend, Athena, Floraflex, et al all have some "pro line" or "hydro line" of dry nutes with a similar "Part A" base that you mix with calcium nitrate and a little epsom. they all equate to roughly this formula when mixed despite slightly different "Part A" NPK et al values. 3 parts.. not 12.. though you may want to add a little spice of your own... play around with a spike to this nute or that... Triple superphosphate, monopotassium phosphate, various bits with sulfur in it... spike something, then adjust the formula back to the 'norm' as best you can to get a good read on the effect. It's very easy to play mad scientist if you choose to do so. E.G. I use a little triple superphosphate (0-46-0 with 19% Ca or something close to that)... bumps my P to 60 from jack's ~50 base and gives me a little more Ca, which seems fine / if not useful. ther's a channel on youtube that has a Jack's run down. In one i think he compares the resulting ppm breakdown of jacks with other producets like generan hydro.. green gene's garden.. lots of good info there if you can handle the pompous kid behind it. but, you can see what he does with the formula.. basically anyone i know that uses this grows great plants all the time.. no excuses needed. Anyway, this is backed by a lot of research. the type of generational kowledge that many marijuana branded companies are just too ignorant to make use up, and prefer to use their esoteric magical formulas, that often don't work nearly as well. Good research anecdote 99/100 times, and that's being conservative. you can see that several major AG companies have a product that adheres to this research. that's no accident. it works well. So, don't trust me. Trust the large samples that dwarf what anyone does at home and measurements that human senses just cannot compete with... it's years ahead and it's old news.. it's a bad reflection on a lot marijuana-brand companies that they completely ignored an existiing knoweldge base.

What about the result are you not happy with? If it's the potency of the product, then you might be harvesting too soon, or you have a low THC strain. When you harvest you have to use the trichomes as your guide. Mostly milky / cloudy is when THC is at it's peak. Amber ones are degrading and diminishing in potency, and clear have not yet peaked in potency.