The American market is undeniably the largest the world has ever seen and is likely to remain so for a very long time. Look at it this way: We can each produce something, then sell it in the same language and using the same currency across a jurisdiction spanning nearly 3,000 miles. In terms of geography, there is no other market like it and never has been. Given that America is a $20-trillion economic powerhouse, we are also unlikely to see any other economy nearly as valuable. The opportunity to sell into that market is why everyone wants to bring their products to the U.S., no matter what market cap their companies currently have.

While an ongoing flood of companies, most notably conglomerates, entering the U.S. market may incite fear, we prefer to look at the opportunities as we perceive them.

Niche products that have gained access to the U.S. market and have prospered include Ben & Jerry’s, Honest (maker of Honest Tea, among others) and Tom’s of Maine. Sierra Nevada used to be a craft beer company, and KIND used to be a niche health food company. Companies like Trillium Brewing Company in Massachusetts and Vermont’s Alchemist are now at craft scale, while Sierra Nevada and KIND have grown to be larger operators.

What each of these current and former niche businesses have in common is an understanding of their existing and potential customers. In the context of the American market, each of these players learned to understand its customers and to deliver what these customers wanted. Each of these success stories features a company that gained the confidence and trust of a large part of its potential market. By the time the larger players in their respective industries became aware of these niche brands, the larger players had to either live with the niche players or try to acquire them. Once the niche players had gained the confidence and trust of American consumers, the large players could do very little about it.

The question for the cannabis industry is whether we can do the same thing in our industry before Big Pharma, Big Alcohol or Big Tobacco figure out how to gain the confidence of our natural market with products similar to our products before we do.

The First-to-Market Advantage

It appears to us that we, as current operators, have the advantage of being first into this market. Our products are not easy to handle, and our market and our customers have their quirks. The big guys will throw their money at the problem by bringing in their marketing experts and focus groups to try to understand our market’s customers. We do not believe the big guys can do this any more quickly or more effectively than current cannabis businesses can. We believe that we can deliver the products, the packaging and the labeling that our customers want better than the big guys can.

We are not saying that this will be easy. Today’s cannabis businesses will have to work to understand their markets better than they do now. Some of this market, in particular some of the larger conventional American consumer market, will be strange to us. That is, some of our potential market will be entirely new to whatever we might call the “cannabis experience.”

Nevertheless, we have a head start. We know our natural customers, and we know the nuances of our products that we will have to explain to new customers. This means that current operators should be able to do the focus groups and the marketing better than the big guys. It seems to us that this is exactly what Ben and Jerry’s, Sierra Nevada and other companies like them have done.

Furthermore, we have an extremely large market to motivate us all. We should be able to exploit market niches within our markets and, indeed, to exploit the entire market before the big guys can.

On the whole, we believe that they have more to fear from us than we have from them. We all know that they could spend an awful lot of money going down rabbit holes in this industry and end up with nothing. The big prizes will mostly go to the companies that learn how to create and serve American customers. Those should be our companies.

Build Trust, Reduce Costs

We have recognized certain significant cost drivers that, within the American market, are unique to the cannabis industry, including one of the biggest thorns in the side of producers: mandatory third-party testing.

Mandatory testing is required of conventional food, beverage and drug producers, but they all do their testing in-house, subject to FDA audit. Even after absorbing the costs of internal testing, bringing that testing in-house would save our company (Connecticut Pharmaceutical Solutions) roughly $400,000 per year in comparison to the costs of independent third-party testing.

To bring testing in-house, we would have to do a lot of work to convince both our regulators and our customers that they could rely implicitly on our in-house testing. Furthermore, our legitimacy in our customers’ (and regulators’) eyes is invaluable and must never be subject to question. Nevertheless, we have several hundred thousand dollars of motivation regarding this issue.

Another area for very large potential cost savings is tax reform, specifically with respect to Section 280E of the Internal Revenue Code. If the big guys get into this industry, we can expect them to talk to politicians through their lobbyists about how many people they employ and about how important their industries are to local economies to persuade them to revise these unfriendly codes.

This perhaps is the biggest advantage larger companies have over current cannabis industry operators: They already work together. They generally do this through large industry organizations. The cost of that unification is that even big guys like Procter & Gamble, Johnson & Johnson or Unilever can’t simply go their own way, no matter how big they are. They have to figure out how to cooperate as to their common industry interests, which tend to overwhelm their competitive interests. No matter how big they may be, they would never fight 280E as individual companies, but rather as an industry. They would present a united front as an industry that contributes a great deal of money to the American economy and that employs a large number of people. They would direct their lobbyists at a common target.

