Carbs: A Wolf in Sheeps Clothing (warn)

[h.h.]

As suggested there may be other avenues less direct in which carbs may heip the plant. There may not be. Drawing a conclusion on one concept is a downfall on the advancement of any science. Ignoring the testimony of experience is foolish. True, many practices are perpetuated by superstition. Modern medicines have come from witch doctors as well. Science can only explain reality. It can't explain it away. At the very least it provides a few trace elements. Like anything overuse will cause problems. It is not an over priced feed my weed product.The bottom line is I'm getting to like the taste of it. Plants get a sip, I get a sip. I'm just careful not to drink too much. I won't go back to that though.

 

[*mistress*]

@ mistress,

While I'm here ill respond: all those bolds you made, and the studies you referenced are about sugars/starches/etc which are produced by the plant. The same carbs I have been referring to this whole time.

I see no reason to assume the plants are [sic] apt at absorbing carbs just because they create carbs (in fact, quite the opposite).

So what if yer not using a microherd at all, like growing soilless or hydro. Does the plant not take in the molasses anyway? BC

The plants absolutely take up molasses in soilless and hydro without a microherd.

from ag research/plant photobio lab:...

Metabolite Levels and Protein Synthesis Patterns During Sucrose Feeding.
A change in labeling of a particular protein as a function of days in the dark is not by itself sufficient proof that the protein is regulated by the carbohydrate content of the tissue.

...To address this point, sucrose was added to the culture solution in the expectation that a short pulse of sucrose would artificially raise the carbohydrate levels of the root. Table I shows that this was the case. Although endogenous sucrose pools could not be accurately measured due to the presence of exogenous sucrose, the sucrose addition did result in an increase in glucose, G6P, and F2,G-P2, an indication that tissue sucrose levels have increased (21, 22)....

general organics (general hydroponics)
bio thrive
vegan plant food
grow
4-3-3

derived from:
alfalfa meal, cane sugar, copper sulphate, glacial rock powder, iron sulphate, kierserite, manganese sulphate, molasses, plant extracts, potassium sulphate, rock phosphate, sodium borate, sodium molybdenate, soybean meal, zinc sulphate

cane sugar is a carbohydrate.
molasses contains carbohydrates...

in gh's attempt to attract the ultra-organic gardeners in the market, the developed a 'vegan plant food'. vegans seem more organic than organic. they specifically included cane sugar & molasses.

gh is very good @ customer/potential consumer service. can simply contact them & ask if they included these carbohydrates for ballast/filler, or if they are available to plants... should not take long to get answer... would be counter-productive to add ingredients that are not available to plants - especially in a newly formulated concentrate - specifically designed for finicky 'organic' & 'vegan' gardeners.

the research station paper is a good read. reveals what is already known to many gardeners... addition of this/that is only 1 variable in total processes of plants. they often switch the storage from tissue to root & temps, vpd, diff, light temps (kelvin), root temps, etc all contribute to movements of hormones, etc...

simply pouring in molasses no bueno if environmentals, ph & npk balance not in order...

in any event, yes, carbs are assimilated via roots... same as the roots would assimilate toxic substances, if present in root zone. if they had capacity to block carbs - that were fed @ right ph - they could also refuse to assimilate toxins, too much n during late flowers, acid rain, etc... that is their inherent weakness as organisms... they are subject to external water/chem concentrations...

We also want to emphasize that although we use the term
'carbohydrate responsive protein,' the identity of the molecule(s)
that is responsible for the changes in labeling is not known. In
this study, a change in sucrose content of the roots was accompanied
by changes in glucose, G6P, and F2,6-P,. In other studies
(22), additional phosphorylated metabolites have been reported
to vary in concert with sucrose. Also, it is probable that levels
of noncarbohydrate metabolites such as amino acids or lipids will
vary with tissue carbohydrate status. It is therefore possible that
the regulatory agent could be any one of the compounds listed
above. Consequently, we prefer to use the term 'carbohydrate
responsive' rather than 'carbohydrate regulated' to allow for the
possibility that carbohydrate regulation is indirect, i.e. via carbohydrate-
induced changes in the levels of other metabolites.

also evident that even science does not know it all... up to fanatic gardenrs on boards to figure it out...

hope this helps.

enjoy your garden!

