Inducing quick bud set, and decreasing internodal distance with silicic acid?

glow said:

End of day though the question was can silicic acid act like a PGR (growth retardant) and that is a no

Click to expand...

You should ask someone else, because it does stunt with high dosage. Plants aren't used to high Si because high Si is unnatural. Natural Si comes to plants from infinitesimally slight surface depolymerization of polymerized Si material in water. This is why the very finely ground DE is a good source of Si, because of the large surface area. Plants absorb the Si and fill their leaves and stems with it and then it will mess with things because there's no way for the plant to get rid of it, once it's polymerized inside.

Fasilitor is not a simple solution of potassium silicate, which is a strong base that can affect nutes by pH and metal silicate precipitation, and forms polymers almost instantly when acidified. Fasilitor does not affect pH much or at all. If it stunts plants easily, that's kind of proof that it really is PAS.

Analysis of Fasilitor wouldn't be as helpful as analyzing the plants for actual Si uptake from it. This is the real missing information from Aptus.

G.O. Joe said:

You should ask someone else, because it does stunt with high dosage. Plants aren't used to high Si because high Si is unnatural. Natural Si comes to plants from infinitesimally slight surface depolymerization of polymerized Si material in water. This is why the very finely ground DE is a good source of Si, because of the large surface area. Plants absorb the Si and fill their leaves and stems with it and then it will mess with things because there's no way for the plant to get rid of it, once it's polymerized inside.

Fasilitor is not a simple solution of potassium silicate, which is a strong base that can affect nutes by pH and metal silicate precipitation, and forms polymers almost instantly when acidified. Fasilitor does not affect pH much or at all. If it stunts plants easily, that's kind of proof that it really is PAS.

Analysis of Fasilitor wouldn't be as helpful as analyzing the plants for actual Si uptake from it. This is the real missing information from Aptus.

Click to expand...

Firstly the more qualified source than myself when asked whether silica could induce growth retardation similar to a chemical PGR, subclass growth retardant (i.e. reduce stem elongation, stack nodes, induce heavy floral clusters) said pretty much the same thing as I am saying. That is theoretically no but open to alternative evidence.

Can you point me towards research that supports what you are saying? I'm more than happy to be wrong, in fact I love being wrong because I learn things.

Here's the theory - there are plant defense growth responses. Growth and defense tradeoffs are thought to occur in plants due to ‘biotic’ (i.e. living disturbances such as fungi and pests) and ‘abiotic’ (i.e. factors that occur in nature such as high temperatures, drought, extreme sunlight and high UV) stresses, which demand prioritization towards either growth or defense, depending on external and internal factors. These tradeoffs have significant implications to growth because both processes are vital for plant survival, reproduction, and, ultimately, plant health - hence yields.

Stress a plant or trigger a stress signal and this will result in reduced growth, hence yields. For example, (from something I am writing now)...

, increased levels of the phytohormone jasmonic acid (JA) are found in plants challenged with biotic and abiotic stresses. The increased JA levels are usually associated to enhanced defense, reduced growth and decreased stem elongation in many species. These growth, stress responses are attributed to several things.

Firstly, JA is shown to antagonize GA biosynthesis. For example, a study by Maria Heinrich et al (2013) with Nicotiana attenuata, a species of wild tobacco, demonstrated that high levels of JA inhibit stem elongation through antagonizing the biosynthesis of gibberellins. Keep in mind that gibberellins are plant hormones that are primarily responsible for stem elongation. Most synthetic plant growth regulators/retardants (PGRs) antagonize GA biosynthesis in plants. Therefore, because JA antagonizes GA biosynthesis, this acts to reduce stem elongation.
Secondly, JA increases ethylene production. This acts to, among other things, reduce stem elongation/stretch. For instance, when discussing the chemical plant growth regulators (PGRs) that reduce stretch, one such PGR is ethephon. Unlike other PGRs, ethephon does not inhibit gibberellin or brassinosteroid biosynthesis. Instead, plants take up ethephon where it is converted to ethylene in plant cells. The increased ethylene causes cells to limit elongation and increase in width. Besides this, ethephon’s mode of action can offer benefits other than height suppression. The release of ethylene reduces apical dominance, which can increase axillary branching. Additionally, JA has been shown to stimulate fruit ripening, most likely through its action on ethylene biosynthesis. This means that JA can speed up the flowering process.

