Y
Yankee Grower
LOL...nematodes are not microbes.
Spurr...I hear where you're coming from with the testing on teas and soil stuff and looking forward to what you find out.
-
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"!
Plants self-regulate uptake of ions; they control it, not us, unless we overdo ferts
- Thread starter spurr
- Start date
Spurr...I hear where you're coming from with the testing on teas and soil stuff and looking forward to what you find out.
microbes are present whether or not the medium is marbles, gravel, fluid.
how can you say plants do not need microbes...or that they are not actually beneficial to plant metabolization? they are everywhere.
Even if they are only contributing cations by the reduction of inorganic compounds, they are enabling the plant to grow to potential...why not try to boost microbial populations?
humble pie is being served, I had a slice...
how can you say plants do not need microbes...or that they are not actually beneficial to plant metabolization? they are everywhere.
Even if they are only contributing cations by the reduction of inorganic compounds, they are enabling the plant to grow to potential...why not try to boost microbial populations?
humble pie is being served, I had a slice...
Wow, I forgot to respond to you sorry! I need to start a social group analogous to the Ask Lucas thread at CW-2 so I can keep track of requests for info...
RE: Ca:
Yes, my mix has more Ca than S because Ca should really be a primary nutrient, not secondary. Plants need/use more Ca than P and S, thus I add more. Also, Ca and Bo (boron) are unique in the way roots use them: they get 'sucked' up into roots along with water, unlike other ions that can freely pass into roots. Plants depend upon rate of transpiration to suck up Ca and Bo, and then they move within xylem to needed areas of plants, such as younger tissue. Thus it good to have sufficient levels of Ca ions in the rhizosphere and 'soil solution'.
Unlike N, P and K, Ca is very immobile inside plant tissue, yet another reason to supply sufficient levels.
Also, Ca is cation, so it can bind to CEC sites strongly if the media has good bulk destiny (which isn't the case with un-amended coco and peat).
Here is a breakdown of plant elements by ash, this is a very common breakdown, and cannabis is very similar to the following table. I have many studies looking at cannabis tissue assays and it's very similar:
"Understanding Plant Nutrition: An Introduction"
By Bill Argo and Paul Fisher
January 2008
http://www.greenhousegrower.com/magazine/?storyid=109
RE: EC:
I don't monitor EC, I prefer to use ppm by element instead of EC (or TDS) as a total sum. The breakdown I did for my mix shows what levels of elements are provided, this is more useful and tells us more than EC. My tap water is soft, total TDS is ~100 ppm and water alkalinity is ~50-60 ppm.
If I grew using hydro I would monitor EC...
RE: citric acid:
I add enough to drop pH to 6.00 to 6.10, it's hard to say how much I add because it's fluxes depending upon season. I get granules of citric acid from a beer brewing shop, it's like $3 for 56 grams. You can order it online from a beer/wine brewing/fermenting shop, FWIW, earth juice pH down is citric acid.
Citric acid is good for many reasons, it chelates P (i.e. phosphates) and some micro's like Fe too. And it mineralizes P from some organic matter, N also, ex. from bat guano (due to pH). Critic acid also binds "carbonic acid" (Co2 + water) making it more difficult to dissociate back into Co2 and water; this is good because carbonic acid also mineralizes P from some organic matter. However, some microbes (mostly) bacteria that do not like acidic conditions will not be able to dissociate carbonic acid as well with the "carbonic anhydrase" they release to do so...
Roots and microbes create carbonic acid when they respire Co2 into media.
Below is a good read about carbonic acids, etc. I do not agree with a few premises of the author, and thus I don't agree with her argument in total, because she is wrong. However, the info about carbonic acid and carbonic anhydrase is good:
"Ecosystem Physiology: The Plant-Microbe Dance"
by Leslie H. Kirkegaard
http://grow-orchid-grow.com/Science_Corner/Ecosystem_Physiology_2_The_Plant-Microbe_Dance.html
by Leslie H. Kirkegaard
http://grow-orchid-grow.com/Science_Corner/Ecosystem_Physiology_2_The_Plant-Microbe_Dance.html
RE: PGRs (Plant Growth Regulators):
(all via. foliar spray)
This is worth a whole thread, but for now here are the main PGRs I use, these are all naturally found in plants:
1. Triacontanol:
increases rate of photosynthesis, growth rate and yield. I use it at 25 ppm, but 10 ppm is also good, apply every 2 weeks into pre-flower.
2. Brassinosteroid (as brassinolide or 24-homobrassinolide or 24-epibrassinolide):
probably the most important plant hormone to exogenously apply; it's really a plant steroid. It increases rate of photosynthesis, phototropism (light tracking), stress resistance, yield, growth, etc., etc. I found if applying in pre-flower can make plants stretch if over applied; I am testing not applying during pre-flowering. I use it at 0.05 ppm, but 0.01 ppm is also good (esp. during pre-flowering), co-apply with triacontanol.
