FLUSHING ORGANICS - Blood+bone vs Guanos vs Bottled Organic Nutrients
- Thread starter Tyrone420
- Start date
There is just a minor amount, relatively speaking, that has been discovered concerning natural nutrient uptake by plants. There is research supporting what Spurr has stated but pretty much zero research supporting Tyrone's statements (re: reason to flush). Additionally there is 'some' research indicating the plant's ability [maybe through a form of biofeedback] to self-regulate or block nutrient uptake in a natural growing environment. [perhaps Spurr has a citation for this subject] I suspect, although have not researched it, that there are helper bacteria(archaea) involved in this process; kind of apolpactic [sic?] guardians. I think to visualize that there is an abundance of bioavailable organic nutrients sitting as a pool waiting to be sucked up is unrealistic. Nature is not like that. There is always a cleanup or storage crew on hand to use up or lock up bioavailable nutrients.
As we are learning more and more, we find that nature usually has a back up plan; more than one way to uptake or use up nutrients.
Humans, and in particular cannabis growers like to feel that they are controlling all the changes the plant goes through and I suppose there is more of a case to make when utilizing ionic fertilizers but sometimes I think the changes observed by the boys who wrote the fancy books were more natural changes (flowering, senescence) than input variances.
As far as bottled organic nutrients containing soluble (meaning ionic form) nutrients, if this were the case, would this not be indicated on the label [NPK analysis]? Otherwise is it just another company which may have stuck in some soluble chems?
As we are learning more and more, we find that nature usually has a back up plan; more than one way to uptake or use up nutrients.
Humans, and in particular cannabis growers like to feel that they are controlling all the changes the plant goes through and I suppose there is more of a case to make when utilizing ionic fertilizers but sometimes I think the changes observed by the boys who wrote the fancy books were more natural changes (flowering, senescence) than input variances.
As far as bottled organic nutrients containing soluble (meaning ionic form) nutrients, if this were the case, would this not be indicated on the label [NPK analysis]? Otherwise is it just another company which may have stuck in some soluble chems?
here is some basic info about blood meal
http://www.basic-info-4-organic-fertilizers.com/bloodmeal.html
and here is a good thread to read about how plants finish.
https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=190022
http://www.basic-info-4-organic-fertilizers.com/bloodmeal.html
and here is a good thread to read about how plants finish.
https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=190022
S
staff11
Don't think this is true. I have seen with my own eyes plants fade with plenty left in the amended soil.
No. Nutrients (i.e. ions) are usually already soluble, chelation of those ions can keep them soluble vs. becoming insoluble as is the case with phosphate anions and iron cations. If you chelate phosphate anion with citric acid then it stays soluble and Fe can't make it insoluble.
In terms of nutrients within organic matter (OM), mineralization by microbes is the major way nutrients within OM becomes soluble (i.e. ion are freed from sequestered within organic matter).
No, both chelated and non-chelated ions are equally soluble (i.e. bio-available to plants), but chelation helps keep them stay soluble so they don't precipitate out of the solution (i.e. become insoluble and not bio-available to the plant).
Kind of, chelation helps keeps already soluble ions in soluble form so plants can use them, however, chelation isn't needed, but it does help because it means those ions shouldn't be (as easily) made insoluble.
Caveat: I am no organic chemist, I could be wrong on some specifics but I think I am correct. I am sure Mr.F could correct me and you if he reads this and if he noticed something needing correction.
It's great that you are open to this dialog!
Yea I can provide some citations. To my understanding it works as you described, as the plant takes in ions (and Dissolved Organic N and Dissolved Organic P -- when they are available in the N and P pools in soils) the amount of some amino acids increases in the phloem. Once some pre-determined (via. evolution) level of amino acids is reached in phloem the plant will self-reduce (at the root cells) uptake of some ions such as nitrate (but not ammoniacal N), phosphate, Ca, Mg, etc.
I agree, the percent of total N and P pools found in soil in nature made up of DON and DOP isn't high compared to the amout of ions in the same pools of N and P.
To those reading who might not be familiar with the term "pool": it's not a pool as we think about it swimming pool, in terms of soluble nutrients, it's more the amount of elements available to the roots at the rhizosphere and soil solution. For example, N pools in old growth forests is mostly comprised of ammonium nitrogen (ammoniacal N) while N pools under grasslands is mostly comprised of nitrate nitrogen.
Yup, roots and microbes will compete for DON and DOP, and for ions too. And the micobse usually win.
I totally agree, nature is too frugal for roots/plant to not make use of possible nutrient sources if they exist.
It is, but not in a logical manner. The N in organic matter like bat guano is 'total N', for example, the N on the label is for both inorganic (ionic) and organic (sequestered) N. I tried to figure out the rules a while ago in the bat guano thread here; I called and spoke with the head guys of New Hampshire and Florida state governmental body overseeing labels on organic products. Both men gave me the same, confused answer. It didn't help me understand the logic and facts behind NPK on organic substances any better, but they did verify for me that the NPK on organic substances (like bat guano) does include the ions found in the substance. I wish I could help with a better explanation, but I don't understand it well. I will search for my posts on this subject in the bat guano thread because I posted a few good references on this topic. If/when I find them I will post them here.
During the process of creating fish hydrolysate ions are mineralized and some (most?) of those ions remain in the fish hydrosylate as it is sold. I am not educated enough on this topic to be sure...
A little more info to that post: ammoniacal N (like ammonia and ammonium) becomes phytotoxic to roots (burns them) when the plant is not able to move enough sugar (from photosynthesis) into the roots to convert the ammoniacal N into plant usable forms. When there is a lack of sugar, or the uptake of ammoniacal N outpaces movement of sugar into roots, phytotoxicity sets in.