Thirdly, JA is shown to cross-talk with IAA (auxin) which plays a role in reducing stem elongation. For example, a study by Ueda et al (1994) showed exogenously applied JA substantially inhibited IAA-induced elongation of oat coleoptile (tissue surrounding the shoot axis or tissue in young leaves) segments. Several other authors report similar findings.

Lastly, jasmonic acid is also thought to regulate plant growth when used at low rates by increasing the total phenolic content of leaves and, as a result, inducing free radical buffering capacity and reducing shoot growth. (end)

Sounds great huh? But nope it isn't because these responses result in reduced yields. Albeit increased quality when JA is used correctly.

As I said could you point me towards actual scientific research that supports what you are claiming, otherwise what you just posted is an absolute load of dribble.

Avenger said:

Amorphous simply means non-crystalline. So yes food grade DE, AgSil 16h, are both amorphous.
...

Click to expand...

If the question is, "what is amorphous material?", then the correct answer would be yours: "Amorphous simply means non-crystalline."

If the question is, "what is amorphous silica?, then the correct answer would be mine: "The term "amorphous" in most Si discussions generally means the pure form of SiO2--which includes: colloidal silica, precipitated silica, silica gel, pyrogenic silica, silica fume, quartz glass, fused silica and diatoms in the form of diatomaceous earth."

Kinda like the "what is organic" question: "Organic compound is any compound that contains a significant amount of carbon". Although technically correct, it does not mean much when applied "organic growing".

Regarding Diatomaceous Earth applications and PAS--I stated earlier, "there are at least three types of Si that are mobile in soil: monosilicic acid, polysilicic acid, organo-silicon compounds and complex compounds with organic and inorganic substances (amorphous silica...such as diatomaceous earth and AgSil)". Let's compare DE with AgSil and examine their PAS qualities.

DE is applied directly to the soil (in its dry form) and is "mobile" in its amorphous form; it is not converted to polysilicic acid--rather it is converted to monosilicic acid (PAS) and in the plant tissue within days (not weeks).

AgSil is amorphous in its dry form, but when you add water the mixture becomes "liquid Potassium Silicate" (just like the bottles sold in hydro stores). When Potassium Silicate is applied to the soil, Si is in the form of polysilicic acid which is then converted to monosilicic acid (PAS). My understanding is the time for Potassium Silicate to complete this siliconization process is not instant, rather it can take weeks/months. And like most aqueous solutions applied to soil, they are subject to leaching at each watering--thus requiring multiple applications during the year (not the case with DE).

I can post studies done with DE, but since the ones I found were conducted by manufacturers/distributors of DE products, I question their bias--but not the results. When Fossil Shell Flour is amended in soil, plants take up Si almost immediately (tissue tests). Hence the conclusion that DE is PAS...although it may not be 100% "correct", but in the agricultural world it basically is PAS (more or less).

But that is neither here or there--what is important is to know...not all Si sources are equal.

BTW...Fasiliator is not just Si, it contains things like Boron and Molybdenum; a cocktail of sort$. Link to their lab analysis aptus-usa.com/resources/docs/CDFA-FaSilitor-PGR-Lab-Report.pdf

EclipseFour20 said:

If the question is, "what is amorphous material?", then the correct answer would be yours: "Amorphous simply means non-crystalline."

If the question is, "what is amorphous silica?, then the correct answer would be mine: "The term "amorphous" in most Si discussions generally means the pure form of SiO2--which includes: colloidal silica, precipitated silica, silica gel, pyrogenic silica, silica fume, quartz glass, fused silica and diatoms in the form of diatomaceous earth."

Kinda like the "what is organic" question: "Organic compound is any compound that contains a significant amount of carbon". Although technically correct, it does not mean much when applied "organic growing".

