Ever tried catalyzed or structured water ?
I'm about to make the switch
I'm about to make the switch
-
Happy Birthday ICMag! Been 20 years since Gypsy Nirvana created the forum! We are celebrating with a 4/20 Giveaway and by launching a new Patreon tier called "420club". You can read more here.
-
Important notice: ICMag's T.O.U. has been updated. Please review it here. For your convenience, it is also available in the main forum menu, under 'Quick Links"!
C
CaliGabe
One of the reasons Sea-Crop works is because it's structured water...also the ormus content yet that subject too esoteric for many to discuss. Dr. Gerald Pollack good to read regarding structured water.
Thanks.
Im playing with something shown to increase microbial activity by a xonsiderable margin
one gallon cost me 600 dollars but it treats 40 acres.
Im playing with something shown to increase microbial activity by a xonsiderable margin
one gallon cost me 600 dollars but it treats 40 acres.
That would be crystallized which is a form of structure but hopefully there is way more to it than that
Omrus is just the chemical process that removes some of the nacl...that does not structure anything
I have a friend that sells water filtration systems that organizes the water molecules. It's been probibly 5 years since I read the information on it, but it had studies showing plants growing at a much faster rate with this water. The nutrients became available quicker, and the oxygen levels were higher. If I remember correctly it does this through magnets, here is the info if anybody is interested. Not sure if this is what you guys are talking about, but if so, $600 would almost buy the entire filter system.http://www.nikken.com/healthycomfor...beECeUc-CdbxwMSABnTVWHyAOGM7sFJNCIaAm0F8P8HAQ
C
Cep
I get that there is a structuring associated with water when it is interacting with the hydrophilic parts of cells, but how is the "structure" held outside those environments? We can talk about esoteric subjects in this thread. I'd need to know more about a product like that before I dropped $600 on it.
I use a Berkey filter at home. You can filter raw sewage through it apparently.
I use a Berkey filter at home. You can filter raw sewage through it apparently.
If you want to know the trade name so you can look up the independent research on it I'll provide it privately ...
A waste water treatment plant began adding this stuff to their clarifier and effluent tanks, and as a result , no longer needed to truck any waste off site due to the increase in microbial activity
Again the gallon is going to treat 40 acres...that means it costs about $15 per acre...HELLA cheap.
A waste water treatment plant began adding this stuff to their clarifier and effluent tanks, and as a result , no longer needed to truck any waste off site due to the increase in microbial activity
Again the gallon is going to treat 40 acres...that means it costs about $15 per acre...HELLA cheap.
C
Cep
Yeah, shoot it to me. In the winter when I get bored I usually start reading about the fringe topics. Most of the time I want empirical data, but if it works, it works. Why, isn't always of immediate importance.
I'm going to check a few more quarries in the area and see if I can find the most magnetic source.
I'm going to check a few more quarries in the area and see if I can find the most magnetic source.
greentreefarmer
Member
I'm obviously intrigued by this catalyzed/structured water talk, as would most people seeking to implement the best methods in producing healthy plants... but me no likey secrets. All good though, brethren. Privacy is a reasonable privilege and with the invasions of If these days I understand trying to keep whatever you can under wraps.
I hope you at least share some of the science and results from it after implementation.
By the way, I highly respect those frontiersmen on these threads that are pushing the veil of what these beautiful species are capable of. In all walks of life, that is what allows progress to be achieved. And for that, I thank you good sirs and madams. I can only hope in time that I can add some positive input to the story.
Peace!
I hope you at least share some of the science and results from it after implementation.
By the way, I highly respect those frontiersmen on these threads that are pushing the veil of what these beautiful species are capable of. In all walks of life, that is what allows progress to be achieved. And for that, I thank you good sirs and madams. I can only hope in time that I can add some positive input to the story.
Peace!