Our industry already has multiple associations and lobbyists, and already employs a lot of people. Presenting ourselves with a unified voice as the source of legitimate product and as significant to local economies, however, remains a challenge. So long as we leave legitimacy and economic significance to the big guys, we will be exposed on that front. We would like to control product legitimacy and economic significance from the high ground. We already know about regulation. We already know about testing. We already know how to hire lobbyists. From our point of view, our industry should be the one to remove Section 280E from the tax code. This will take a unified industry. We will need producers working with dispensaries, dispensaries working with producers, and industry organizations that help us to work together.

With the exception of cooperation, we see those big guys as no better than we are and probably not nearly as good.

The Value of Getting It Right

We argue that the door is open for us to be as sophisticated as any big company or as any big industry in working together politically to do something that benefits all of us, all of our communities, and all of our customers. We can do all of this as a legitimate industry that employs thousands of people, contributes its more-than-fair share of taxes, and supports the growth of the entire economy.

We acknowledge how esoteric this sounds. It sounds like a lot of effort for something other than this month’s revenues and profits. But either we control these matters, or we leave them to someone else to control. As Aristotle said: Nature abhors a vacuum.

Thomas Schultz: President, Connecticut Pharmaceutical Solutions (CPS), CTPharma.com

Rino Ferrarese: COO, Connecticut Pharmaceutical Solutions

The recommended substrate pH for cannabis (Cannabis sativa) varies widely. A recommended substrate pH of 6.0 to 6.5 often is cited as the standard. However, we have observed pH ranges between 4.0 and 5.0 or greater than 7.0 during our visits to commercial greenhouses growing cannabis.

Our observations from those greenhouses indicated that plants grown at acidic (lower) pH appear to have normal growth and lack the symptomology of lower leaf blackening or bronzing typically seen with other greenhouse species at lower pH levels. In crops grown at higher pH, only in rare instances did we observe interveinal chlorosis of the upper (youngest) leaves (a common symptom of greenhouse crops grown at high pH). These observations suggest that cannabis is not prone to iron deficiencies when the substrate pH nears 7.0.

Returning to our labs at North Carolina State University (NCSU), we began our work to understand the underlying factors affecting pH in substrates and how those fluctuations impact the Cannabis sativa plant in order to determine the optimal pH range for cannabis.

This is what we discovered.

pH on the Range

Substrate pH is important to plant nutrition because it directly impacts plant nutrient availability.

Substrate pH levels below 5.0 result in increased micronutrient availability that can lead to iron (Fe) toxicity or manganese (Mn) toxicity, or both. Symptoms of Fe toxicity and Mn toxicity may appear as black speckling on older leaves (observed with zinnias or gerbera) or as bronzing (observed with marigolds or seed geraniums). While some crops display low pH symptoms on lower leaves, others may only display low pH through stunted growth, as is the case with poinsettias.

In our initial experiments at NCSU, we did not observe symptomology of lower leaf blackening or bronzing on Cannabis sativa plants, only stunted growth. These preliminary results suggested that cannabis can regulate micronutrient uptake under low substrate pH conditions similar to a poinsettia.

When the substrate pH becomes too high, many species develop interveinal chlorosis (yellowing) on the youngest leaves. This is a common situation that occurs with many greenhouse-grown species (such as petunias) when the elevated pH makes micronutrients, such as Fe, unavailable to the plant, even if adequate levels are provided in the fertilizer.

We did not observe symptomology of interveinal chlorosis in cannabis plants grown at pH 7.0 in our initial experiments at NCSU, either. Iron uptake can also be hindered by over-irrigation, cold substrate temperatures or root disease such as Pythium. In other experiments at NCSU, we did observe the development of interveinal chlorosis on plants with a pH of 7.8. This observation provides more refinement of the upper pH limit and would suggest that the pH should be lower than 7.5.

The preliminary results of NCSU’s research imply that vegetative stock plants of cannabis have a wide substrate pH range in which the plants will optimally grow. That range appears to be as wide as pH 5.0 to 7.0. Based on experience with other species, a narrower range of 5.5 to 6.5 may be more appropriate to target, as this will allow growers to more easily adjust as pH approaches the ends of the targeted range.

