Phosphite: What companies aren't telling you

spurr said:

If one seeks info from you, and your unreferenced claims, then your statement is quite true. My referenced claims, and those of many others in this thread are unbiased. I cite actual science, you do not, you only cite your opinion. Just because I/we proved you wrong and cite the fact Phi is very poor source of P, a rather poor SAR inducer, and a good fungicide/fungistat doesn't make us biased; it just makes us correct

You have yet to cite a single academic reference. And your one citation of NutriPhite company was proven to not agree with your claims about it. That is, after I called them and asked them about your claims and their claims. I have proven what you claim to be false time and time again. Except for your claim that you think Phi allows you to use less Pi, which I do not agree with but I can not disprove because you have not done proper testing with controls, etc.

Click to expand...

With all due respect to VG I will answer your long winded post simply without really telling you what's up. I have told you that I use a certain product. I never said I had stock in that company nor was I it's spokesman. You have decided on your own that you would be the anti-spokesman for the product. I could care less. I use what works and I discard the rest. I do not spend my time googling studies. I live real life. I spend real money. I feed real people, even people like you.

And I can tell you that you assume too much. You assume you are smarter then me and have more knowledge about growing then me. I would disagree. But when you say that I spend money on products without setting up proper controls and checks.... well you are now full of shit. I don't work on a 20 - 3 gal pots in the back room level, I work on an acreage basis, where chemical costs run well over $550/acre. Multiply that by whatever you want. I'd bet my annual chemical purchases are more then your home is worth and yet you cut and paste as if you have any practical experience. Every time you mention an "article" you wrote, I look and all it is is a regurgitation of something that someone else wrote. You live in your head.

Then to prove the point that you are full of shit, you sum up your self serving bullshit by saying I was so stupid, I never knew my P levels in my soil/vines and I therefore overused P in the first place.

You seem to have a modicum of followers here who are impressed with the time you put into cutting and pasting. I'm not one of them. I throw folks out of my office like you all the time... folks that think they know more, or are smarter then the producer but has never accomplished much of anything all the while telling folks like me how it's supposed to be done. Because they read about it then dreamt about it but never did it. Pathetic.

"I'd bet my annual chemical purchases are more then your home is worth"

It really shouldn't be like that. That sucks.

mullray said:

Yawn.... go farm your ditch witches and stay away from hydroponics (the anti christ and as we all know because you told us, science is the cause of deserts

I'm wondering if any of you guys riding shotgun with unloaded slingshots can get your facts right.

Click to expand...

I said what? LOL

You sir, it is now obvious, are just full of shit and slinging it. Not worth the time I don't give a fuck what you think you're an idiot.

mullray said:

.......

The problem is VG that Spurr is painting himself to be an expert on the subject of hydroponics while also talking about Phi. What is clear to anyone with half a clue is he knows very little about hydroponics. What I said is that using phosphoric and phosphorous acid in hydroponic formulation causes no problems at all. He then said it would be toxic (which is crap either way and he totally misrepresented the facts in order to further his cause). I then pointed out that phosphoric acid and phosphorous acid would at most react with tap water at approx 3-5ppm Phi (which is nothing and only based on organic sediment in that tap water) and in RO react at 0ppm Phi. He then said that RO water shouldn't be used in hydroponics Lol. Jesus man, all liquid nutrients and additive concentrates are formulated using demineralised water (e.g. RO). Further most hydro growers with half a clue grow with RO water and certainly the bulk of commercial greenhouse hydroponic operations use RO. So, my point is how are we off topic? I am saying that his information is highly flawed given many growers who frequent this forum grow hydroponically. Now, tell me something, are you a mod? If so we'll leave it to spurr to proliferate false and misleading information in order to further dumb down mj growers. If you aren't a mod run off and get one and have them ask me to not raise critical and scientifically substantifiable information in this debate. So again, how am I off topic?

Click to expand...

mullray, look at the title of the thread. that is the topic. as i said the thread is already long, rambling and bitter. by rambling i mean it has gone off-topic at times - repeatedly trying to bring up other people's off topic comments is also off topic you have made the point that you disagree with spurr (on RO) a few times already.

if your intentions are truly altruistic as you say then why have this debate in a thread where few people looking for info on RO in hydro will find it? as i said - why not start a thread about that topic. post your information in favor of RO and let people who disagree with you debate it. you can even post a link to it from here so anybody who wants to follow and contribute to the debate can do so.

