Phosphite: What companies aren't telling you

Whether applied as the free acid or a salt, it is ionic and it will meet the same environmental chemical fate as whetever ionic form exists at the pH of the environment; H2PO3(-), HPO3(--), or PO3(---). The (III) oxidation state will not stand for long exposed to nature, it will surely be oxidized.

Expect application of a reducing agent to have very real effects on the substrate chemistry and biology, with conversion to the stable (V) oxidation state as the result.

Mullray; and the other a molecular biologist

Click to expand...

Do tell!

Re: phosphorous acid

This thread is not about phosphorous acid, I have no clue why mullray brought it up in the first place besides his/her misunderstanding about the thread topic, or about how Phi is made from phosphorous acid (tip: it's not by using water)*, or for the unethical purpose of using the logical fallacy "red herring" [1], or a combination of all three.
The topic of phosphorous acid is very far off topic to this thread. This thread is about Phi and how Phi is a very poor source of P because for Phi to provide P it must first be converted into Pi via. microbial oxidation. The process of microbial oxidation of Phi > Pi can be sped up in very high pH (> 8) within "soil solution"** (which includes soilless) or hydro; in both cases it's the very high water pH that effects rate of oxidation of Phi into Pi (there is no difference between hydro and soil/soilless in terms of pH effected conversion of Phi into Pi). The conversion of Phi into Pi is a slow and inefficient process if microbially driven. If a plant is only given Phi as a P source (via foliar or root drench or both) the plant will become P deficient quickly and suffer badly. Not only that, but Phi is a systemic fungicide (and/or fungistat), thus it should be used, or not be used, with that understanding (ex. I would never use Phi because I don't want to potentially hinder beneficial fungi). Lastly, Phi can cause phytotoxicity very easily if over-applied or applied too often (due to it's systemic nature).
The one reason why the topic of phosphorus acid (as a source for phosphoric acid fertilizer) could be on topic to this thread is that when mixed with water it forms very small amounts of Phi, along with greater amounts of phosphoric acid. Thus, if using a fertilizer derived from phosphorous acid (i.e. where phosphorous acid was mixed with water by the manufacture to make phosphoric acid), a grower would not only be providing phosphoric acid to the plants, but also small amounts of Phi.

I would respond, yet again, to mullray and his/her hyperbole but for three reasons: (1) I already responded enough, see the quotes below; (2) mullray is not worth respond to unless he/she can drop the attitude and bigotry and name calling; and most importantly (3) mullray is using the logical fallacy "red herring" (via injecting phosphorous acid into this thread) in an apparent attempt to drive this thread off topic.

spurr said:

mullray said:

Yep .... I think it's [conversion of phosphorous acid into phosphoric acid] more complex from a molecular level than this thread makes it seem.

Phosphorous acid Chemical Properties,Usage,Production
Air & Water Reactions
Deliquescent. Absorbs oxygen from the air very readily to form phosphoric acid [Hawley].

Deliquescent means highly hydroscopic - if exposed to air it absorbs moisture until it becomes liquid state.

More reading http://www.chemicalbook.com/Chemical..._CB6700409.htm

Click to expand...

That is in terms of [pure] phosphorus acid, [which this thread did not cover because it's off topic and] which is not used by people who grow plants, nor sold by companies such as NutriPhite, Pure Flowers, Vitalink, et al.; phosphites are used [by those companies]. Phosphites (Phi) are formed using phosphorous acid (H3PO3) that is neutralized to form salts and becomes phosphonate ions (H2PO3), also called phosphite.

In your link above, it's phosphorous acid (H3PO3) that is being discussed, not phosphonate ions (H2PO3), aka phosphites. So it has nothing to due with the use of Phi, nor conversion of Phi into Pi [which is the thread topic!].

Click to expand...

spurr said:

mullray said:

As far as I'm aware Phosphorous acid (phosphonic acid) converts almost entirly to phosphoric acid when added to water (it reacts).

Click to expand...

In the case of phosphorus acid, yes, but not in the case of [the thread topic] what is used by growers: phosphonate ions (i.e. Phi). See what I wrote above about the dangers of [pure] phosphorous acid, and why it's not sold by plant product companies, nor used by any growers.

If you were discussing Phi (and not phosphorus acid), then I would point out when foliar spraying Phi or media drenching with Phi (in both instances Phi is mixed with water), we would [NOT] be providing Pi.