For growers, utilizing these pH values in a monitoring system such as the PourThru method implies that the safe pH zone to target would be a narrower 5.8 to 6.2. If pH drops below 5.8 or above 6.2, corrective procedures should begin to adjust the pH back into the 5.8 to 6.2 range.

(Note: These values are for plants grown in greenhouse conditions with a soilless substrate (growing medium). Optimal ranges for field-based growing conditions typically would move up the lower and the upper range by 0.5 pH units to 6.2 to 6.7—as field soils latch on to more nutrients than a soilless substrate such as peat or coir, and risk of nutrient lock-up is lessened.)

How to Correct pH

Again, when the pH drifts into unwanted territory, adjustments must be made. Below are standard corrective procedures used to modify substrate pH for plants grown in soilless substrates in greenhouses and adapted for cannabis.

1. Low Substrate pH Correction When Fe toxicity and Mn toxicity become a problem, raise substrate pH to the recommended pH range. Corrective procedures to raise low pH levels are listed on p. 52 (Table 1). Switching to an alkaline fertilizer when substrate pH is nearing the lower limit will help stabilize the pH.

Flowable Lime

To make small adjustments of roughly 0.5 pH units, mix 1 to 2 quarts of flowable lime per 100 gallons of water. If using an injector, avoid using higher concentrations of flowable lime as it will damage it. If higher rates are needed, then split your applications to avoid damaging your injector. To avoid leaf burn, it is best to rinse the foliage after treatment if any flowable lime comes in contact with the leaves.

Hydrated Lime

For more stubborn low-pH problems, use a hydrated lime mixture. Mix 1 pound of hydrated lime in 3 to 5 gallons of warm water. Mix it twice and let it settle after each mixing. Once the sediment collects in the bottom of the container, pour the liquid through your injector system set at a 1:15 ratio. This product is corrosive, so rinse the foliage as soon as possible to avoid leaf burn, and avoid skin contact.

Potassium Bicarbonate (KHCO₃)

Potassium bicarbonate should be handled with care. It can throw off your substrate chemistry as it provides 993 ppm of potassium (K) in mixtures of 2 pounds per 100 gallons of water. Rinse the foliage immediately after application via injectors and leach heavily the following day with a complete fertilizer to reduce substrate electrical conductivity (EC) and restore nutrient balance. The 2-pounds rate will increase the substrate pH by roughly 0.8 pH units. Rates greater than 2 pounds per 100 gallons of water can cause phytotoxicity.

As always, remember to recheck your substrate pH to determine if reapplications are needed.

2. High Substrate pH Correction The target pH for cannabis is between 5.8 and 6.2. Higher pH values may result in Fe deficiency and create interveinal chlorosis on upper leaves. Check the substrate pH to determine if it is too high. Be careful when lowering the substrate pH, as low pH can be more problematic and difficult to manage.

Acid-Based Fertilizer

If the substrate pH is beginning to increase, consider switching to an acidic-based fertilizer. These ammoniacal nitrogen (N)-based fertilizers are naturally acidic, and plant nitrogen uptake will help moderate the substrate pH over a week or two.

Acid Water Drench

Some growers use this intermediate correction when pH levels are not excessively high and a quick lowering of substrate pH is desired. Sulfuric acid is recommended to acidify irrigation water to a pH 4.0 to 4.5. Apply this acid water as a substrate drench, providing 5 percent to 10 percent excessive leaching of the substrate. Rinse the foliage to avoid phytotoxicity. Results should be visible within five days. Retest the substrate pH and repeat if needed.

Iron Drench

If the levels are excessively high, then a Fe chelate application can be made to the substrate.

• Iron-EDDHA can be mixed at a ratio of 5 ounces per 100 gallons of water.
• Iron-DTPA can be mixed at a ratio of 5 ounces per 100 gallons of water.
• Iron sulfate can be mixed at a ratio of 4 ounces to 8 ounces per 100 gallons of water.

Apply the iron as a substrate drench with enough volume to leach the pot, and rinse the foliage immediately after application.

Conclusions

Based on grower observations and initial experiments at NCSU, it is possible to grow cannabis with a wider soilless substrate pH range than most other species. Cannabis plants do not appear prone to develop leaf symptomology when substrate pH is too low or too high compared to the current general greenhouse standards—only plant stunting occurs at sub-optimal conditions.

