What's new
  • 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"!

Who uses Phosphites?

Status
Not open for further replies.
whodare

whodare

Active member
Veteran
are you guys even reading what spurr is writing. he has made clear the reasons why people "see" results.

not one person here other than spurr has supplied documentation or references to back their points.

saying that you applied it and it works doesnt prove a thing because your circumstances are most assuredly different than the people your spreading the info to.

and furthermore with out using phosphites as your sole source of p you cant say that its a good p supplement.

my understanding is that agricultural world phosphites are supplied only to prevent or curb the spread of fungus based problems. and i also believe that there are a few certain types of plants that see a benefit from there use. cannabis isnt one.

take for example this product http://www.helenachemical.com/specialty/Labels/Ele-MaxFoliarPhosphite0-0-26OR.PDF

it states specifically that the phosphorus acid is a NON plant food. it is even listed as 0-0-26 with phosphorus acid in the ingredients which says to me that phosphites are not a source of p to the plants by themselves.
 
OsWiZzLe

OsWiZzLe

Active member
http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...025494c3cfb43159500602c7e6c333e9&searchtype=a

Effect of phosphite fertilization on growth, yield and fruit composition of strawberries

Abstract

Traditionally, phosphates (Pi, salts of phosphoric acid, H3PO4) have been used for plant fertilization, and phosphites (Phi, salts of phosphorous acid, H3PO3) have been used as fungicides. Nowadays several Phi fertilizers are available in the EU market despite the fact that in research trials Phi has often had a negative influence on plant growth. The objective of this study was to elucidate the effect of a Phi fertilizer on plant growth, yield and fruit composition of strawberries (Fragaria × ananassa Duch.). Experiments were carried out with ‘Polka’ frigo plants in South Estonia in 2005 and 2006. The number of leaves per plant, total and marketable yields, fruit size, fruit ascorbic acid content (AAC), soluble solids content (SSC), titratable acidity (TA), anthocyanins (ACY) and total antioxidant activity (TAA) were recorded.

The results indicate that Phi fertilization does not affect plant growth. Phi fertilization had no advantages in terms of yield increase, compared to traditional Pi fertilization. Fruit acidity increased and TSS decreased due to foliar fertilization with Phi in 2006. Soaking plants in Phi fertilizer solution prior planting was effective in activating plant defence mechanisms, since fruit ascorbic acid and anthocyanin content increased.
 
OsWiZzLe

OsWiZzLe

Active member
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1747-0765.2009.00365.x/abstract

Phosphite (phosphorous acid): Fungicide, fertilizer or bio-stimulator?

Abstract

Phosphite (; Phi), a reduced form of phosphate (; Pi), is widely marketed as either a fungicide or fertilizer or sometimes as a biostimulant. This is confusing for both distributors and growers. The present paper explores data from various studies to clarify that Phi does not provide plant P nutrition and thus cannot complement or substitute Pi at any rate. In addition, Phi itself does not have any beneficial effect on the growth of healthy plants, regardless of whether it is applied alone or in combination with Pi at different ratios or different rates. The effect of Phi on plants is not consistent, but is strongly dependent on the Pi status of the plants. In most cases, the deleterious effect of Phi is evident in Pi-starved, but not Pi-sufficient, plants. Plants fertilized with Pi allowing for approximately 80–90% of its maximum growth might still be at risk of the effect. This negative effect becomes more pronounced under more seriously Pi-deficient conditions. Although a number of studies have shown positive crop responses to Phi, these responses are likely to be attributable to the suppression of plant diseases by Phi and/or to Pi formed from oxidation of Phi by microbes. In addition, indirectly providing P by Phi-to-Pi oxidation is not an effective means of supplying P to plants compared with Pi fertilizer. An understanding of these issues will aid the right selection of fertilizer as well as minimize the harmful effects of Phi use on crops.
 
whodare

whodare

Active member
Veteran
funkymonkey said:
Amen.
Click to expand...



if you guys dont like being informed that there are better ways to do what your doing then dont surf the forums or ever ask for advice.

the man is doing nothing other than spreading valuable info and you guys are telling him to stop. he has every right to tell you that its a waste of time and money because it is.

you also have the right to disregard his advice. but dont try and stop the spread of accurate and valuable info:thank you::)
 
spurr

spurr

Active member
Veteran
@ epicseeds,

No worries, no hard feelings. It's all good in the hood! I'm glad we agree about phosphites :)


@ Os,

Thanks bro, for re-posting those refs. I posted all those references already, except the first one or two you posted (ex. the onion study). I am glad to see others are also searching for academic info too. I posted the strawberry study, it's a good one, and the wheat study I posted is also good. It takes week(s) for Phi to be oxidized into Pi to provide P nutrition to the plant... :tiphat:


@ Whodare:

Thanks for trying to bring some sanity to this thread :)


@ schwagg,

Lol, yea, it's kind of fitting for this thread :)...and it's one of my favorite corny jokes!