 

[maryjohn]

many plants can and do have the ability to block N. I posted some research recently pointing that out. probably in a conversation with you, mistress. It was interesting because the mechanism for doing so can also be found in animals. So the idea that plants are just passive straws is not quite right. Even before plants and animals diverged, selective uptake was developed. Sure, certain things just go right on in, but not all things.

If what you posted means what you seem to think it means, molasses is a substitute for good lighting (my current source of sugars), and we don't have to bother with HID lighting anymore, or lights at all.

I can agree that occasional molasses feeding has been observed to be harmless or beneficial by many gardeners. So it is not a wolf by any means, but maybe not a sheep either.

I have trouble buying into crackpot theories that you can feed a plant sugar through its roots, or that doing so could be helpful in any way. I'll stick with the lights and photosynthesis, thank you.

As for GH, their purpose is to make money. Whatever is hot at the moment will get into their solutions.

 

[ganja din]

Sigh...ok, you've drawn me in for yet another of my 'last'posts...

I already wrote about roots utilizng small amounts of added carbs. And that studies of trees showed no benefit to any part of the tree except a minor benfit to the roots, increasing root length. You have posted nothing I have not yet posted...sceince wise (not the GH stuff). My reference shows molasses can offer a little benefit to some tree roots, but so would peeing on the soil...and all your reference shows is sucrose levels can temprorally rise, yet what is the benefit???

The main issue is the point of deminishing returns:
Will the possible benefits from adding molasses (as backed up with DATA) outweigh the possible harms of adding molasses (backed up by DATA).

On a laymen level data can be journal articles, bioassays, photosynthesis rates, N and P present in plant, brix levels (with N and P corrections), etc, etc.

ALL current scientific evidence I am aware of agrees with my position...



@ B.C.,

No. The plant will still produce carbs via. Photosynthesis. And I assume still transfer part of those carbs to the roots. The easiet way to test and get a ball-park figure would be take brix of roots grown with inorganic salts and roots grown with organics. You would need to develope a mean by testing many individuals which need to be grown in the exact same conditons. Then correct the brix score by accounting for N, and P. Finally compaire the two means to see if there is a large difference. This is only ballpark becuase many factors effect brix levels. You can't form a soild opinion from this type of testing.

 

[jaykush]

The main issue is the point of deminishing returns:
Will the possible benefits from adding molasses (as backed up with DATA) outweigh the possible harms of adding molasses (backed up by DATA).

how would you propose this be done.

 

[*mistress*]

many plants can and do have the ability to block N. I posted some research recently pointing that out. probably in a conversation with you, mistress. It was interesting because the mechanism for doing so can also be found in animals. So the idea that plants are just passive straws is not quite right. Even before plants and animals diverged, selective uptake was developed. Sure, certain things just go right on in, but not all things.

If what you posted means what you seem to think it means, molasses is a substitute for good lighting (my current source of sugars), and we don't have to bother with HID lighting anymore, or lights at all.

I can agree that occasional molasses feeding has been observed to be harmless or beneficial by many gardeners. So it is not a wolf by any means, but maybe not a sheep either.

I have trouble buying into crackpot theories that you can feed a plant sugar through its roots, or that doing so could be helpful in any way. I'll stick with the lights and photosynthesis, thank you.

As for GH, their purpose is to make money. Whatever is hot at the moment will get into their solutions.

carbs/molasses are only tools of gardener. application is up to gardenr.

the research is from ag reseach service, photobiology lab. far from crackpot.

point is it can be assimilated by roots. when/rate is up to mistress/master gardenr to manipulate.

yet what is the benefit???

carbs, potassium, calcium. magnesium, iron & b1 in 1 highly soluble & chelated form.
molasses is not new to gardening. nor is the use of vinasse, brewers condensed solubles, etc...

the benefit is alternative fertilizer, usually acquired as waste-products in ag/wine-making/sugar cane processing zones. now readily included in many ferts.

enjoy your garden!