no i am not a mod, but i am the person who successfully requested the addition of this forum to ICmag - so i have a vested interest in trying to avoid the kind of name-calling and insult throwing and personal attacks that were the main catalyst for my trying to instigate an area where the science of growing could be debated in a more gentlemanly manner, and whilst oldpink is presently too busy with the christmas post deadline to moderate this forum (which he kindly offered to do temporarily) i am trying to keep the discussion descending from robust debate into insult and personal attack.

fwiw this thread was started before this forum began, and i didnt want it moved here because it had already turned into a pikey's wedding by that time and i knew it was likely to continue that way.

if everyone could please try and keep it down to a dull roar then i would be most grateful.

sincerely

VG

VerdantGreen said:

if your intentions are truly altruistic as you say then why have this debate in a thread where few people looking for info on RO in hydro will find it? as i said - why not start a thread about that topic. post your information in favor of RO and let people who disagree with you debate it.

Click to expand...

I for one think it's totally relevant to the thread if mullray can and does show that Spurr's claims/hypotheses regarding RO water are incorrect.

If he's incorrect about RO, perhaps Grapeman's decades of real world experience are not so easy to discount now either?

That's just my line of critical thinking - heading back to the seats to watch now.............try to keep it civil, everybody.

mullray said:

Oh to summarise. I aren't going off topic. We are having to nail one piece of BS at a time to bring it back to the central point I was making from word go. Phi is a pink elephant in hydroponics. You will note that I make no discussion around Spurrs Phi claims in soil. So are we going to mutually exclude at least 50% of IC Mags audience or do I get to speak for hydroponic growers about the Phi myth that Spurr is beginning to create (when the myth becomes fact print it!)

Click to expand...

mullray, thanks for bringing your posts back on-topic, but you'll have to define 'pink elephant' for me because afaik its a euphemism for a drunken hallucination. perhaps you mean 'white elephant'? (something that has a cost that is out of proportion with it's usefulness). either way im confused...

now, why dont you make a post that tells us how you think phosphites work with hydroponics, because as far as i can see you are telling people they are wrong but not posting what you think is right (perhaps i may have missed that bit)

VG

Bob Smith said:

I for one think it's totally relevant to the thread if mullray can and does show that Spurr's claims/hypotheses regarding RO water are incorrect.

If he's incorrect about RO, perhaps Grapeman's decades of real world experience are not so easy to discount now either?

That's just my line of critical thinking - heading back to the seats to watch now.............try to keep it civil, everybody.

Click to expand...

bob, im not trying to stop anyone posting anything, im just trying to keep this thread on topic. dont you think there are enough on-topic arguments here without perpetuating off-topic ones? i always think it's a shame when good info is shared in off-topic conversations in a thread because it doesnt get seen by as many people as when it's on-topic. i would prefer to keep the discussions in this forum on-topic so that they can be a better reference and resource for everyone.

p.s. i have great respect for grapeman's experience and have told him so on more than one occasion.

edit - please also note that i havent said who is right or wrong here because i do not know the answer, i just want to see polite debate and fair play.

VG

thanks for that clarification mullray.

i dont see where you are taking it, but at least you are now talking about phosphites again.

i'll ask you again. could you make a post about how phi works, or doesnt, with hydro

thanks

VG

edit - you posted while i was posting

thankyou mullray for the positive contribution. we got there eventually.

i look forward to hearing some responses to it.

VG

VerdantGreen said:

thankyou mullray for the positive contribution. we got there eventually.

i look forward to hearing some responses to it.

VG

Click to expand...

VG, your role as a self-annointed moderator is highly called into question when you clearly are biased towards one person's views and troll another who is responding (in a roundabout manner, but still responding and refuting) to those views.

Perhaps (like myself and others are doing), you should let the "true" moderators do their job and allow Spurr and Grape/Mull to debate the topic on its merits?

Thanks and have a good day.

@ all,

This thread has gone to shit thanks to mullray. Like I wrote before, I am not going to respond directly to him again, and I stand by that position. Mullray has introduced many red herrings into this thread, and continually misrepresented what I wrote. He continually is calling members very rude names (like pedophiles, twats, and many homophobic slurs), along with threatening to physically harm myself and Mr.Fista; all because he has been proven wrong but doesn't like it. I thought writing those things were against the TOU and would get his posts removed or him removed...

I already wrote about phosphorous acid far too much in this thread that isn't about the best P source; this thread is about Phi and how Phi is not a good P source.