Therefore, based on research and experience with other species, a wider range of 5.5 to 6.5 may be used. When adapting these values to a monitoring system, the recommended pH zone to target would be 5.8 to 6.2. By monitoring the substrate pH over time, one can assure that plants are within the optimal range.

Brian Whipker, Turner Smith and Paul Cockson are from Department of Horticultural Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, N.C. Hunter Landis is from North Carolina Dept. of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Raleigh, N.C.

Cultivar Details:

Plant physiology: 4.5 feet tall, assuming a three-week veg period. Width is about 2 feet.

Average yield: Total flower weight of 60 grams per sq. ft.

Flowering time: 63 to 70 days

Ideal light-intensity setting: 700 to 900 µmol/m2/s from double-ended HPS fixtures

Water needs: Maintain a volumetric water content of 55% to 60% in the grow medium throughout the flower cycle.

Ideal cultivation temperature: 74 degrees to 80 degrees Fahrenheit during first 56 days of flower; 64 degrees to 70 degrees Fahrenheit during last 7 to 14 days for optimal trichome ripening

Ideal cultivation relative humidity: 55% to 65% relative humidity (RH) during the first 42 days of flower then reduced to 50% to 55% RH during the last 21 to 28 days

Nutrient needs: Diamond Dust performs well in a nutrient formulation with an electrical conductivity (EC) of 2.0 to 2.8.

Cannabinoid profile: Type 1, THC-dominant variety with a decent amount of cannabigerol (CBG) that carried through from the Lemon Haze (sativa) lineage. Diamond Dust generally tests around 21% to 25% THC and 2% CBG, which gives a nice balance to provide a clean and clear high.

Terpene profile: d-Limonene, linalool, ß-caryophyllene, e-nerolidol, ß-pinene, and ß-myrcene gives Diamond Dust a terpene profile that is somewhat a mix of cheese funk and sweet.

Susceptibility to any diseases/conditions: Resistant to powdery mildew (PM) and botrytis

Across the U.S., many pet parents fresh off the heels of Independence Day fireworks continue to look for solutions to pet anxiety during noisy or other particularly stressful situations. The federal legalization of hemp-derived cannabinoids took place in December 2018 via the signing into law of The Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (commonly referred to as the 2018 Farm Bill). Despite the law’s novelty, a great deal more already has been discovered this year about how cannabidiol (CBD) works for humanity’s furry friends, including amongst the racket and chaos of a fireworks show. Whether doled out in tinctures, treats, or even capsules and topicals, the pet CBD market is diversifying and growing—quickly.

The three things to know about this evolving industry are:

• Pet owners look to CBD to address a range of conditions and symptoms their animals are experiencing—primarily anxiety, followed by pain (particularly joint pain/arthritis), and less commonly for skin conditions, seizure disorders and others.
• Though dogs have dominated the space traditionally, consumers are beginning to purchase more CBD-infused products for their cats, horses, birds and even smaller critters and reptiles.
• As is the case in the human realm, a broad societal backlash against opioids and other pharmaceutical products—largely attributed to associated side effects and costs—has driven many consumers to seek natural health products for their pets as well. Accordingly, interest and revenues in the pet CBD space have blown up post-Farm Bill, as consumers feel more comfortable and better-informed about CBD and its uses. This paves the way for the pet CBD space to grow from a $32 million to a $401 million market over the course of just one year, according to predictive analytics and market research firm Brightfield Group.

Today’s market continues to be hampered by regulatory barriers, such as the FDA’s prohibition of ingestible CBD sales pending the establishment of an official, sanctioned regulatory framework, limitations placed on veterinarians by the DEA, and other state-level laws and policies.

Despite this, Brightfield Group anticipates the market will grow more than twelvefold in 2019 as a number of mass retailers are expected to onboard CBD products before the year is out, launching them into the public eye even more so than they are currently, giving significantly more consumers easy access to product and helping further destigmatize the use of CBD in animals.

Furthermore, in the medium-term, major manufacturers will join the space with tremendous resources and capital at their disposal, helping them more effectively and thoroughly tap into the $18-billion U.S. pet vitamins and supplements market, and further fueling the growth of the pet CBD industry.

Jamie Schau attained a B.A. in international studies and an M.A. in international development from the University of California, San Diego. She is head of research with Brightfield Group, where she performs quantitative and qualitative analyses of various aspects of the U.S. marijuana markets.