In the 1940s Prof Firman Bear and his crew at Rutgers U grew alfalfa in many different soils native to New Jersey, both in-ground and greenhouse pot trials.
http://soilminerals.com/Bear_CationConstancyAlfalfa1945.pdf
They discovered the the sum of the + charges from Ca++, Mg++, K+, and Na+ were approximately equal in the sap all of the alfalfa regardless of which soil it was grown in. If the soil was high in Mg, the plants took up more Mg, if high in K, they took up more K, and likewise for Ca and Na. Bear et al theorized that plants needed a certain amount of each of these elements for physiological health, but they were also used to buffer the pH of the sap. The actual amount of K needed for physiological processes was pretty low, but if K was abundant in the soil the crops took up large amounts of it. If K was not abundant, they took what they needed but used other cations that were more readily available as sap pH buffers. K seems to be the easiest element for plants to absorb, and if there are high levels of K in the soil, that is what they will absorb preferentially, only taking up enough Ca and Mg for their minimum metabolic needs.
Another thing they discovered was the the higher the K level of the soil and the higher the amount of K taken up, the lower the quality of the forage for animal feed.
Here's the money quote from the paper linked above:
"The evidence supports the belief that each of these cations has at
least two functions in the plant, one specific and the other or others of the type that can be performed interchangeably by all three cations [Ca, Mg, K]. Once the supply of each cation is adequate to meet the specific need for it, there can be a wide range in ratios in the remaining quantities that are absorbed by the plant to meet its total cation needs.
"Whether the problem of growing alfalfa is considered from the
point of view of economy in its production or that of its mineral
value to the animal to which it is fed, it would appear that the soil
on which it is to be grown should be fortified with an abundance of
Ca and Mg in preparation for seeding, but that the K applications
should be governed by the specific annual needs of the plant, a
suitable application being made at seeding time and additional
quantities being supplied each year the crop is allowed to continue
on the same land.
"Because of alfalfa's tendency to accumulate K in excess of its
critical need for it, difficulty is experienced in maintaining an adequate supply of this element in the soil. The annual application of K must be sufficient to maintain the K content of the plant at not
less than 1% [of dry matter - ed], but it should not be so large as to effect a substitution of K for Ca and Mg in the functions that are common to all three cations in the plant." [end quote]
Bear says here and elsewhere that high K is great of the object is to grow large amounts of fiber or carbohydrate (for instance cotton or sugar cane) but for alfalfa and animal feed in general, high K with low Ca and Mg is not healthy. The question is, which do we want when growing cannabis?
Additionally, in Cep's case with high sap Brix along with high sap pH,
july 16
Row 1: 15 brix (cloudy line), 7.2pH
Row 2: 13.5 brix (sharp line), 7.2pH
Row 3: 16 brix (sharp line), 7.3pH
it would appear that the cation/anion balance is off. The plants seem to be getting a super-abundance of cations but be short on anions (NO3-, SO4--, Cl-). His latest soil report shows good levels of NO3 (178-200ppm), but low levels of SO4 (58-70ppm). Cl is not measured, but judging from the low reading for Na, Cl is probably low as well.
[Despite A&L labs characterizing both NO3 and SO4 as VH (very high), they are not. What A&L doesn't get is that the minerals need to be proportionate to the overall fertility and CEC of the soil. What is VH in a low CEC soil may be VL in a high CEC soil]
With an average CEC of 17, ideal K at say 5% of CEC would be 330ppm. The Potassium:Sulfur ratio should be 2:1 or even 1:1 when K is this high, so SO4-S should be a minimum of 165ppm and up to 330ppm.
I would consider amending with sulfates and/or chlorides, in the form of Calcium or Magnesium sulfate via fertigation or foliar, or their chlorides via foliar.
Both Zinc (3-5.5ppm) and Copper (0.7-0.8ppm) are very low in this soil. Minimum Zinc for healthy plants and uptake of phosphates is 10ppm, minimum Copper for strong immune systems and stem flexibility is 5ppm. Adding a little Zn or Cu sulfate through the drip line would likely help plant health while raising needed S.
