Feeding Sugar Near the End

[Mr.Tortoise]

I just got a thought (sorry excited because it doesn't happen often) could feeding sugar near the end of flowering in organics work like flushing in chemicals? I know in nursery stock mixes one common component is wood chips. If they are not broken down enough the plants go yellow from the bacterial explosion tying up all the nutrients. (I know most of you are going we know this that is why you compost high cellulose products). But could this be the same action that makes things sweet when using stuff like molasses and sugars near the end. It isn't the plant absorbing sugar (please show me a study were plant roots absorb sugar I would be thrilled to see it till then I don't buy it), but the sugar binding up nutrients and having the same effect as flushing? I think if this is true it would be a good way to keep nutrients in the soil and not trying to leech it out. Maybe this is a "you really only thought of this now" moment but I am trying to put some logic behind feeding plants sugar near the end. Any thoughts?

 

[BurnOne]

The molasses (carbohydrate) is to feed the bacteria. Bacteria guano is what feeds the plant. Not the organic food. Using molasses and water (I would also add worm castings) the last two feedings before harvest may help use up most of the food in the soil.
This does not apply if you use meals. They will still be there for months.
Burn1

 

[TheGreenReaper]

BurnOne: Along the same lines, could an aact "feeding" of simply castings and mollasses perhaps balance out a lockout in the soil, maybe safer than a sogging flush? Would the bene bac's pull excess nutes from the soil web, convert through mdtabolism, and allow for a nutrient balance to be restored at the cation exchange level?

 

[mad librettist]

TGR, in a properly executed organic grow the plant dictates when the soil will provide it and what it will provide it with. You just worry about keeping the soil pretty healthy. It doesn't even need to be perfect.

Overdoing sugar will lead to a crash after an explosion, so go easy. It's not going to flush anything for you. If your plant has been on life support (direct feeding) then just give it water and it will be just as it is with a chem grow.

The crucial part is what burn says -

this [using up the food in the soil] does not apply to meals

. If you are working on keeping a living soil long-term, you have (or should have) various meals in your mix. If you do use meals, your soil can't be flushed. Even without meals, if the soil is well developed and well populated, it will be equally difficult to leach out enough to make an appreciable difference.

who knows, with bottled nutes and one-time use soil mixes that are technically organic but are really a kind of hybrid, flushing may be a really smart move? I still don't believe it removes nutrients from the bud. I always figured the leaves yellow because the plant is moving resources to the buds, not away from them, but a bad explanation doesn't make a practice bad.

 

[MrShpongle]

Great info. Along the same lines, is there anything organic that can be used to add weight or density to buds, either in veg or early/mid/late flower? I switched over to all organic 2 cycles ago and have been very impressed by the results in general. My only complaint is that the buds tend to be fluffier than I'd like.

 

[spurr]

I just got a thought (sorry excited because it doesn't happen often) could feeding sugar near the end of flowering in organics work like flushing in chemicals? I know in nursery stock mixes one common component is wood chips. If they are not broken down enough the plants go yellow from the bacterial explosion tying up all the nutrients.

In reading between the lines: it appears you are referring to bark fines/chips that are not aged long enough, or not composted well enough, e.g., with a nitrogen source (which isn't the same as making 'compost', or 'composting'). If plants "go yellow" from bark in the media, it's normally due to the bark 'stealing' N from the media. If bark is not well aged, or composted, it will absorb N from the media water, and that can in turn make the plant leaves 'yellow'.

In cases when a grower must use 'young/fresh' bark, using soft wood bark is critical to prevent issues of phytotoxicity (pine is best). And soaking the bark in water with an N source will help by 'filling' the bark with N, so the bark 'steals' much less N from the media.

FWIW, a "bacterial explosion" will not "tie up all the nutrients", normally it's the opposite, e.g., in terms of N from the microbial loop.

 

[mad librettist]

FWIW, a "bacterial explosion" will not "tie up all the nutrients", normally it's the opposite, e.g., in terms of N from the microbial loop.

heya spurr, are you sure? I was taught that bacteria for the most part do not mineralize nutrients, nor do they die of old age (crazy I know but true I think). So a "bacterial explosion" actually would tie up nutrients unless there is an corresponding increase in predation.