Regarding Diatomaceous Earth applications and PAS--I stated earlier, "there are at least three types of Si that are mobile in soil: monosilicic acid, polysilicic acid, organo-silicon compounds and complex compounds with organic and inorganic substances (amorphous silica...such as diatomaceous earth and AgSil)". Let's compare DE with AgSil and examine their PAS qualities.

DE is applied directly to the soil (in its dry form) and is "mobile" in its amorphous form; it is not converted to polysilicic acid--rather it is converted to monosilicic acid (PAS) and in the plant tissue within days (not weeks).

AgSil is amorphous in its dry form, but when you add water the mixture becomes "liquid Potassium Silicate" (just like the bottles sold in hydro stores). When Potassium Silicate is applied to the soil, Si is in the form of polysilicic acid which is then converted to monosilicic acid (PAS). My understanding is the time for Potassium Silicate to complete this siliconization process is not instant, rather it can take weeks/months. And like most aqueous solutions applied to soil, they are subject to leaching at each watering--thus requiring multiple applications during the year (not the case with DE).

I can post studies done with DE, but since the ones I found were conducted by manufacturers/distributors of DE products, I question their bias--but not the results. When Fossil Shell Flour is amended in soil, plants take up Si almost immediately (tissue tests). Hence the conclusion that DE is PAS...although it may not be 100% "correct", but in the agricultural world it basically is PAS (more or less).

But that is neither here or there--what is important is to know...not all Si sources are equal.

BTW...Fasiliator is not just Si, it contains Boron, Molybdenum and a few other trace elements; a cocktail of sort$.

Click to expand...

Based on Aptus's marketing it contains something more that boron, moly and few other trace elements.

Is that to say there is no credible research to support what you are saying? Surely there is something if what you are saying is correct because let's face it man science/research is well on the money and well funded. Is it to say that companies who make products for growing weed know something that no one else does? Yeah, point being it doesn't stack up when put to the acid test. Sorry mate but those on the cutting edge of plant physiology research have far better and more important things to do with their time then develop nutrients for cannabis crops. The only thing hydro manufacturers are on the cutting edge of is talking utter bullshit to totally non -formally educated growers (many of whom smoke way too much of their own produce).

Plants take up monosilicic acid (H4SiO4), In the form of H4SiO4, Si is readily absorbed by plants and BTW there are liquid forms of stable monosilicic acid - no biggy there (formulated from a patent years ago and have been using liquid monosilicic acid for about 10 years in solution - can't say as I've ever seen it act like a PGR but its cheap as shit to make so whatever and hardly cutting edge chemistry. BTW stabilized silicic acid only stays that way for maybe two to three days (max) when added to an aqueous solution, so paying a premium for it becomes somewhat ridiculous in understanding this. That's why stabilized silicic acid is normally used only as a foliar spray by experts in horticulture and not added to hydroponic solutions. Silicates do some pretty interesting things re reactions when added to solution in general.Basically unstable as hell and can precipitate out of solution dragging other elements e.g. magnesium with them. While perhaps not technically correct silicic acid actually acts very strangely in solution and forms complex structures with other elements. When you add a bunch of other elements the thermodynamics become totally unworkable from a theoretical perspective- random almost, so re hydroponics you are pretty much wasting your time paying a bomb for a liquid silicic acid product that you then add to solution. I did have a paper on this stored somewhere and I'll see if I can dredge her up and post.

DE is said to be 80 to 90% SiO2 by Emanuel Epstein (1992) - see linkhttp://www.pnas.org/content/91/1/11.full.pdf+html I'm somewhat confused therefore as to why DE is this magic bullet you claim it to be without any supporting credible peer reviewed research. Again you are making unsubstantiated claims which equate to scientific alien tech (gobbly gook) so see if you can find something credible re research to post. I'm certainly open to listening but so far all I have heard is very flawed information to support your position. It sounds a bit like organic dribble used to market DE and when it comes to the hydro industry they pretty much line up with the organic industry when it comes to talking shit to their consumers.

