^ In an email to Fortune, Matt Hawkins, managing principal at Cresco Capital Partners, shared his thoughts on Aurora Cannabis’ recent No. 1 ranking on the trade and investment app Robinhood’s most-held stocks list, ahead of Apple (No. 4) and other major companies. The app is especially popular with millennials and Gen Z users. Source: Fortune

^ In a June 29 earnings conference call, Constellation Brands Inc. Chief Executive William Newlands said his company was not pleased with the fourth-quarter earnings of cannabis producer Canopy Growth Corp., in which Constellation holds a 38-percent ownership stake (with options for up to 50-percent ownership in the future). On July 3, Bruce Linton announced he had been fired as Canopy’s CEO. Source: Marketwatch

^ Robert C. Clarke, cannabis researcher and Cannabis Business Times columnist, shared his thoughts on why he resigned from the Phylos Bioscience Scientific Advisory Board in the wake of the company’s announcement to start a breeding program. Source: Cannabis Business Times

While magnesium (Mg) is sometimes a forgotten element, sulfur (S) is actually ignored. Few fertilizer bags even list the amount of S provided. Typically, it is only listed as an ingredient, and the main amount of S supplied is from the associated sulfate (-SO₄) attached to the micronutrients. This low amount provided as part of the micronutrients is generally insufficient to meet plant demands.

One reason S has not received much attention is because atmospheric S has been readily available due to the burning of high sulfur coal. In the 1966 book, “Sand and Water Culture Methods Used in the Study of Plant Nutrition,” author E.J. Hewitt states that in the United Kingdom, S deficiencies are rarely seen within close proximity to cities or towns due to the use of household coal-burning heating units. With the increased use of low-S containing coal and natural gas for electricity generation, the amount of atmospheric S available to plants is diminishing. To compensate for this shift, agricultural applications of S-containing fertilizers such as potassium sulfate (K₂SO₄), calcium sulfate (CaSO₄), and magnesium sulfate heptahydrate (MgSO₄.7H₂O) have increased.

With greenhouse cannabis production, we require fertilizers to be readily water soluble. Sulfate-based fertilizers such as K₂SO₄, CaSO₄ and MgSO₄.7H₂O easily precipitate out of solution into insoluble forms. The primary culprit is CaSO₄, which is gypsum and commonly used as wallboard in building construction. So the S fertilization strategy must be customized to meet the demands of the greenhouse environment.

Evaluate Your Fertilizer Program

The first step in determining if you are providing enough S is to evaluate your fertilization program. Sufficient levels of S usually are not provided by the irrigation water. (In most cases this is ideal, for S in the hydrogen sulfide form (H₂S) is associated with the rotten egg smell.) Ideally, fertilizer and the corresponding substrate S levels should be in the 50 to 200 ppm range. Assuming the availability of a baseline level of atmospheric S, the critical lower target range should be above 25 ppm S. Higher levels of S generally are considered to be non-toxic, but there is a limit above ~300 ppm. Elevated S levels can inhibit the plant’s ability to uptake both boron (B) and molybdenum (Mo). The key for plant nutrition is balancing all the factors that impact uptake to optimize growth.

Because S concentrations are typically not listed on most fertilizer bags, you will need to send a fertilizer solution sample to a commercial lab to obtain a complete analysis of the S and the other elements contained in your fertilizer. This is an invaluable test that should be done to ensure that your overall fertilization program is on track.

Sulfur Deficiency Symptoms

Cannabis (Cannabis sativa) plants can develop symptoms of S deficiency, but the occurrence is much lower than, say, a nitrogen (N) deficiency. Sulfur and N deficiencies have very similar leaf symptomology. The key is observing where on the plant the symptoms first appear. Nitrogen is a mobile element, which means when the plant senses that N is low, it will remobilize N from the older leaves to the younger growth. That is why N deficiency symptomology of total leaf chlorosis (yellowing) initially appears on the older, lower leaves. (Note: With advanced N deficiencies, the symptomology will work its way up the stem into the middle section of the plant, which can confuse the diagnosis.)

Sulfur is a partially mobile element. In most S-deficiency situations, symptoms of leaf yellowing will appear in the middle section of the plant on the recently matured stage of leaves (Fig. 4). This is the case when N is also amply provided. If at the same time, N levels are inadequate, S deficiency symptomology can overlap in lower portions of the plant in the same region where N symptomology will appear. This makes diagnosing the situation more challenging and reinforces the need to submit a tissue sample to a commercial lab for complete nutrient analysis to confirm your diagnosis.

The typical progression of S symptomology begins as an overall pale discoloration of the middle zone leaves (Fig. 2A). This yellowing is associated with a drastic decrease in chlorophyll concentration in the leaf due to the plant’s inability to synthesize key amino acids. The pattern of how the chlorosis first appears on the leaf will aid in diagnosing S deficiency. Typically chlorosis first appears at the leaf base and progresses outwards toward the leaf tip (Fig. 1). As symptoms progress, the overall level of yellowing intensifies (Fig. 2B&C). With advanced conditions, due to the lack of chlorophyll, sun burning of the leaves will result in the appearance of necrotic spots. Plant growth will also be stunted (Fig. 3). In general, the S sufficiency range for cannabis is between 0.17 percent to 0.26 percent as suggested by Bryson and Mills in “Plant Analysis Handbook IV.”