Water does not oxidize (or otherwise convert) Phi into Pi. However, if the water pH is very high, then that might have an effect of increasing conversion of Phi into Pi. But the pH would need to be > 8, just like the pH of soil/soilless media, which is really the pH of the "soil solution" (i.e. the thin layer of water surround media particles).

Click to expand...

spurr said:

mullray said:

I checked the papers that were linked e.g. Phosphorous Acid and Phosphoric Acid: When all P Sources are not Equal. They claim Phosphorous acid does not get converted into phosphate, which is the primary source of P for plants (Ouimette and Coffey, 1989b). Interesting then that one of the most definitive guides on chemicals contradicts this.

Click to expand...

It does not disagree with that. Chemistry is not my strong suite, and I will ask Mr.Fista to comment and check my claims. Phosphorus acid is converted into phosphoric acid in water, but it's important to note phosphoric acid and phosphates are not the same thing; thus the claim in the paper I posted is correct, you seem to be simply confused:

"A phosphate, an inorganic chemical, is a salt of phosphoric acid...In organic chemistry, a phosphate, or organophosphate, is an ester of phosphoric acid."

"Phosphate is the name of the ion PO4[3-]. Phosphorous acid, on the other hand, is the name of the triprotic acid H3PO3. This is a combination of 3 H+ ions and one phosphite (PO3[3-]) ion."​

Click to expand...

spurr said:

mullray said:

I'm not disagreeing entirely with what is being said here - what I am simply saying is that from a molecular level where plant physiology and hydroponics is concerned this thread oversimplifies things greatly.

Click to expand...

No. You simply misunderstand things...

Also, see what I wrote about how growing in soil or soiless media would have the same effect as hydro, i.e. because in both instances there is water (e.g. soil solution).

Click to expand...

[1] Description of Red Herring
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html

A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

1. Topic A is under discussion.
2. Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
3. Topic A is abandoned.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.

Click to expand...

OK, nuff said, can we get back to the thread topic of Phi and off the red herring topic of phosphorous acid?

Microbeman said:

mullray said:

Mullray; and the other a molecular biologist

Click to expand...

Do tell!

Click to expand...

Haha, you noticed that too? Mullray is claiming he/she is a molecular biologist...sure, and I'm a pink elephant!

MrFista said:

Firstly - hehe - organic chemistry is not boring! How dare you spurr, the geek in me is deeply insulted. Organic chemistry is freaking awesome I got a hardon for ligase at the moment, more like biochem that though.

Click to expand...

Haha, I wrote that "boring" claim just for you my friend. Thanks for stopping by

hiker said:

Spurr, no I have not tried on cannabis and not really sure if you need to. As for a SARs inducer, that is not why I use phosphites, I use other products for that. I use a product that I also use at work that I think works quite nicely, if you are interested, pm me and I''ll tell you about it.

Click to expand...

Yea that would be nice, thanks for the offer, I'll PM you soon.

hiker said:

By the way, thanks for the heads up on the info on mycorrhiza, I have been using a product that provides that at work for many years also, one of the original firm believers in this product, and I know other systemics fungicides are harmful, but never thought of phosphites as hindering the process. I'm going to have to look into this, but truthfully, at work I don't really have that option. Phosphites are to much a part of my agronomic arsenal there.

Click to expand...

Glad to help. It has been shown the Phi does hinder mycorrhiza (infection) between AM fungi and host plant roots.

hiker said:

Thanks again, I love this thread, I feel useful.

Click to expand...

No worries. I thank you for your posts too. And I am glad to see you know that Phi offers close to nil P.

Thanks Spurr, I'll be looking for your pm. Happy Holiday, and yes I to thought this thread was about phosphites as good source of P which it is not, simple.

G.O. Joe said:

Whether applied as the free acid or a salt, it is ionic and it will meet the same environmental chemical fate as whetever ionic form exists at the pH of the environment; H2PO3(-), HPO3(--), or PO3(---). The (III) oxidation state will not stand for long exposed to nature, it will surely be oxidized.

Click to expand...

In terms of the thread topic Phi (I will no longer discuss the red herring mullray is injecting, i.e. phosphorous acid), Phi (phosphonate ions, aka phosphite, H2PO3), is not oxidized quickly in nature except as I mentioned, in very high pH of > 8. And no cannabis growers (except from some using biological organics), as well as very grew growers of other plants/trees, use a pH that high (especially conventional growers using fertilizer salts).