As far as I know this is what happens in "poor" soil that supports mostly weeds - the bacteria/archea tie up all the nutrients and population explodes, then there is a protozoan explosion as they feast on C and poop out N. then that population crashes too. Repeat. Weeds are just crazy for that boom and bust style (but not cannabis).

The solution for entropy and instability is to increase complexity. A complex food web is like a divided government. Each branch is a check on the power of the others, and the result is stability on the whole, even if there is turbulence up close.

 

[Mr.Tortoise]

Hi BurnOne, TheGreenReaper, mad librettist, MrSpongle, and Spurr. Thanks for the response.

Bacteria are way better at obtaining nutrients than plants. This is why growing in fresh wood chips turn plants yellow. The bark does not absorb the N, bacteria consume the N with far greater efficiency than plants. So while there is a limited supply of N and lots of sugars the bacteria will out compete the plants for the limited N. If you cause a population explosion, during that build up of bacteria/fungi numbers they are going to tie up a lot of nutrients. Once they die or create a new equilibrium then nutrients will be available to the plants again. I still think this whole notion of adding molasses to the soil to feed bacteria is unnecessary. I personally feel that the plants know best on how to feed the bacteria in the soil and know how to create conditions that are optimal for the microbes that are beneficial to them. I just think plant doesn't give up half of its photosynthate to feed the rhizophere heard for nothing. I think why molasses is good (and I do use the stuff so Im in no way knocking its use) is because it has a lot of other good stuff in it. Also it is a great way to get the bacteria/fungus breaking down and absorbing all the compost goodness while making teas. I feel that you normally are just trying to do the opposite of what I mentioned. Create a microbe explosion while making your teas, then watering the plants and having all those microbes die and releasing their nutrients to the plant. I just started this thread to try and come up with a logical answer of why people feel the need to feed sugar to plants at the end of flowering, besides basing it on findings in tissue culture (again this is more chemical fert companies pushing this). Yes this relates more chemical / bottle / one time soil users. I thought it actually might be a cool way to "flush" without actually riding the soil of any nutrients. Having bacteria tie up nutrients for a few days before chopping, then having it all be released for the new plants coming in. I know the meals are going to be decomposing for months but thought you might just temporarily make them unavailable to the plants. I agree with you ML that the plants turn yellow as they senesce and that if your not pumping them full of nutrients then flushing really isn't needed.

There is a lot of research on reducing nutrient levels for the plant to increase secondary metabolic production. In many controlled environment medicinal plant production systems they limit nutrients to increase plants production of secondary metabolites. Theory goes that with a high photosynthetic rate and low nutrients for biomass accumulation, plants put all the captured energy that would normally have gone to increased biomass production into secondary metabolite production. So I think there is merit in trying to reduce nutrient levels in the soil for the last few weeks of growth.

Just my thoughts.

 

[Microbeman]

1/ My understanding of an N tie up caused by uncomposted/non-aged materials added to the soil is that the bacteria/archaea & fungi have the task of now breaking down (or composting/aging) those materials where they are. This takes energy and a majority portion of that energy must come from N, therefore these microorganisms become N hogs and thereby deplete the N available to the plants (roots).

2/ Most N cycling in a natural growing environment where a non-legumous plant is involved occurrs through the 'microbial loop' mentioned by Mad&Spurr, wherein flagellates and/or naked amoebae (and/or nematodes) consume bacteria/archaea using only 30 to 40% of the energy for sustenance and expelling the rest in ionic form nutrient available for plant uptake. In a balanced environment, where ionic form fertilizers are not being added most of this activity is controlled by exudates (excreted carbon molecules) coming from the roots of plants. (as others have indicated)

3/ If one has not added any ionic form fertilizers there is absolutely no need to flush whatsoever because the plant will be beyond the phase described above and will not be allowing uptake of any nutrients not required for floral/fruit development.