 

[maryjohn]

So molasses is more of a cur that may have fleas dressed in a fancy wool coat? Looks housebroken but may pee on your bed?

Mistress, I saw your post, and read it too. As ganja pointed out and as I said, it does not mean what you think it means. As for the rest of your comments in response to mine, I use molasses to brew or make so many things that wind up in my garden, and I do use a bit, albeit very rarely and in tiny doses. I just don't need crackpot theories to pretend I am somehow in control. They are plants, not subs.

 

[*mistress*]

So molasses is more of a cur that may have fleas dressed in a fancy wool coat? Looks housebroken but may pee on your bed?

Mistress, I saw your post, and read it too. As ganja pointed out and as I said, it does not mean what you think it means. As for the rest of your comments in response to mine, I use molasses to brew or make so many things that wind up in my garden, and I do use a bit, albeit very rarely and in tiny doses. I just don't need crackpot theories to pretend I am somehow in control. They are plants, not subs.

?

it does not mean what you think it means.

the data seems clear enough.
not about thoughts.
each gardener can draw own conclusions about meaning & if/how it applied to own garden.
from post 1... of this thread...

As far as I am aware, plants like healthy cannabis do not need, nor benefit, from external application of carbs like molasses and other products like "sweet", etc.

IMO a healthy and established cannabis plant does not need, nor greatly benefit from application of carbohydrates.
The clones which got molasses did not have an appreciable increase in brix over the controls. I find buds which are not over fertilizer, or otherwise mis-handled, taste and smell as well as those which were given carbs.

OK, fire away! Opinions? Agreements? Thoughts?

thread starter requested 'thoughts'...
instead, provided raw data...

nonetheless, thread starter states:

I have tested brix levels (other factors affecting brix on the side) of clones with and without added molasses. The clones which got molasses did not have an appreciable increase in brix over the controls.

yet, we have yet to see these #'s presented, nor the regular feed regime... if these are 'organic soil' plants, what is the media & leach regime? a test should also include a hydro plant, coco, etc... hard to draw conclusions when dont use concentrated ferts anyway. there was a bias against molasses, 'sweet' etc in 1st post...

so, what is fed these ultra-organic plants? how do we know other factors have not skewed brix readings?

which brix meter?

frequency of tests? how long after dark/light? rh of garden? temps? light levels?

yes, plants are the subs of *mistress*... they are certainly not on top... they are selected, bred & crossed then continued only to serve *mistress*... that is point of botany; to select for best plants that suit gardener, not to start from a premise that the organic food rules & the plants must like it because that is the lifestyle of the human...

poll request:
harvard debate team vs. organic soil gardeners @ icmag...




*mistress* places on organic soil gardeners of icmag...
you gys/grrls rule!

peace....

enjoy your garden!

 

[Chief Rbud]

Hey Cheif, rather than putting words into my mouth why don't you read what I actually wrote instead of what others have claimed I said prior to flapping your cake hole. How is that for humour?

i think its pretty funny!, but forgive me, i missed post #19 somehow in my 1st reading of this thread. and im not going to read the rest, i read most of your webpage, but not all of it, it was very late and i fell asleep while reading it. ill finish it another time. really, i was only trying to lighten things a bit with my post about drinking mollasses, forgive me, i wont do it anymore.

 

[maryjohn]

Ay, mistress, you are right to point out the problems with the op's position, but you do go too far implying you can manipulate your plants in a meaningful way with molasses because a study found sugar in some roots given sugar.

If your subs are plants or animals, that is sad, and I hope you have a safe word. Sorry I brought it up.

If you think you are mistress of your food supply, that is even more sad. We are all a week from starvation and we all serve the same masters, like it or not. And you are a slave of reality as well.