3. Jasmonic acid (as methylated jasomic acid):
it is a SAR (Systemic Acquired Resistance) inducer and it also increases glandular trichome density (over X leaf area) and number (total trichs). This is the better choice than using salicylic acid (i.e. Advanced Nutrients 'Scorpion', or the analog aspirin) to induce SAR because salicylic acid hinders trichome density and number and has "negative cross-talk" to jasmonic acid, i.e. it hinders jasmonic acid.
There is some evidence that brassinosteroid and jasmonic acid also have negative cross-talk, thus I apply methylated jasmonic acid alone, and only in pre-flowering. I apply it as 100 ppm, but 50 ppm is also good.
4. Gibberellic acid (as GA3):
it makes plants stretch/grow, but that's not why I use it, when co-applied with methylated jasmoic acid they work in synergy to increase trich density and number. However, this can really make plants stretch so use with cation. This can really make plants stretch so I won't suggest ppm right now, I need to do more testing with methylated jasmoic acid during pre-flowing...
Dr. Ingham and Dr. Rollins are not a good cites. YankeeGrower is correct in essence: nematodes are "mesofauna", protozoa are "microfauna" and microorganisms bacteria, archaea and fungi are "microflora".
Protozoa and nematodes prey upon bacteria and some fungi, that is the microbial loop...
Y
Yankee Grower
Nematodes are not microbes. For me when I talk about microbes it's basically single cell stuff like archae, bacteria, fungi, protozoa, etc. Nematodes are a more highly developed organism and not in the class of microbes, even though they may be 'microscopic', as I see it/them regardless of what others may define them as.
Y
Yankee Grower
No knowledge of that but for sure some fungi prey upon nematodes. I guess we're trying to define a 'microbe' for the sake of this discussion. Kind of semantic BS.
Mistress is just trying to assert her (imagined) greater knowledge into semantics; you are correct in not lumping nematodes in with bacteria/archaea and lower fungi imperfecti.
Nematodes are microscopic multicellular animals, not microbes (per say).
Refs:
What are Nematodes?
Unvistiy of Nebraska-Linkon; Nematology
http://nematode.unl.edu/Wormgen.htm
Soil-inhabiting nematodes - Phylum Nematoda
Robert McSorley, University of Florida
http://entnemdept.ufl.edu/creatures/nematode/soil_nematode.htm
Introduction to the Nematoda: the roundworms
University of California, at Berkly
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/phyla/ecdysozoa/nematoda.html
Some root-eating nematodes are attacked/hindered by some fungi, ex. AM fungi in mycorrhiza with host roots. But some protozoans also prey upon some nematodes, I have some good studies if you'd like to see them, AFAIK this is pretty new info. I was quite surprised when I read the studies.Unvistiy of Nebraska-Linkon; Nematology
http://nematode.unl.edu/Wormgen.htm
Soil-inhabiting nematodes - Phylum Nematoda
Robert McSorley, University of Florida
http://entnemdept.ufl.edu/creatures/nematode/soil_nematode.htm
Introduction to the Nematoda: the roundworms
University of California, at Berkly
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/phyla/ecdysozoa/nematoda.html
Best, spurr
To find ppms of various elements that do not hinder populations of soil biota. I am doing this to provide and collect data on co-application of chems and biological organics (e.x. Aerated Compost Teas), a la, the hybrid of conventional and organic farming paradigms that many cannabis growers employ. Many cannabis grows and giant pumpkin growers like to mix both, and they make unsubstantiated and unproven claims that it's OK to mix them in any concentration without data or proof of effects upon soil biota (e.x. you can't mix chems with AM fungi to due levels of P ions hindering AM fungi greatly in a few ways). My goal is to collect data and proof for edification of the greater growing community (I don't mix them).
Plant do require microbes for certain biological processes, and you can't separate the two with unless using aseptic methods that no one uses. Even if plant's didn't need microbes, they benefit from they in many ways.
For some elements yes, but not for all elements, e.g. ammoniacal nitrogen. Too much ammoniacal N leads to phytotoxicity in roots due to insufficient movement of sugar into roots to covert the ammoniacal N.
Microbes provide "dissolved organic nitrogen" to plants, also "dissolved organic phosphorous", both of which the roots take up, as is, for 'food'. They don't only use ions for food, not by a long shot!
Read this thread of mine for more info, but please don't try to argue this here, you are wrong on many points (as usual):
"Info about DON vs. ions: plants don't only use ions"
https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=190599
https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=190599
Huh? Up to 25-30% of carbs from photosynthesis go to roots to feed soil (rhizosphere) biota, and some also goes to leafs to feed phyllosphere biota. You can't separate plants from microbes when growing cannabis unless doing so aseptically. Plants want/need microbes and many microbes need/want plants...it's the simple.
<face plam> I do have a good microscope, do you? I won't get into this with you because I don't want to teach you what you don't know; it's just too much work having you argue each point. Just hang out in the organic soil section and pay attention to posts by MicobeMan, CTGuy and myself (and others), but don't intergect because you don't have a good base of understanding. You have too many misconceptions, misunderstandings...