Depending upon the type/structure of the protein, plants can take it in without microbes breaking it down into ions (ammonia or ammonium or nitrates) first; this is an example of DON.
This topic is also about what MM and I wrote above, that plants are not able to self-regulate uptake of ammoniacal N like they can with nitrate, P, Ca, Mg, etc. Plant's can't slow uptake of ammoniacal N, so if it's present in the rhizosphere in soluble form the roots will take it in.
Tilt
Member
As I understand it if you let your plant mature correctly in organics. Itwill basicly stop using nutrients and start the end of life process. I have seen it with some grows on this sight and in my own experience (albeitly only a year). The lesson I learned is don't pull them early. That may be why some people managed to get harsh smoke from organics "the plant wasn't done using those nutes"
Citations please! Did you see the movie....?
Water soluble is not the same exactly as ionic form (soluble)nutrients. [I can mix up chocolate quick with water and that is not taken up by roots; well unless you 'ask Ed'] I just don't have the time nor inclination to re-invent the wheel here so perhaps Spurr or Mr Fista can provide you with some reading material.
(Sorry VG if that is baiting or something)
PS- Where do enzymes come from? Microbes?
Water soluble is not the same exactly as ionic form (soluble)nutrients. [I can mix up chocolate quick with water and that is not taken up by roots; well unless you 'ask Ed'] I just don't have the time nor inclination to re-invent the wheel here so perhaps Spurr or Mr Fista can provide you with some reading material.
(Sorry VG if that is baiting or something)
PS- Where do enzymes come from? Microbes?
so essentially letting the medium dry is a flush, in conjunction with a dark period (to halt respiration) would suffice to reduce the amount of what? a few ions of the same chemicals that we ingest in massive amounts normally?
serious question here, as I do not believe that the amount of "chemicals" contained within the dried plant matter are harmful, distasteful maybe, but harmful?
serious question here, as I do not believe that the amount of "chemicals" contained within the dried plant matter are harmful, distasteful maybe, but harmful?
It should be indicated as the soluble N % of total N. Water insoluble N is the other % comprising total N. The N of NPK on a label is total N.
1. I found some info, in the US...
"Wyoming Fertilizer Law of 2009"
http://legisweb.state.wy.us/statutes/statutes.aspx?file=titles/Title11/T11CH14.htm
The definition above of organic fertilizer is the one used by most states in the US. This means an organic fertilizer can contain synthetic fertilizers and still be called "organic" as long as there is carbon present. I assume this is why NOP and OMRI were formed, because they make much more strict rules for organic fertilizers. Under US law, ("National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances") "natural organic" fertilizer is not the same as "organic" fertilizer; the former can not have synthetic fertilizers in the mix, but the latter can.
2. Florida expiens the NPK listing well for organic fertilizers (like bat guano, blood meal, Earth Juice, Pure Blend Pro, etc.). The N on the label is "total N", and of that no more than 40% may be soluble (ionic N); in otherwords, of the N listed, at least 60% must be water-insoluble (sequestered) N from organic matter (carbon attached), at least that was the rule. Now both synthetic and organic water insoluble N can comprise the 60% rule. (BS if you ask me!)
"The Florida Fertilizer Label Law"
- J.B. Sartain, Professor, Soil Fertility, Soil and Water Science Department, Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida
- W.R. Cox, Environmental Manager, Bureau of Compliance Monitoring, Fertilizer Section, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
3. below are other sources of info about label law for organic fertilizers. This made me sad and angry after reviewing the rules again, it's like there is no truth in advertising:
a) "Fertilizing the Organic Garden"
- Tom Buob, Extension Educator (UNH)
- Becky Grube, Sustainable Horticulture Specialist (UNH)
b) "Comparing Organic and Inorganic Fertilizers"
- Roger C. Funk, Ph.D., The Davey Tree Expert Company©
I'm sorry, maybe you missed my point.
That the amount of chemicals in the dried plant matter is measured in moles.
That we ingest megadoses of same chemicals in our foodstuffs, without harm.
Besides the plethora nutrients in plant matter, there are dozens of other chemicals that comprise that same plant matter!
To suggest that N-P-K and the secondaries are harmful to consume is nonsense. How do you differentiate between these chemicals when consuming dried plant matter?
That the amount of chemicals in the dried plant matter is measured in moles.
That we ingest megadoses of same chemicals in our foodstuffs, without harm.
Besides the plethora nutrients in plant matter, there are dozens of other chemicals that comprise that same plant matter!
To suggest that N-P-K and the secondaries are harmful to consume is nonsense. How do you differentiate between these chemicals when consuming dried plant matter?
How so? The dryer the media the more concentrate the ions, thus the greater the osmotic pressure on roots in the rhizosphere, that in turn should mean greater uptake of ions by roots...
What do you mean by dark period "to halt respiration"? Plants do not carry out respiration during light period (daylength) from photosynthetic tissue (that which is above ground like leafs) unless they are not functioning properly. It's bad if the plant leafs carry out respiration, that's called 'photorespiration' and it means the leafs are not taking in Co2 like they should be (internal Co2 levels are low). This can happen if the plants are provided too much light, too dry atmosphere, too dry media, etc., it's caused when stoma close down (i.e. reduced stomatal conductance).
FWIW, the terms "dark period" (aka "dark period reactions") are no longer used, now the terms is "light-independent reactions" because some reactions that happen in darkness also happen in light.