Here's a link if you want to know your stuff about silicates - I've dealt a lot with this company and they are an extremely ethical world leader (second to none) http://www.pqcorp.com/Portals/1/docs/Sodium and Potassium silicates brochure ENG oct 2004.pdf


BTW you're telling me that plants uptake way more Silicates when applied as silicic acid. Google siliceous renal calculi

LOL...I'll take the bait.

Let's begin with a report from someone that probably has forgotten more about Si than ALL OF US WILL LEARN DURING OUR COLLECTIVE LIFETIMES....Vladimir Matichenkov

http://www.regional.org.au/au/asa/2010/farming-systems/nutrients-water/7052_matichenkovvl.htm

Please take a gander at Table 2 (Barley experiment) and please note that Diatomaceous Earth bested "chemically pure SiO2" in all experiments.

That experiment measured the biomass of Barley in grams after NPK rates of 100 & 500 kg ha-1:

Control 0.16 grams (no NPK)
NPK 0.25 & 029 grams
NPK+SiO2 0.28 & 0.30 grams
NPK+DE 0.30 & 0.34 grams

It appears that "chemically pure SiO2" added very little to the equation (0.03 & 0.01 grams over NPK....with DE providing 0.05 & 0.05 grams over NPK). All the details of how/what/when/how much are in the report.

We can save the discussion how Si effects other nutrients for another day.

Now....as for some biased trials, go here for results of "independent" trials conducted on 15 different crops--> http://www.agripower.com.au/#!trial-sheets-f/cmzi

It may take me awhile to find those tissue testing reports--but give me some time. In the mean time the results of those trials do tell a tale. I recall one of the reports was from a very conclusive strawberry study conducted in Queensland--the tissue analysis was very telling and supports the "days" not "weeks" argument.

glow said:

Again you are making unsubstantiated claims

Click to expand...

Aren't you doing the same thing with Aptus? Yes, no independents are doing unpaid scientific research to back up some product's claims - this is not unusual.

What I was looking at was stunting with foliar application of silicate, that doesn't apply.

So, excess dosage of the usual silicate products don't have the effect of excess Fasilitor? And, so what if an excessive dose of Fasilitor - because of the Si stabilization - does act as a PGR? What's the problem with that which Aptus needs to research and explain?

EclipseFour20 said:

LOL...I'll take the bait.

Let's begin with a report from someone that probably has forgotten more about Si than ALL OF US WILL LEARN DURING OUR COLLECTIVE LIFETIMES....Vladimir Matichenkov

http://www.regional.org.au/au/asa/2010/farming-systems/nutrients-water/7052_matichenkovvl.htm

Please take a gander at Table 2 (Barley experiment) and please note that Diatomaceous Earth bested "chemically pure SiO2" in all experiments.

That experiment measured the biomass of Barley in grams after NPK rates of 100 & 500 kg ha-1:

Control 0.16 grams (no NPK)
NPK 0.25 & 029 grams
NPK+SiO2 0.28 & 0.30 grams
NPK+DE 0.30 & 0.34 grams

It appears that "chemically pure SiO2" added very little to the equation (0.03 & 0.01 grams over NPK....with DE providing 0.05 & 0.05 grams over NPK). All the details of how/what/when/how much are in the report.

We can save the discussion how Si effects other nutrients for another day.

Now....as for some biased trials, go here for results of "independent" trials conducted on 15 different crops--> http://www.agripower.com.au/#!trial-sheets-f/cmzi

It may take me awhile to find those tissue testing reports--but give me some time. In the mean time the results of those trials do tell a tale. I recall one of the reports was from a very conclusive strawberry study conducted in Queensland--the tissue analysis was very telling and supports the "days" not "weeks" argument.

Click to expand...