What that means is Phi is not converted into Pi quickly in a vast majority of situations, in most all situations (due to lower pH than ~8) bacteria convert (oxidize) Phi into Pi via enzyme exudates (ex. in the phyllosphere) and that takes week/s.

Thanks for posting sound science, it's nice to have you and Mr.Fista here; I know he is all about organic chem and you seem to be also

mullray said:

You know what??? I would typically agree and say sorry and have done so several times in the past. I do like a bit of controversy etc. This time no sorry. Note my first post and then check out my second post - both very polite. Then someone comes out swinging without an iota of an idea and calls me names such as ignorant (lol) and I take a poke back with the science and then I am called to task. Look if you want to run a forum where growers get fed questionable data claimed to be fact then that's really up to you but when someone who actually has a clue chimes in and gets insulted for raising some important contra facts then he has the right to respond. Note who began throwing insults (as a tip it wasn't me). I'm out.

MR

Click to expand...

I know this is a bit silly of me but I took your advice and looked back to see who took the first swing.

Mullray:
1/ Nonsense - you have no idea what you are talking about when you say things like this.

"Please do not try this, phosphorous acid is very dangerous and should not be used outside of a lab." Try learning something before you come out with damned stupid comments like this.


Mullray:
Next post with nothing replied in-between

2/ Hey go figure and go study some chemistry beyond elementary high school chem.

Spurr:
Spurr’s replied egregious aspersions

3/ You are being disingenuous, or ignorant, or both.
You are in for a rude awakening when I respond to your next post, and I would like an apology for you rudeness, if not also for your ignorance.

and

do you have a secret bat phone you can use to get their proprietary methods?

Heavy artillery:

So why are you being such an ass?


Being a retired grammar, math and science instructor I must comment on the following;

'dribble' used, I believe twice by Mullray should be 'drivel'.....and you taught high school?..my, my.

Spurr was accused of 'sprouting rubbish'. I wonder if images of discarded potato peelings growing shoots were conjured up in professor Mullray's mind or was it simply a case of a visitation from Archie Bunker or George Bush?

And to spread around the wealth of critique please ‘due to’ needs to stop being aborted as such oft repeated by my biglittle brother Spurr as so; ‘So it has nothign to due to use of Phi’ never mind the nothing spelling.

Well we did for sure learn one can get anything in China, even melamine laced dogfood but gracious they have cool trains.

OK mullray, this is my last response to you, it would be nice if you would just stop trying to use your red herring of phosphorous acid in a thread about phosphites. If you want to discuss phosphorous acid than start your own thread on the topic and stop hijacking my thread.

mullray said:

Lol. Kid, you take yourself way too seriously. You are wrong again - there is no Phi when phosphorous acid is reacted in water. If reacted in tap water (dependent on what elelments at what ppm are found in that water) there may be minute traces (neg at perhaps 2-3ppm which is irrelevant)

Click to expand...

Like I wrote: "The one reason why the topic of phosphorus acid (as a source for phosphoric acid fertilizer) could be on topic to this thread is that when mixed with water it forms very small amounts of Phi..."

and if reacted in RO water 0ppm Phi. So as this is largely a hydroponic forum what I am saying is your information is largely off topic itself.

Click to expand...

Firstly, this is not "largely a hydroponic forum". Secondly, no one should be using only RO water due to an insufficient level of alkalinity; a topic little understood by most growers. Thirdly, you are ignorant of the fact that soil/soilless and hydro are the same in terms of water; I pointed this out to you at least twice already. I.e., the soil solution (don't get hung up on the term "soil"). Thus, the many sound academic references I posted about the thread topic (i.e., Phi and Pi and P; not phosphorous acid) are equally valid for soil, soilless and hydro.

spurr said:

mullray said:

A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

1. Topic A is under discussion.
2. Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
3. Topic A is abandoned.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.

Click to expand...

It's a grow forum Spurr where many hydro growers frequent and my guess is most here are not growing in soil and the information you are spreading (while applying ill informed post hoc ad hoc reasoning) is not pertinent to hydoponic growing nor hydroponic nutrient formulation. ​

Click to expand...