Here is another:
What did Dr. Dre say to 50cent when 50cent gave him a hand knitted sweater? ... Gee-you-knit?
​
hahaha
 
spurr

spurr

Active member
Veteran
ShroomDr said:
Current interpretations of astronomical observations indicate that the age of the universe is 13.75 ±0.17 billion years.
Click to expand...

That I didn't know, thanks, always love learning something new!





The earth is only 5000 years old, and jebus walked with dinosaurs.
Click to expand...
:laughing: :laughing: :laughing: Good one!

Screw fish, Jesus should have been all about dinosaur burgers! "...give a man a dinosaur and feed him for a day, teach a man to hunt a dinosaur and feed him for a lifetime!" lolz
 
Kcar

Kcar

There are FOUR lights!
Veteran
Does anyone know the correct dosage of Pure Flowers when foliage feeding?
 
spurr

spurr

Active member
Veteran
Neat,

Looks like someone over at THC_farm is also aware of the inaccurate claims of Pure Flowers and those who like to claim Phi is a good P fertilizer. Maybe between this thread, and that one (which is only one post), growers with their head in the sand will come to realize the truth about Pure Flowers and phosphites:

"Pure flowers/phosphite scam!?"

(the paper below is the same link that Oswizzle posted, and that I posted too)

"Understanding the Phosphonate Products"
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences - Cooperative Extension
Prepared by Peter Landschoot, Professor and Joshua Cook, Dept. of Crop and Soil Sciences, The Pennsylvania State University

Phosphonates were first investigated as fertilizers in Germany and the U.S. during the 1930s and 40s. At that time, agricultural officials were concerned that war activities would disrupt vital shipments of rock phosphate for fertilizer production, so alternative sources of fertilizer phosphorus were explored (6).

Results of studies conducted in both countries demonstrated that phosponates were not effective substitutes for phosphate fertilizer. USDA scientists found that yields of legumes and grasses treated with calcium phosphite were lower than phosphate-treated plants, and in most cases, lower than controls plants receiving no phosphorus. However, a second crop seeded into the same soils that were treated with calcium phosphite showed improved yields. The authors attributed the delayed phosphorus response to the conversion of phosphite to phosphate in the soil (9).Subsequent research revealed that phosphite could be converted to phosphate primarily by soil-borne bacteria, but that these bacteria would not use phosphite until most phosphate was depleted (1).

Based on the results of these studies, phosphonate fertilizer was viewed as an inefficient and costly means of supplying phosphorus to plants and scientists eventually lost interest in this compound as a phosphorus fertilizer.

Despite previous research findings, phosphonate compounds are marketed by some companies as a source of phosphorus and potassium fertilizer.
Click to expand...


And here we have BS claims about Phi being a good P source by makers of Pure Flowers:

Pure Flowers 0-30-20 liquid was scientifically formulated with cutting edge phosphite technology. Pure Flowers 0-30-20 has the highest nutrient levels ever achieved in a completely solubilized liquid. The unique molecular structure of a phosphite is easily absorbed through the roots and leaves ensuring the crop instantly uptakes potassium and phosphorus. The ultimate flowering supplement will maximize your crops yield and boost the crops immune system.
Click to expand...

^^^ Lies! Pure Flowers does not provide P "instantly", nor is it the "ultimate flowering suppliment"...ROTFLMFAO!
 
grapeman

grapeman

Active member
Veteran
OsWiZzLe said:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...025494c3cfb43159500602c7e6c333e9&searchtype=a

Effect of phosphite fertilization on growth, yield and fruit composition of strawberries

Abstract

Traditionally, phosphates (Pi, salts of phosphoric acid, H3PO4) have been used for plant fertilization, and phosphites (Phi, salts of phosphorous acid, H3PO3) have been used as fungicides. Nowadays several Phi fertilizers are available in the EU market despite the fact that in research trials Phi has often had a negative influence on plant growth. The objective of this study was to elucidate the effect of a Phi fertilizer on plant growth, yield and fruit composition of strawberries (Fragaria × ananassa Duch.). Experiments were carried out with ‘Polka’ frigo plants in South Estonia in 2005 and 2006. The number of leaves per plant, total and marketable yields, fruit size, fruit ascorbic acid content (AAC), soluble solids content (SSC), titratable acidity (TA), anthocyanins (ACY) and total antioxidant activity (TAA) were recorded.