Will have a good read today but now we are talking - post credible data. One thing though is to bring it back to the original question and that is does silicic acid act like a chem PGR? This is what I am questioning and I have to say theoretically no but I am open to evidence that shows otherwise. You posted an Aptus CDFA report re PGR tests. We've covered this before but let me repeat. I am the guy that is responsible for the CDFA pulling PGR products from shelves (Flower Dragon, Phosphoload etc) - see links http://www.manicbotanix.com/hydro-hype/42-flower-dragon.html (and) http://www.manicbotanix.com/hydro-hype/27-pgrs-and-medical-marijuana.html

I was also the guy who advised the CDFA what to test for at that point . You'll note that they are testing for 8 actives. There are literally dozens more they are not testing for meaning any fool who knows what they do test for can use an active that isn't being tested for and pass the CDFA tests. A very obvious example is the CDFA are typically testing for PGRs that antagonize GA biosynthesis (e.g. paclobutrazol, daminozide, CCC etc). I recently was in contact with them about the fact a lot of potential PGR containing products are possibly flying under the radar because they (CDFA) aren't testing for many other actives that can be used. Example being triazoles which antagonize BR biosynthesis and just one of which is widely researched and shown to act in a very similar manner to PBZ. In fact, the key triazole derivative compound (brassinazole) that was used in research and found to antagonize BR is molecularly very similar to PBZ I won't drop the names of the actives I suggested but I have now given them about another 10 actives to test for and they also need to look at this further re actives themselves.

As I said I'll read anything credible you can post - I spend half my life reading academic research at the moment for my MA thesis so there is nothing I enjoy more than reading yet more papers At least these are inline to my thesis/research.

Keep posting up links but let's reign this back to the initial question that was posed and that is does silicic acid induce quick bud set and decrease internodal distance? And this is what I am talking about while you seem determined to plug DE....

G.O. Joe said:

Aren't you doing the same thing with Aptus? Yes, no independents are doing unpaid scientific research to back up some product's claims - this is not unusual.

What I was looking at was stunting with foliar application of silicate, that doesn't apply.

So, excess dosage of the usual silicate products don't have the effect of excess Fasilitor? And, so what if an excessive dose of Fasilitor - because of the Si stabilization - does act as a PGR? What's the problem with that which Aptus needs to research and explain?

Click to expand...

See above post. I'd add for over 10 years we told people products such as Superbud (aka Superdud) and Phosphoload contained chemical PGRs (subclass growth retardant) that were potentially harmful to human health. For over 10 years there were people like yourself who claimed/believed otherwise. My call here is any product that acts like a chem PGR (i.e. dramatically acts to reduce upward growth and increase lateral branching, stack nodes etc) must contain a PGR because nutrients act quite differently from PGRs. Either way I am sure Aptus will be getting tested again by the CDFA for new actives so let us let history be the judge.

Glow, if you follow the flow of the thread, I posted specific Si information to correct what I felt was information I felt was "close but no cigar"; not to hijack this thread so I can preach the magic of DE. Remember I originally posted no links to studies/trials and it was you that challenged me for "scripture"--which I served up and you got.

I have not taken a stand on whether Si induces quick bud set--cuz I don't have any science to support my suspicion. I think it does not, rather it probably increases stretch (increased thickness of cellular walls). But since I don't have science to support my thinking--up to now, I have remained silent on this particular matter.

Regarding Aptus posting--I posted that show it contained Boron and Molybdenum, it had nothing to do about PGR and your crusades.

As to why DE is a magic bullet--well, it has properties that others don't, all rolled up in one. Such as:

DE absorbs heavy metals, pesticide residues, etc (soil remediation)
Pyrethrins bind to and are stabilized by DE (great for soil pesticide applications)
DE is an anti-caking agent (animal feed)
DE is a contact pesticide (ants, spiders, soil critters, etc)
DE is 89-99% soluble amorphous SiO2 (which we all know by now...lol)
DE has 28 trace elements (food and agriculture nutrient)
DE is pH neutral (perfect soil amendment)
DE has high CEC capabilities (agriculture)
DE has high absorbent properties (water holding) and high thermal properties (fire barrier),
DE prevents leaching of NPK fertility from soil (requiring less NPK applications)
DE diatomites can remove double stranded DNA but not RNA or proteins (high tech)
DE is a natural dewormer (livestock, pets, etc)
DE is "organic" and OMRI approved (agriculture)

There are probably dozens more uses/application for DE, but I think you get the idea. I am not saying DE is everything...but I am suggesting DE does more than just "supply Si"; IMHO incorporating some of these other properties/benefits is just smart business. No silver bullet--but smart business.

https://www.icmag.com/ic/showpost.php?p=5481205

6 "The combination of boron and silicon show synergistic or antagonistic effects on plant growth and disease resistance, dependant of their concentrations"

76 "If the dilution factor is lower than 80 the diluted solution can be used as a safe growth retardant for plants and flowers."