4/ There is no evidence of which I am aware that adding molasses or other sugars will sweeten flowers. Black strap molasses is an excellent foodstock for bacteria and fungi.

 

[ForbiddenFruit]

I would say forget sugar, why does a plant need sugar if you apply a full range of nutrients.

Plants in nature don't start screaming for a nice spoonful of Domino (white sugar) to get them through their life cycle.

Seems superficial to think that plants need sugar, just get on with feeding the plants the real deal.

 

[spurr]

heya spurr, are you sure? I was taught that bacteria for the most part do not mineralize nutrients, nor do they die of old age (crazy I know but true I think). So a "bacterial explosion" actually would tie up nutrients unless there is an corresponding increase in predation.

Bacteria solublize elements (ions) from OM, they free ions when breaking down OM; ex., compost.

 

[spurr]

Bacteria are way better at obtaining nutrients than plants. This is why growing in fresh wood chips turn plants yellow. The bark does not absorb the N, bacteria consume the N with far greater efficiency than plants.

The bark does absorb N, as well as microflora taking N due to the very high C from fresh/young bark, like yourself and others have mentioned.

I still think this whole notion of adding molasses to the soil to feed bacteria is unnecessary. I personally feel that the plants know best on how to feed the bacteria in the soil and know how to create conditions that are optimal for the microbes that are beneficial to them. I just think plant doesn't give up half of its photosynthate to feed the rhizophere heard for nothing.

I agree to a point, however, there is some merit to adding molasses in some cases; I made a thread about over use of molasses a while ago, re: "sheep in wolfs clothing", or some title along those lines. This topic has been discussed ad nauseum here in the past. Plants normally do not give up half the carbon assimilate to microbes (e.g., exudates in the rhizosphere). They normally give up ~20-25% or so, they also use it for converting ammoniacal N in the roots, as well as for exudates in the phyllosphere, and of course for the plant growth.

I think why molasses is good (and I do use the stuff so Im in no way knocking its use) is because it has a lot of other good stuff in it. Also it is a great way to get the bacteria/fungus breaking down and absorbing all the compost goodness while making teas.

MM might chime in here, but, when we make compost tea we are multiplying biota, and the bacteria/archeae multiply after feeding on carbohydrates (in general). The compost is already be stable (mature), unless one makes so-called "compost" like Elaine Ingham; the goal of compost tea is not to break down the compost, which is already broken down, the goal is to multiply biota.

I just started this thread to try and come up with a logical answer of why people feel the need to feed sugar to plants at the end of flowering, besides basing it on findings in tissue culture (again this is more chemical fert companies pushing this). Yes this relates more chemical / bottle / one time soil users.

I think the answer is most people follow hearsay and conjecture instead of science. Also, lots of people think if you give 'sugar' to the roots it will make the buds taste/smell better.

There is a lot of research on reducing nutrient levels for the plant to increase secondary metabolic production. In many controlled environment medicinal plant production systems they limit nutrients to increase plants production of secondary metabolites. Theory goes that with a high photosynthetic rate and low nutrients for biomass accumulation, plants put all the captured energy that would normally have gone to increased biomass production into secondary metabolite production. So I think there is merit in trying to reduce nutrient levels in the soil for the last few weeks of growth.

Can you post some of the research? I ask because it's normally the opposite for cannabinoids. I just read a study last night finding higher levels of P (P205) given to plants increases THC and CBD, considerably. Also, it has been found that N is linked to THC levels too. I am unsure about other secondary metabolites we are interested in, like terpenoids and flavoioids, re if reduced nutrients affects them.

 

[kal el]

I believe they are finding it is better to stop adding molasses at the middle of flower instead of near the end. I forgot where I read it, it was in the past few weeks though.
If I remember, I will post the link.

 

[spurr]

1/ My understanding of an N tie up caused by uncomposted/non-aged materials added to the soil is that the bacteria/archaea & fungi have the task of now breaking down (or composting/aging) those materials where they are. This takes energy and a majority portion of that energy must come from N, therefore these microorganisms become N hogs and thereby deplete the N available to the plants (roots).