Manganese and Iron are also low and could be added in sulfate form with good results to be expected.
http://soilminerals.com/Bear_CationConstancyAlfalfa1945.pdf
They discovered the the sum of the + charges from Ca++, Mg++, K+, and Na+ were approximately equal in the sap all of the alfalfa regardless of which soil it was grown in. If the soil was high in Mg, the plants took up more Mg, if high in K, they took up more K, and likewise for Ca and Na. Bear et al theorized that plants needed a certain amount of each of these elements for physiological health, but they were also used to buffer the pH of the sap. The actual amount of K needed for physiological processes was pretty low, but if K was abundant in the soil the crops took up large amounts of it. If K was not abundant, they took what they needed but used other cations that were more readily available as sap pH buffers. K seems to be the easiest element for plants to absorb, and if there are high levels of K in the soil, that is what they will absorb preferentially, only taking up enough Ca and Mg for their minimum metabolic needs.
Another thing they discovered was the the higher the K level of the soil and the higher the amount of K taken up, the lower the quality of the forage for animal feed.
Here's the money quote from the paper linked above:
"The evidence supports the belief that each of these cations has at
least two functions in the plant, one specific and the other or others of the type that can be performed interchangeably by all three cations [Ca, Mg, K]. Once the supply of each cation is adequate to meet the specific need for it, there can be a wide range in ratios in the remaining quantities that are absorbed by the plant to meet its total cation needs.
"Whether the problem of growing alfalfa is considered from the
point of view of economy in its production or that of its mineral
value to the animal to which it is fed, it would appear that the soil
on which it is to be grown should be fortified with an abundance of
Ca and Mg in preparation for seeding, but that the K applications
should be governed by the specific annual needs of the plant, a
suitable application being made at seeding time and additional
quantities being supplied each year the crop is allowed to continue
on the same land.
"Because of alfalfa's tendency to accumulate K in excess of its
critical need for it, difficulty is experienced in maintaining an adequate supply of this element in the soil. The annual application of K must be sufficient to maintain the K content of the plant at not
less than 1% [of dry matter - ed], but it should not be so large as to effect a substitution of K for Ca and Mg in the functions that are common to all three cations in the plant." [end quote]
Bear says here and elsewhere that high K is great of the object is to grow large amounts of fiber or carbohydrate (for instance cotton or sugar cane) but for alfalfa and animal feed in general, high K with low Ca and Mg is not healthy. The question is, which do we want when growing cannabis?
Additionally, in Cep's case with high sap Brix along with high sap pH,
july 16
Row 1: 15 brix (cloudy line), 7.2pH
Row 2: 13.5 brix (sharp line), 7.2pH
Row 3: 16 brix (sharp line), 7.3pH
it would appear that the cation/anion balance is off. The plants seem to be getting a super-abundance of cations but be short on anions (NO3-, SO4--, Cl-). His latest soil report shows good levels of NO3 (178-200ppm), but low levels of SO4 (58-70ppm). Cl is not measured, but judging from the low reading for Na, Cl is probably low as well.
[Despite A&L labs characterizing both NO3 and SO4 as VH (very high), they are not. What A&L doesn't get is that the minerals need to be proportionate to the overall fertility and CEC of the soil. What is VH in a low CEC soil may be VL in a high CEC soil]
With an average CEC of 17, ideal K at say 5% of CEC would be 330ppm. The Potassium:Sulfur ratio should be 2:1 or even 1:1 when K is this high, so SO4-S should be a minimum of 165ppm and up to 330ppm.
I would consider amending with sulfates and/or chlorides, in the form of Calcium or Magnesium sulfate via fertigation or foliar, or their chlorides via foliar.
Both Zinc (3-5.5ppm) and Copper (0.7-0.8ppm) are very low in this soil. Minimum Zinc for healthy plants and uptake of phosphates is 10ppm, minimum Copper for strong immune systems and stem flexibility is 5ppm. Adding a little Zn or Cu sulfate through the drip line would likely help plant health while raising needed S.
Manganese and Iron are also low and could be added in sulfate form with good results to be expected.