I wrote about RO water in passing because someone (mullray?) brought it up. What I wrote, and what ambertrich wrote, is correct. I am not about to make a fully referenced post about RO water in a thread about Phi. And I find it very funny that mullray demands from me peer-reviewed studies about RO water in hydro; but then he goes and posts his only reference about RO from a non-legit source (a company)! And to boot, his reference doesn't even discuss the matter of pH, which is why I wrote what I did about RO water.

Mullray's obsession with "but, but I'M USING HYDRO!" is so flawed it's not even funny. I explained it to him twice already that using hydro is no different than using soil or soiless, in that, in all instances water is present (i.e. "soil solution" for soil and soilless). In his apparent need to discuss phosphorous acid in a Phi thread, he likes to believe hydro is some far-off animal that is unlike growing in soil and soilless in terms of how phosphorous acid and Phi react in hydro water vs. water in soil and soilless. I guess the water in hydro is magical. What really gets my goat, is that this thread is about Phi, and we all agree most people use Phi as a foliar (some well known people here do use it in fertigation water). So, even if somehow hydro water was magically different than soil and soilless water, it's a moot point, because most people use Phi as a foliar spray. I have pointed all of this out to mullray at least twice already.

I agree with Mr.Fista, mullray for some reason thinks he has to prove something to everyone, he is not debating, he is simply arguing. He doesn't read and allow what people wrote to sink in and consider what they wrote, he just jumps on his keyboard and types out a lot of name calling and opinion without posting science.

The ONE study mullray has succeed in posting fully agrees with everything I have written, what mullray mistakenly calls my "hypothesis", LOL. For being a "molecular biologist" (yea right!) I find it odd he doesn't even know what a hypothesis is, because if he did, he would know I posted scientific theory, not hypothesis (in terms of Phi). I explained this to him already but just like on other topics, he ignores what I write and simply claims I am writing things I am not.

If one were to look up "disingenuous" and "misrepresentation" in the dictionary, one would see a picture of mullray


Let me break down his only study he has managed to post in a science sub-forum. I will point out how everything claimed in the hydro study abstract is 100% in agreement with what is found in soil and soilless studies; and shows my claim that there is no difference between hydro and soil/soilless culture in regard to the thread topic is correct. I find it funny that for being a "molecular biologist" he can't even properly cite a study, or get it in full text!

This quote of mullray's is so wrong it's sad:

What did seem clear is the outcomes are extremely different to that which would occur in soil.

Click to expand...

In the following study the workers found Phi inhibits uptake of Pi if applied to the rhizosphere, which is exactly what happens if Phi is applied to any rhizosphere, be in soil, soilless, hydro, NFT, etc. I have written about this many times, even in the first post in this thread.

In the second to last sentence of that study's abstract, the workers cite that hydro (water) is a poor vehicle for conversion of Phi into Pi, just what I wrote many times to mullary. The reason being, that in hydro, just like in most soil and all soilless, the pH is not > 8. It's high pH that can enhance oxidation of Phi into Pi. In the second to last sentence the workers also cited their hypothesis that extra Pi is needed to offset the reduced Pi uptake thanks to Phi hindering Pi uptake; because Phi is not a source of P until its oxidized in Pi.

I also noticed there is typo in the abstract, phosphite is not abbreviated as "Pi", it is abbreviated as "Phi". There is only one instance of that typo in the abstract, later in the abstract the authors properly abbreviated phosphite as Phi and phosphate as Pi.

Thao, H.T.B. and Yamakawa, T. (2010), Phosphate absorption of intact komatsuna plants as influenced by phosphite. Soil Science & Plant Nutrition, 56: 133–139.

Abstract

"Phosphite (Pi) [EDIT: phosphite is Phi, not Pi] uptake in cell suspension culture, information on how Phi affects the Pi uptake of intact plants remains to be determined. The present study was conducted to investigate the effect of Phi on Pi absorption of intact komatsuna plants (Brassica rapa var. peruviridis cv. Ajisai) in hydroponic culture. Phosphite markedly decreased Pi absorption of the intact komatsuna plants under both low (0.05 mmol L−1) and high (0.5 mmol L−1) Pi supply, although the growth (both shoots and roots) and water uptake of the high Pi-supplied plants was not affected by Phi. The inhibiting effect of Phi was small at 0.2 mmol L−1, but became large at 2 mmol L−1. Using relatively large seedlings (28 days old) to better assess the influence of Phi on Pi absorption early in the treatment, the results indicated that there was an immediate decrease in Pi absorption within the first 2-day period of Phi treatment when the water absorption of the plants was not affected. Taken together, the results suggested that there was a strong inhibiting effect of Phi on Pi uptake of intact komatsuna plants and this effect is exerted most likely by competition between Phi and Pi at uptake level. We speculate that the application of Phi to plant roots in an environment that is unfavorable for Phi-to-Pi conversion (e.g. hydroponic culture) may need to increase the amount of required Pi fertilization of plants to compensate for the reduction in Pi uptake by Phi. Further research is needed to confirm our results."