 

[Microbeman]

i think its pretty funny!, but forgive me, i missed post #19 somehow in my 1st reading of this thread. and im not going to read the rest, i read most of your webpage, but not all of it, it was very late and i fell asleep while reading it. ill finish it another time. really, i was only trying to lighten things a bit with my post about drinking mollasses, forgive me, i wont do it anymore.

I was responding to this;

if it works and people have been doing it for 1000's of years, why do you guys think you are going to convince people who are doing it it doesnt work? same goes for microbeman, you know all the details of the science behind it, and you dont think it works, however, dont you think that what is important is the fact that if your method makes YOU feel good, then that is what matters;

when I had actually ONLY said this about molasses;

On black strap molasses use, I cannot fathom how it is conceivable that this practice delivers sugar or sweetness to the flowers or fruit of a plant (at least not directly). It is very useful as a microbial food and I've used it and recommended its use in soil [especially if transiting to organic from chems] because it stimulates the growth of microbes which will help to eat up the residual salts [chems] and help set the foundation for laying down a healthy microbial population. AEM (EM fermentation) is good to follow up with in this situation as the phototrophic and lactobacillus bacteria will further clean up any toxins; after planting I use aerated compost tea (ACT) to further boost the healthy microbial population and ACT is different that AEM in that the consortia is (or should be) a functioning nutrient cycling microbial consortia which will actually kick start the feeding of plants if there are bacteria/archaea as well as flagellates and/or naked amoebae in the brew. Black strap (diluted) can be used also before or after applying ACT as a food source for the microbes but compost, vermicompost/cast, fish hydrolysate may be more suitable.

and this attempting levity;

molasses feeds microbes; very very very little would be directly utilized by the plant.

From your freindly neighborhood experienced scientist<GRIN>

Anything else I said was follow up to a question from Mr. Din and replies to Verdant which someone quoted out of context. People on this forum sure jump to conclusions quickly. They think or see the word science and their eyes glaze over...seemingly.

I at no time made any comment about your attempt at humour nor did I care about it.

I do find it amusing that I get accused of some different scientific approach when all I ever do is attempt a scientific explanation to what most people are doing and seeing. My growing method is very similar to Jaykush. I have been growing since around 1970-71 but get slighted by Dongleballs. For what purpose? His jollies?

 

[maryjohn]

Microbeman, just when you stop impressing me, you start up all over again. Bravo!

 

[Chief Rbud]

I was responding to this;



when I had actually ONLY said this about molasses;



and this attempting levity;



Anything else I said was follow up to a question from Mr. Din and replies to Verdant which someone quoted out of context. People on this forum sure jump to conclusions quickly. They think or see the word science and their eyes glaze over...seemingly.

I at no time made any comment about your attempt at humour nor did I care about it.

I do find it amusing that I get accused of some different scientific approach when all I ever do is attempt a scientific explanation to what most people are doing and seeing. My growing method is very similar to Jaykush. I have been growing since around 1970-71 but get slighted by Dongleballs. For what purpose? His jollies?

i wasnt trying to slight you, if i came across that way please forgive me, i read through the htread quickly the 1st time and did jump to some premature conclusions on your viewpoint, for that please forgive me, i guess i took offense at the title somewhat and started posting hastily before thoroughly reading everything posted.

 

[Microbeman]

No worries

 

[BurnOne]

Now that's how adults are supposed to respond to each other. +Rep.

 

[magiccannabus]

Holy crap! Did we just have a civilized resolution to an argument on these boards? I knew this day would come..... eventually.....

 

[Dislexus]

As far as I am aware

I assume

IMO

to me it seems

my take on it.

IMO

Many people make wild speculative claims attributed to molasses

Okay what you have here is a hypothesis, that's all.

 

[Dislexus]

I just skimmed this thread after read/responding to the first post.

LOL

Mods change the thread topic to Carbs: A Man In Woman's Clothing

 

[Centrum]

So Let me get this straight, Atkins is good for plants ?

 

[big_daddy]

Quite a controversial thread here.........hmmmmm. What's the real deal on carbs anyway?

b_d