108 "with a dilution factor lower than 80, especially lower than 50, for use as a safe growth retardant to slow down the growth of plants and flowers especially in the end phases of the growth and flowering."

141 "The production of the Si treated plants was retarded compared to the control plants."

The patent application has since been revised as US2014200138, but all that is still there.

G.O. Joe said:

https://www.icmag.com/ic/showpost.php?p=5481205

6 "The combination of boron and silicon show synergistic or antagonistic effects on plant growth and disease resistance, dependant of their concentrations"

76 "If the dilution factor is lower than 80 the diluted solution can be used as a safe growth retardant for plants and flowers."

108 "with a dilution factor lower than 80, especially lower than 50, for use as a safe growth retardant to slow down the growth of plants and flowers especially in the end phases of the growth and flowering."

141 "The production of the Si treated plants was retarded compared to the control plants."

The patent application has since been revised as US2014200138, but all that is still there.

Click to expand...

Yep growth defence response - note: "The combination of boron and silicon show synergistic or antagonistic effects on plant growth and disease resistance, dependant of their concentrations (Bengsch, E(1989). Reduction in symptom Expression of Belladonna Mottle Virus Infection on Tobacco Plants by Boron Supply and the Antagonistic Action of Silicon: Verlag Zeits Naturf. D-7400 Tübingen 0341-0382/89/0900-0777 and Bengsch, E(1989). Effects of simultaneous supply of Silicon and Boron on Plant Growth and on Herbicide toxicity: Verlag Zeitschrift Naturf. D-7400 Tubingen 0341-0382/89/0900-0781). The right concentrations of both nutrients induce synergistic effects on the increase of yield and an increased resistance to diseases and pests."

Point being induce/elicit a stress response and you reduce yield and enhance abiotic and/or biotic stress resistance. Basically yin and yang and goes back to what I said posts and posts ago re Growth and defense tradeoffs are thought to occur in plants due to ‘biotic’ (i.e. living disturbances such as fungi and pests) and ‘abiotic’ (i.e. factors that occur in nature such as high temperatures, drought, extreme sunlight and high UV) stresses, which demand prioritization towards either growth or defense, depending on external and internal factors. These tradeoffs have significant implications to growth because both processes are vital for plant survival, reproduction, and, ultimately, plant health - hence yields.Put simply, if a plant directs energy towards defense this leaves it with less energy to direct towards growth and vice versa.

This said, generally speaking inducing a stress response will typically increase trichome and secondary metabolite production so not all bad Bummer is, although higher concentrations of secondary metabolites might result in a more resistant plant, the production of secondary metabolites is thought to consume a lot of energy and, as a result, reduces plant growth and reproduction. So while overdosing a plant on any element can elicit the stress response this is very different from the action of a chemical PGR.

So what the patent says is: "with a dilution factor lower than 80, especially lower than 50, for use as a safe growth retardant to slow down the growth of plants and flowers especially in the end phases of the growth and flowering"

Growth retardant can mean literally that -although when discussing growth retardants I have found that MeJA when applied correctly can reduce stem elongation which again though brings us back to the growth defense response. BTW MeJA is great for application in the end phase of flowering.

I'll look more thoroughly at the patent but from what I have read you have misinterpreted the data somewhat. Sure, stressing a plant will reduce stem elongation but it will also reduce yields. This means that either Aptus are talking utter shit (falsely trading on the rep of chem PGRs with claims of safety but same effect) or that their overpriced silicate contains more than they are willing to disclose.Good input though - thanks.

EclipseFour20 said:

Glow, if you follow the flow of the thread, I posted specific Si information to correct what I felt was information I felt was "close but no cigar"; not to hijack this thread so I can preach the magic of DE. Remember I originally posted no links to studies/trials and it was you that challenged me for "scripture"--which I served up and you got.