I am doing no such thing, I am merely using the proper gender neutral term because I didn't know if you where a guy or gal. That is what non-assumptive adults do: we use gender neutral terms. Not everyone here is a guy, and trust me, ladies appreciate it when guys do not assume everyone else is a guy.

You could take a lesson from me, re: my usage of gender neutral terms, and stop being such a bigot (re: your homophobic slurs) and stop being such a jerk (re: calling people "kid" is an insult how you are using it, and oddly enough, it's usually kids that use the word "kid" in a derogatory manner).

If you think I used the fallacy Post hoc ergo propter hoc you are nuts (or just ignorant yet again), I did no such thing. ALL my claims about Phi are backed up by sound science, i.e., proven and accepted scientific theory. Lastly, stop using the red herring of phosphorous acid to try and argue against the thread topic of Phi being a very poor source of P!

I hope you are done with this thread, I am done schooling you, for good this time.

Microbeman said:

Being a retired grammar, math and science instructor I must comment on the following;

And to spread around the wealth of critique please ‘due to’ needs to stop being aborted as such oft repeated by my biglittle brother Spurr as so; ‘So it has nothign to due to use of Phi’ never mind the nothing spelling.

Click to expand...

Haha, nice catch! I do like it when you point out my grammatical and spelling errors; I am often guilty as charged and like to see when I mess up.

That sentence you pointed out I had noticed a little while ago, and already corrected it a little while ago. Albeit only in the second instance when I quoted myself here. This is my corrected version when I noticed my errors a little while ago: "So it has nothing to due with the use of Phi, nor conversion of Phi into Pi".



P.S. if anything I am your little brother, I learn from you all the time.

You guys are all way above me in chemistry and general knowledge of the why's and how's and again, I am learning so much, but as someone who has used phosphites for at least 15 years, I remember when Cleary Chemical first came out with their phosphites which was if I remember correctly brand named nutri-gro. And truthfully with this real life experience I DO NOT REALLY SEE ANY USE IN USING PHOSPHITES ON CANNABIS UNLESS IT IS MAYBE USED FOR RESISTANCE TO SOME ROOT DISEASES. I personally try not to foilar feed my plants with chemicals, just me. Again, my knowledge pales in comparision to most here, but I can bring alot of real life agronomic experience to the table. Hope this helps, just my opinion.

Microbeman said:

I know this is a bit silly of me but I took your advice and looked back to see who took the first swing.

Mullray:
1/ Nonsense - you have no idea what you are talking about when you say things like this.

"Please do not try this, phosphorous acid is very dangerous and should not be used outside of a lab." Try learning something before you come out with damned stupid comments like this.


Mullray:
Next post with nothing replied in-between

2/ Hey go figure and go study some chemistry beyond elementary high school chem.

Spurr:
Spurr’s replied egregious aspersions

3/ You are being disingenuous, or ignorant, or both.
You are in for a rude awakening when I respond to your next post, and I would like an apology for you rudeness, if not also for your ignorance.

and

do you have a secret bat phone you can use to get their proprietary methods?

Heavy artillery:

So why are you being such an ass?


Being a retired grammar, math and science instructor I must comment on the following;

'dribble' used, I believe twice by Mullray should be 'drivel'.....and you taught high school?..my, my.

Spurr was accused of 'sprouting rubbish'. I wonder if images of discarded potato peelings growing shoots were conjured up in professor Mullray's mind or was it simply a case of a visitation from Archie Bunker or George Bush?

And to spread around the wealth of critique please ‘due to’ needs to stop being aborted as such oft repeated by my biglittle brother Spurr as so; ‘So it has nothign to due to use of Phi’ never mind the nothing spelling.

Well we did for sure learn one can get anything in China, even melamine laced dogfood but gracious they have cool trains.

Click to expand...

Why would you bring up George Bush?

Sprouting rubbish? I am pretty sure I read above that no one (including farmers) uses P acid as a P source.

Didn't I read that?

Sorry to interject here but one here definitely has a greater understanding of P then the other. I won't say who, but it is rather obvious.