They also take up organic substances like amino acids, organic acids, etc., as food without needing to be broken down into ions. The myth that plants only use ions as food is something I rail against because it's so wrong...
Yea, plants use microbes for many functions, not only as food sources (ions and organic substances) but also for protection from harmful microbes and other functions.
Of course, as will cannabis.
Yes they do, some soluble ions such as P and miconutrients can become insoluble if they are not chelated, and microbes can chelate many of those ions.
<face palm> Maybe you should start with re-learning everything you think you know?
No one claimed otherwise...maybe you should leave this thread...
@ op, spurr
nematode - any of a phylum (Nematoda) of worms, often parasites of animals and plants, with long cylindrical, unsegmented bodies and a heavy cuticle; as the hookworm, pinworm, etc.......
Sigh, yes, I am well aware, trust me. I happen to specialize in topics of microbes. I was referring to your post when it seemed to me you meant the nematodes were worms, as in red worms, etc. When you called them worms and snakes that made me think you were referring to something else.
No it's not. I have a ton of studies on this topic. You just make shit up don't you?
What!?! Maybe you need to re-word and re-think that question...
<face palm> You are over your head and spouting nonsense, that question doesn't even make sense. I am sorry I am being terse and harsh with you, it's just that you always try to come into threads and take control, but your so often wrong I think you would want to stay in your sandbox.
I am putting you on ignore, I don't have time or care to waste on you.
That is way too much P and too little Ca and neraly too much S.
Microbes are defined, you are just trying to re-write the definition. Are nematodes microscopic? Yes. Are they the same as bacteria/archaea and lower fungi? No.
Anyone who knows anything about microbial assays knows about "direct microscopic enumeration" of soil biota.
As DON and DOP. Plants do not "only assimilate in-organic ions". BTW, it's redundant to write "in-organic ions", ions by definition are inorganic. Also, it's spelled "inorganic", not "in-organic".
/done teaching you the basics
Last edited:
Mistress,
The only reason I didn't respond to you is you seem too be looking for an argument, for example, you enclose the word studies in quotes, which means you either think I am lying or the studies I am referring to are not real studies. So why should I feel inclined to help educate you when you come to me with that attitude?
I find it odd that you ask me for studies after posting like you did, and yet you post no studies yourself.
I really dislike your attitude in most posts I have seen of yours, and in all times we have had contact you have left a bad taste in my mouth.
Give me a few days and I will post up some studies, I am too busy and back-logged with posts and PMs here that I need to catch up with first.
The only reason I didn't respond to you is you seem too be looking for an argument, for example, you enclose the word studies in quotes, which means you either think I am lying or the studies I am referring to are not real studies. So why should I feel inclined to help educate you when you come to me with that attitude?
I find it odd that you ask me for studies after posting like you did, and yet you post no studies yourself.
I really dislike your attitude in most posts I have seen of yours, and in all times we have had contact you have left a bad taste in my mouth.
Give me a few days and I will post up some studies, I am too busy and back-logged with posts and PMs here that I need to catch up with first.
for now:
there is only one form of Tria, I use Tria in powder form that I dilute to 25 ppm. And I already wrote how it's applied: foliar.
If you want to learn about Tria, and dont' want to wait for me, then do some searchs on Google Scholar ( http://www.google.com/schhp?hl=en ) and SCIRUS.
there is only one form of Tria, I use Tria in powder form that I dilute to 25 ppm. And I already wrote how it's applied: foliar.
If you want to learn about Tria, and dont' want to wait for me, then do some searchs on Google Scholar ( http://www.google.com/schhp?hl=en ) and SCIRUS.
lastly, for now:
1 mg/L = 1 ppm
Of course, one needs to account for the purity of the product, ex., Tria. Thus, if Tria is 90% pure, one needs to do a little math to find the ppm of 1mg of 90% Tria in 1 liter of water.
100% pure Tria @ 1 mg/L = 1 ppm
That question makes no sense because the volume of water doesn't matter. If I use 1 gallon or 1,000,000 gallons the ppm stays the same, only the concentration of Tria changes as volume of water changes.
1 mg/L = 1 ppm
Of course, one needs to account for the purity of the product, ex., Tria. Thus, if Tria is 90% pure, one needs to do a little math to find the ppm of 1mg of 90% Tria in 1 liter of water.
100% pure Tria @ 1 mg/L = 1 ppm
You just proved my point, you are here to argue. And that fact you still don't understand what ppm is, and how to calculate it, means you have a lot to learn. You are going back on my ignore list.
Also, you didn't reference your cite, how about posting the proper full reference so we can read the cite you are using!?!
/done with you, goodbye. If anyone else would like to read references please let me know, otherwise I don't feel a need to post them to appease, and teach, someone like *mistress*...
Also, you didn't reference your cite, how about posting the proper full reference so we can read the cite you are using!?!
/done with you, goodbye. If anyone else would like to read references please let me know, otherwise I don't feel a need to post them to appease, and teach, someone like *mistress*...
maryanne3087
Active member
LOL @ concentration calculated not by ppms but by grams per liter.