Yup, that happens, and looking over some studies I have, I see you are correct in that microbes using N while trying to breakdown the C rich bark is the major cause of N loss; my memory is failing me . However, the bark itself also absorbs N when the bark is young/fresh.

"Using Bark and Sawdust for Mulches, Soil Amendments and Potting Mixes"
University of Idaho, CIS number 858

 

[mad librettist]

Bacteria solublize elements (ions) from OM, they free ions when breaking down OM; ex., compost.

Are you sure they don't grab ions and make organic compounds out of them, which must in turn be mineralized via predation? I seem to recall reading that in multiple places.

I am not speaking of nitrifyers or anyone trading favors with the plant, but of the vast majority of bacteria/archea breaking down organic material - they are feeding, and they store what they work for unless they die. That's from Dr. Ingham's page.

 

[OsWiZzLe]

I like my girls tasting the way nature intended them too...the sweetners kill that

 

[spurr]

Are you sure they don't grab ions and make organic compounds out of them, which must in turn be mineralized via predation? I seem to recall reading that in multiple places.

Yup, I am sure. It's true they do use a majority of ions from the mineralization of OM for their own 'bodies', but they don't use all the ions from mineralization. A plant gets ions by three main paths: (1) mineralization of ions from OM by microflora freed into the soil solution; (2) mineralization of ions from OM by roots freed into the soil solution; and (3) ions freed during, and after predation (i.e., mineralization of microflora). Granted, number two provides the least amount of ions, but it does provide ions to the soil solution. Number three is the major source of ions for plants, yet number one does provide considerable about of ions to plants.

I am not speaking of nitrifyers or anyone trading favors with the plant, but of the vast majority of bacteria/archea breaking down organic material - they are feeding, and they store what they work for unless they die. That's from Dr. Ingham's page.

Dr. Ingham is a joke IMO, but I think you know I feel that way about her. She has written so much incorrect info in the past it makes my head spin. It's not black and white with soil biota; they do use a majority of the ions they freed (i.e., solublized) during mineralization of OM, but they do not use all solublized ions, and those ions they do not used are solublized into the soil solution (ex., phosphate from mineralization of SRF).

 

[Thomkal Vwalaa]

who knows, with bottled nutes and one-time use soil mixes that are technically organic but are really a kind of hybrid, flushing may be a really smart move? I still don't believe it removes nutrients from the bud. I always figured the leaves yellow because the plant is moving resources to the buds, not away from them, but a bad explanation doesn't make a practice bad.

bump that. great explanation of something common, but unexplained as of yet. For "hybrid"... meh? For soil... nah.

I suppose if purple maxx will turn everything purple and stain my hands when I'm trimming for jerks, then sugar at the end may 'sweet' buds a little.

 

[grapeman]

Heavy applications of sugar can reduce nematode counts.

Might have some effect when growing outdoors in natural soils. Doubt if it would be beneficial at all indoors in custom made soils on such a short cycle crop.

 

[mad librettist]

Yup, I am sure. It's true they do use a majority of ions from the mineralization of OM for their own 'bodies', but they don't use all the ions from mineralization. A plant gets ions by three main paths: (1) mineralization of ions from OM by microflora freed into the soil solution; (2) mineralization of ions from OM by roots freed into the soil solution; and (3) ions freed during, and after predation (i.e., mineralization of microflora). Granted, number two provides the least amount of ions, but it does provide ions to the soil solution. Number three is the major source of ions for plants, yet number one does provide considerable about of ions to plants.

ah lol, it's you. I hope you and your doggies are well!

Ok, I get you, but I get Dr. Ingham's point too. If only your (1) had been happening since plants came on land, the earth would look completely different, with much less biomass above the surface and plants nothing like the ones we know.

So although bacteria may be mineralizing some nutrients and making them available, it's not going to be enough to support cannabis because of their tendency to hang on to what they produce, which goes back to Dr. Ingham's point being functionally true if not purely correct, no?

While we are at it, Dr. Ingham calls CO2 "mineralized carbon". Does she mean it's carbon released from an organic compound and made available to plants, or does she mean CO2 is actually a mineral?