Going to try to get thread back on topic one last time. With many years of working with phosphites I say again, in my humble opinion. I REALLY DO NOT SEE MUCH USE IN USING PHOSPHITES ON CANNABIS UNLESS PERHAPS FOR RESISTANCE TO SOME ROOT DISEASES. Hope this post isn't taken wrong, but I feel this is the true bottom line. Happy Holidays and hope you all have a good New Year

hiker said:

Going to try to get thread back on topic one last time. With many years of working with phosphites I say again, in my humble opinion. I REALLY DO NOT SEE MUCH USE IN USING PHOSPHITES ON CANNABIS UNLESS PERHAPS FOR RESISTANCE TO SOME ROOT DISEASES. Hope this post isn't taken wrong, but I feel this is the true bottom line. Happy Holidays and hope you all have a good New Year

Click to expand...

QFT

Mullray - you are accusing me of accusing you of saying things - you are not reading you are leaping in like you got something to prove. I'm not here to 'back up' anyone, spurr does not need my backup, he asked a polite request and said his chemistry is not the best wheras you think you're a molecular biologist wtf. Last teacher talked to me like you talk to spurr got knocked out at the school reunion it was worth waiting 20 years for the prick too.

Please try to be civil your debating skills are just plain awful and that's coming from me - a known to be abrasive type.

grapeman said:

How old are you?

I neither started this or the other thread regarding phosphites. I never contended that it was either the phosphites or K were resulting in results that myself and others have seen using pure flowers.

The only fact I stated was that since using phosphites in the form of nutri-phite K (all foliar) in my vineyards (for almost 20 years), my P levels have consistently remained where I want to maintain them and I have been able to reduce the use of heavy phos acid applications to the soil. Major reductions. Saving money reductions. And I have validated these P levels with petiole analysis.

Some growers, either here or on other crops would find that of interest since high applications of phos acid in the soil have been shown to be detrimental to microbial life in the soil.

The reason I ask how old you are is obvious in your posts and your new sig.

Click to expand...

Grapeman, pardon my naivete but do you grow weed? I'm not asking that to be a dick, just curious because I foliar feed with a PK booster up until week 4 of flowering, and I was curious if you did anything like that (I'm indoors) - not like growing grapes outdoors for profit is anything to sneeze at, but I think it's a whole different ballgame when you're playing "God" indoors.

I've never foliar fed past week 4 but I'm about to get a sulphur burner (so might feed a little deeper into flower) so I'm curious from people who've done it if it's worthwhile to foliar feed a PK that late into flowering (I've always stopped because of the fear of PM or mold from foliar feeding).

I think this grow I'm gonna do a test run of Bloombastic (fucking love it) vs. Hammerhead and I'm curious how deep into flowering some cats take their foliars.

Thanks in advance and happy holidays to all.

Just to make sure there is no confusion: I didn't PM anyone about mullray. Nor did I, or Mr.Fista to my knowledge, write any emails about mullray; and I did not receive any emails about mullray "from grapman". Neither mullary or grapeman have my email address, and I don't have their email addresses.

I really have no clue what mullray is carrying on about in that regard. I couldn't care less about him or grapeman.

mullray said:

Oh and don't PM anything to Spurr. He just PM'd me a confidential email about me from Grapeman that was sent to Spurr (yeah bitches get really nasty!).

Click to expand...

Can I please repeate Hiker's (and my) request that we get back on the topic of phosphites?

Spurr, I must be missing something. From your post #80 you state "...no one should be using only RO water due to an insufficient level of alkalinity"

Why would I want my water to be alkaline. RO water should be relatively neutral as to pH, no? Is he pH range for cannabis not some what acidic 5.5-6.5 or so?

Thanks for any clarifcation you can provide.

I think the soil - hydro is a lot of the confusion actually.

RO is crap in soil, crap in aquaponics which I do know a little of, and very useful in hydro should you choose that route. Starting with as little as possible in hydro you can tweak your formulas and know exactly what's in them.

It's not just soil - hydro causing confusion either. It's chem - organic. This is not an arguement for or against either as we are all aware, but I think it is the source of this dispute - different camps with different understanding.

I do not grow with chemicals I have no desire to. But I do have a deep desire to understand the chemistry of soil. And the biology, and physics... it takes time. At the moment I know a lot more about soil biology than it's chemistry or physics but I am learning. Those products are soil death, I can't be bothered writing a thread on it this should be plain for all to see in the deserts we create. Enough said on that.

Mullray - Spurr is extremely well read, and quite pedantic about getting things correct. I am a feckin slob at pulling out references compared to the man so when you say "makes it up" you are incorrect and out of line.

In context spurr is correct about RO - you are being picky whether you have a clue or not.