Corrective Procedures

The fix for S deficiency is easy. Epsom salts (magnesium sulfate) can be applied at the rate of 2 pounds per 100 gallons of water (2.4 kg/1000L). Apply this as a 5 percent to 10 percent flow-through leaching irrigation. This will stop symptom progression but will not reverse any severe leaf chlorosis or necrotic spotting. For regions that lack sufficient S in irrigation water and S is not part of the regular fertilization program (i.e., 20-10-20 does not contain significant amounts of S), monthly applications of Epsom salts at the rate of 1 pound per 100 gallons of water (1.2 kg/1000L) is the common production practice to green up plants and avoid deficiencies. (Also note, avoid mixing Epsom salts with calcium (Ca)-based fertilizers, as this will result in an insoluble precipitate forming in the fertilizer container.)

Conclusions

Symptoms of S deficiency readily develop on cannabis. Growers need to increase the amount of S available from the irrigation water, and provide supplemental S to the plants as needed to avoid further deficiencies.

Brian Whipker, Paul Cockson, James Turner Smith & Hunter Landis are from the Department of Horticultural Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, N.C.

Cannabis producers in California must send their products to independent labs to ensure they comply with state testing standards for contaminants, potency and other critical factors. When the state’s Phase 3 testing regulations came into effect in December 2018, many of these labs closed down or became backlogged as they upgraded systems, which created testing bottlenecks and product delivery delays.

The situation left me wondering, “How could producers overcome these challenges if they had unlimited funds?”

My answer would simply be to approach the testing lab and propose that I purchase a “platinum package” that would ensure it always tested my products first. Products without this “platinum package” would be set back and not tested until mine were completed, thus giving my company a first-to-market advantage over competitors.

It’s a practice that would be considered legal behavior for all parties involved because there are no laws against paying for expedited services. Shipping companies do this every day.

Expanding on the scenario further, I asked myself, “What if those companies that chose aggressive strategies began paying distribution companies a royalty or percentage of sales in the form of incentives to distribute and push one product over a competitor’s or pay a distributor to not carry a competitor’s products?”

This is another common strategy performed by corporations every day. For example, soft drink producers often have exclusivity agreements with restaurants or retailers to only sell their brands. It’s the reason why you might only see Coca-Cola or PepsiCo products at a particular establishment. These are not considered predatory practices but rather are tactics used to gain and measure market share.

Exclusivity deals to carry certain brands or product lines are becoming more frequent in the cannabis industry, especially with the rise in celebrity-supported brands. But exclusivity often goes both ways: A retailer signing a deal to carry an exclusive brand may be prevented from carrying other brands outside of that distributor’s network.

How can a cannabis company operate, let alone survive, when it is at the mercy of a distributor?

A Look at Other Industries

Again, aggressive distribution strategies are not uncommon outside of the cannabis industry. Take the Luxottica Group, an innocuous enough sounding name that few have heard of, yet many people use their products regularly. They own sunglass brands such as Ray-Ban, Oakley and Persol, among a host of other well-known names. In the past three decades, Luxottica also acquired major eyewear retailers such as Sunglass Hut, Target Optical and Pearle Vision. Its wholesale distribution network, which also includes LensCrafters and EyeMed in North America, “covers more than 150 countries across five continents,” according to the company’s website.

If you are an independent sunglass manufacturer attempting to ask Sunglass Hut to carry and sell your product, you would receive a “no” because it only distributes its own products. The same goes for independent stores and distributors that have a relationship with Luxottica because, just like with sodas, most independent retailers are forbidden from selling a competitor’s products lest they lose the right to sell Luxottica’s products. Simple, legal, strong-arm tactics.

This is how I expect most publicly traded cannabis companies to operate. Let’s not forget that most of those companies are owned and run by business executives who worked for corporations where such practices were just considered “smart business.”

What does all of this mean for cannabis retailers or dispensaries? What would prevent a billion-dollar producer from paying or incentivizing a seller to push its product and provide preferential shelf space? What will happen to smaller companies that have limited market access and longer lead times for lab results? How can one small company compete against such tactics?

Grow Up the Chain

I fear smaller companies can’t compete in this environment without trying to vertically integrate their operations as much as possible. Having a distribution permit will allow a grower to distribute its own products. Some states allow producers to have ownership in retail operations, but this is not realistic for many.

Ultimately, it is the wish of those who desire to control as much of the market as possible—or at the very least all things concerning their products and profits—that the industry play out this way. Their goal is to generate millions of dollars from initial public offerings, which many are already doing successfully. They intend to use these funds to purchase existing cultivation facilities and dispensaries in multimillion-dollar deals. In fact, many major cannabis companies have already successfully vertically integrated their businesses wherever it’s legal. (For instance, the largest dispensary in California during the past two years is producing cannabis in its own greenhouses.) In states or countries where it isn’t allowed, some have diversified and separated their corporations, so one entity owns one segment of the supply chain, and others own the rest.

There are incentives for businesses to sell self-produced products over third-party products, the first being access to their own product for a lower cost as opposed to purchasing from an outside entity.

Companies that produce and sell their own products also eliminate purchasing costs, including labor and man-hours to sell, log and track such purchases. This model of operations will become more prevalent as larger companies purchase and absorb smaller companies that are struggling to compete, or that hold incredible potential for the purchasing company’s plans, all of which is currently taking place very successfully.

When I mentioned this topic to a friend, he stated the future is rife with doom and gloom. I asked if he would prefer a head-in-the-sand approach or to know of and anticipate current and potential market shifts prior to them being beyond his control. Smaller companies that have some sort of vested interest in all aspects of the business from production to sale—whether it’s a contract with a lab for fast testing or having part ownership in a facility where it’s legally allowed—will improve their chances in an increasingly competitive market.

Kenneth Morrow is an author, consultant and owner of Trichome Technologies. Facebook: TrichomeTechnologies Instagram: Trichome Technologies k.trichometechnologies@gmail.com