Click to expand...

@ Old Pink, when you come back, please consider cleaning up this thread and/or locking it. Mullray is being a troll in this thread and ruining it while at the same time calling people very rude names, threatening physical violence, lying and just posting a bunch of crap. TIA


@ all: I am not about to be part of the demise of this thread, if people want to discuss Phi that's fine, but for now I am not going to post in this thread again until two things happen: (1) mullray goes away or starts acting like an adult; and (2) we get back on topic of Phi.

Lastly, the last two pages (9-10) of this thread have been nearly full of rambling idiotic posts by mullray where he still posts no science and makes arm-waving claims about red herrings that have nothing to do with this thread. All the while fully misrepresenting what I wrote. At least grapeman (who seems to dislike me as much as mullray) keeps his non-referenced and non-scientific based posts short, and to the point.

MrFista said:

"I'd bet my annual chemical purchases are more then your home is worth"

It really shouldn't be like that. That sucks.

Click to expand...

I'll say. Using chemicals in farming makes for short term gains but longterm destruction of soil. I speak as a farmer (well last year was my last year on my 100 acres). I watched over time that two farms in our area (one ours) not using chemical inputs overall out-yielded chemical farms...especially in drought years. Sorry..no science.

mullray said:

Yeah Mr Fista grow organically, starve the planet and sell overpriced rubbish to tree hugging white middle classed folk who can afford it. I'll look forward to debating you on this one on an appropriate thread.

Click to expand...

This should be all that anyone with an IQ over 90 should need to comprehend that this gentleman is misinformed. He is not alone of course.This is a common misconception. I thought you were the one lecturing me about taking stock of what is happening outside the Americas. BTW the company (charity) you supposedly work for goes by Mines Advisory Group rather than Mines Alliance Group as you stated. (to give you benefit of doubt, perhaps they changed their name).

Bob Smith said:

VG, your role as a self-annointed moderator is highly called into question when you clearly are biased towards one person's views and troll another who is responding (in a roundabout manner, but still responding and refuting) to those views.

Perhaps (like myself and others are doing), you should let the "true" moderators do their job and allow Spurr and Grape/Mull to debate the topic on its merits?

Thanks and have a good day.

Click to expand...

bob, please read my previous posts where i clearly stated that i wasn't a moderator.

i have now been called a troll twice since i joined ICmag and both times it has been by yourself - and i very much resent it. (however you subsequently deleted all your posts in the thread where you previously made the accusation)

as for allowing people to 'debate the topic on it's merits' - that is exactly what i have been repeatedly appealing for people to do in this thread, without the abuse and name-calling.

as for being biased towards someone's views, how can that be when i have also clearly stated that i dont know the answers?

yes, lets leave it to the real mods. ive had enough.

VG

VerdantGreen said:

bob, please read my previous posts where i clearly stated that i wasn't a moderator.

i have now been called a troll twice since i joined ICmag and both times it has been by yourself - and i very much resent it. (however you subsequently deleted all your posts in the thread where you previously made the accusation)

as for allowing people to 'debate the topic on it's merits' - that is exactly what i have been repeatedly appealing for people to do in this thread, without the abuse and name-calling.

as for being biased towards someone's views, how can that be when i have also clearly stated that i dont know the answers?

yes, lets leave it to the real mods. ive had enough.

VG

Click to expand...

Sorry if that offends you, dude, but I call them like I see them.

If anyone can't read your posts in your responses to Mullray and see the unnecessary needling of him by your confrontational/goading phrases ("we got there eventually", "at least now", "I'll ask you again", etc.) - IMO, that's trolling - others can judge for themselves.

I'd say we've exhausted this subject, so if you have anything more to say to me or I have anything more to say to you I'd suggest we use the PM system so as to not clog up this thread.

Thanks and have a good day.

EDIT: BTW, my little contribution to the thread - decided to do a foliar fed PK booster (vs. a control group) for a head to head experiment, so I'd love some requests/suggestions - heading to the hydro store tomorrow (hopefully for the last time in a long time) so I'd need them kinda quickly.

Thread will be posted in the new subforum for experiments.

I'm closing this thread until I get time to go through it and see what the problems are.

I don't know why there has to be so much fighting..... Merry Christmas.....