Mochael...a theoretical and political (or podsibly me stirring a pot) question. Had N also been lower would AS be a good choice possibly along with gypsum? I am personally of the opinion that things like that used judiciously do not hurt microbes and make balancing far easier. Am I crazy?
Also how do you feel about juicing to get sap readings? It is a bitch to squeeze sap out of semi healthy mj leaves
Also how do you feel about juicing to get sap readings? It is a bitch to squeeze sap out of semi healthy mj leaves
C
CaliGabe
Bob Pike rocks. Had a chance to work with him a bit some years back. Bob worked with Carey Reams.
Ormus is not about NaCl removal. Arthur at Sea-Crop knows a thing or two about ormus. He's also an expert in ore extraction and can tell you a cool story about extracting gold from seawater and ormus. I think at one point he had a few square miles of surface claims he was working. When you talk to Kempf about Sea-Crop he'll eventually tell you one of the reasons it's effective in such small concentrations is the ormus content. Yes Sea-Crop has a high concentration of trace and ultra trace minerals/elements. As for structuring one of the claims Arthur was granted for his patented process is the creation of a new form of matter. Also check out John Milewski regarding ormus and some of the other crazy stuff he's worked on. Last I heard he had a grant from NM to extract atmospheric gold (ormus really). Arthur worked with John a bit and supposedly the microwave setup John 'created' and I guess sold evolved after conversations with Arthur. Phil Callahan is a good one to read regarding paramagnetism.
C
CaliGabe
Milewski is precipitating gold using microwave technology. Supposedly it weighs 5/9ths of what gold should weigh and that has to do with ormus. Microwaving has nothing to do with Sea-Crop or growing plants except the ormic state gold of which there is a lot in seawater. Supposedly about 500 more times gold in seawater than will show up in a conventional assay.
You can also get into stuff like biological transmutation of Na to K which Bruce Tainio proved possible to the military. Kempf uses Tainio products in like MD when he runs into high Na soil. Chickens don't need Ca to produce healthy eggs. They need K. Remove Ca from their diet, keep K in and healthy eggs.
For years I've felt we're starting to run into a wall with all this NPK stuff and would need to start looking at energy technologies to keep pushing the envelope.
Anyway all this stuff probably deserves it's own thread. For now I think there's a lot of room to grow with soil analysis, tissue testing, sap testing, etc. Growers taking this path ahead of like 99% of everyone else.
For water technologies you can also look at stuff like Kangen. The water I drink is run through a Golden Ratio Products carafe. You put water in and 3 minutes later has a different mouth feel. Supposedly creates Emoto type structured water in 3 minutes.
The more I learn about sea crop the less likely I am to use it. Why would you be using something that is 12% NaCl (on a solid basis) and then turn around and try to transmute Na into K...which you are also high on. Makes zero sense to me at all. It ain't in my lineup.
C
CaliGabe
When Kempf removes Sea-Crop from his products I'd be more apt to stop using it except for personal consumption. I remember way back Tom Hill talking about sap Na content and above a certain point is counter productive. If you're talking chlorides then MUCH more contribution from the overwhelming concentration of magnesium chloride hexahydrate compared to NaCl. Hexahydrate is weird stuff. Dry Sea-Crop to a free flowing powder then try to compress a tablet and water oozes out.
So allow me to explain myself a bit...first I am for sure ehat they call here cross faded...drunk and high. Scientist tell ud that 59 differentinetals are neefed to form every mothet fucking enzyme ever measured by mankind
No doubt every single one of them perorms an absolutely amazing function that life might canout go on without.
In the mean time those of us that wete told compost is thr bomb have 2-4 x ss much K ss we nred.
I say fuck sea crop or anything like that...fix the big stuff first then srgue about the shit that really don't matter snyways. Who was that dude that csme up with the 80/20 rule?
No doubt every single one of them perorms an absolutely amazing function that life might canout go on without.
In the mean time those of us that wete told compost is thr bomb have 2-4 x ss much K ss we nred.
I say fuck sea crop or anything like that...fix the big stuff first then srgue about the shit that really don't matter snyways. Who was that dude that csme up with the 80/20 rule?