The results indicate that Phi fertilization does not affect plant growth. Phi fertilization had no advantages in terms of yield increase, compared to traditional Pi fertilization. Fruit acidity increased and TSS decreased due to foliar fertilization with Phi in 2006. Soaking plants in Phi fertilizer solution prior planting was effective in activating plant defence mechanisms, since fruit ascorbic acid and anthocyanin content increased.
Click to expand...

I only have one comment to those who keep quoting science studies stating that phosphites have NO P effect.

You would all go broke in the farming business (and fucking fast) because you believe scientists know better then the farmer who is risking all to buy a product, using it, seeing the effect and using it again the following year.

Farming by the book or the USDA Extension agent's advice is laughable.

I know better.
 
spurr

spurr

Active member
Veteran
Dude, no one has stated Phi provides no P, stop putting words in our mouths, and the mouths of countless studies! That study, if you took the time to read it, and not read only the abstract, doesn't claim Phi provides no P; it's simply states the FACT that Phi needs to be converted into Pi before it provides P.

And Phi is a very poor source of P compared to Pi. Thus, you should be using Pi for your foliar, not Phi.

I/we have stated many times: Phi must be converted into Pi before it can provide P, and that takes week(s); thus, it's silly and uber inefficient and ineffective to try and provide P via. Phi, instead of just using Pi.

The fact that you think you know more than dozens and dozens of scientists who studied the effects of Phi ON FIELD CROPS over the past 70 YEARS, fellow growers and even (legit) companies that sell Phi (for what it is: a fungicide), just makes you look pretty darn arrogant...

You did not account for all factors, nor conducted proper testing with controls, before you made your conclusions.

I have had it with people who claim the sky isn't blue and the night isn't dark; I can't be part of this thread anymore. I am getting too upset at people in this thread, who are normally otherwise intelligent.
 
spurr

spurr

Active member
Veteran
Also, because Phi is systemic, the grapes you are selling are LOADED with the fungicide Phi. Thus, anyone who eats your grapes are getting poisoned with Phi. I for one would never eat your grapes...

If you don't believe me than read some of my references on the Phi residues found on applies and other fruits when they go to market!
 
G

Guest 18340

spurr,
while we can all appreciate your passion on the subject, others are entitled to their opinions and entitled to question scientific studies. Telling people they are being stupid and stubborn only makes you look like the bad guy. You can't jump down peoples throats for disagreeing with you.
I've been patient thus far but I will not sit by and let this go on ANY further. So I suggest we leave things be and get back onto the topic of this thread. Per the OP- Who uses Phosphites?
 
spurr

spurr

Active member
Veteran
Evilme:

You are correct, and I will not respond to this thread any longer. I can't keep my cool with people in this thread any longer, so I should just not post again in this thread. I've written all I need to, and your right, I am getting too upset.
 
TickleMyBalls

TickleMyBalls

just don't molest my colas..
Veteran
Thank you. the link is now in your sig now too. so you will be getting your message out if you post elsewhere anyway. it's not healthy to get so upset with people on the internet. go spend some time in your garden and away from the computer. I'm sure the plants could use the attention, and your keyboard could use the break.
 
grapeman

grapeman

Active member
Veteran
spurr said:
And Phi is a very poor source of P compared to Pi. Thus, you should be using Pi for your foliar, not Phi.
Click to expand...

You're a fucking idiot. You keep quoting a study as if you have any knowledge of wtf you would do if you had to decide what works and what doesn't.

And I've said that my use of phosphites via foliar has increased P in my plants even though I have reduced the use of P by 80%.

So you can quote your studies and you can tell me that I should be using a different product because you or some published paper knows better. All the while I am doing what I do. I just finished harvesting one million boxes of grapes from july to nov. All with phosphite foliar and 70% of the crop exported (as in USDA #1 quality). I guess I wasted my money... or you could've shown me how to do it better.

Show me where one of your published studies has been done on more then 1 or 2 acres and then the scientist actually picked the crop and sold it. I've been a part of these studies. They usually take 20 plants or so, half ass treat them because it's too fucking hot for the professor to be outside then send a student to finish the study. Or maybe you can tell me your experience other then using google and then pretending you have knowledge.

Fucking idiot. Your real life experience is looking at your fucking computer screen.

And advising me as if you have done anything you can point to other then a plant or 2 in your closet.

Phosphites work. Whether they are the reason some guy here made nice plants or not, I don't know. But you have balls telling me that I don't know what I'm doing in my day job.

BTW, you never addressed my previous post where I pointed out that phosphites are probably a good delivery vehicle for other nutrients also. Not that I care really.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Latest posts

Top