I have not taken a stand on whether Si induces quick bud set--cuz I don't have any science to support my suspicion. I think it does not, rather it probably increases stretch (increased thickness of cellular walls). But since I don't have science to support my thinking--up to now, I have remained silent on this particular matter.

Regarding Aptus posting--I posted that show it contained Boron and Molybdenum, it had nothing to do about PGR and your crusades.

As to why DE is a magic bullet--well, it has properties that others don't, all rolled up in one. Such as:

DE absorbs heavy metals, pesticide residues, etc (soil remediation)
Pyrethrins bind to and are stabilized by DE (great for soil pesticide applications)
DE is an anti-caking agent (animal feed)
DE is a contact pesticide (ants, spiders, soil critters, etc)
DE is 89-99% soluble amorphous SiO2 (which we all know by now...lol)
DE has 28 trace elements (food and agriculture nutrient)
DE is pH neutral (perfect soil amendment)
DE has high CEC capabilities (agriculture)
DE has high absorbent properties (water holding) and high thermal properties (fire barrier),
DE prevents leaching of NPK fertility from soil (requiring less NPK applications)
DE diatomites can remove double stranded DNA but not RNA or proteins (high tech)
DE is a natural dewormer (livestock, pets, etc)
DE is "organic" and OMRI approved (agriculture)

There are probably dozens more uses/application for DE, but I think you get the idea. I am not saying DE is everything...but I am suggesting DE does more than just "supply Si"; IMHO incorporating some of these other properties/benefits is just smart business. No silver bullet--but smart business.

Click to expand...

I think we are actually on the same page on a couple of things but largely focusing on a separate area. I appreciate the information you have covered on DE BTW and am hell busy right now referencing something but will read everything you throw my way.

As for "crusade" - I think medical consumers have the right to know when they are being poisoned and their immune systems compromized because of greed don't you? Crusade is a loaded term and not one I would use when discussing right and wrong.

Eclipse four read your link and its quite inappropriate when discussing the availability of Si to plants. What you need is research of comparative uptake rates between silicate species given you are talking about the wondrous qualities of DE when compared to other silcates. I think also we have a wall as you keep pointing towards soil based research which is typically inappropriate when discussing hydroponic growing methodologies (bit like comparing chalk and cheese). Scary thing is I looked at the research today (you tweaked my interest) and nothing appropriate and yet DE floggers/pedlars are making all sorts of totally unsubstantiated and non-scientifically supported claims or totally misappropriating/misrepresenting credible research to flog their snake oils (such is the organic movement - think bowel movement when considering that. Can you post us more (peer reviewed ideally and related to comparative uptake rates of Si species) - this is interesting and I am learning a few things either way. Peace Glow

Sorry glow, I am not your research assistant. My job is not to convince you of DE's properties, rather I merely pointed you in the direction of what others are thinking and the results they claim. Peer reviews are great, especially when they include cannabis--but as we both know...comparative studies/trials on traditional crops using different sources of Si are a rarity, studies on cannabis and PAS are even more rare--if non existent.

Si researchers are entrenched in various camps....but they all agree on one thing, there is much to learn about Si and how it effects various plant species--especially passive Si uptake and its interaction with other elements/nutes/minerals/fertility/enzymes/bacteria/fungi; not much certainty here. And the results are not universal, the trials show excellent results for tomato crops but lousy for cucumbers. There is much to learn.

IMHO, that Barley experiment does tell an interesting tale, which I think you missed.

Control 0.16 grams (no NPK)
NPK 0.25 & 0.29 grams
NPK+SiO2 0.28 & 0.30 grams
NPK+DE 0.30 & 0.34 grams

Difference between SiO2 & DE 0.02 & 0.04 (7.1% & 13.3%).

Why did the NPK+SiO2 lag the NPK+DE? It took only 100 kg of NPK for NPK+DE to produce 0.30 grams...while NPK+SiO2 required 5 times the amount (500 kg NPK) to achieve the same results. Is it because DE is more efficient? Is it because SiO2 takes a while to "kick in" while DE was "immediate"? That extra weight (0.02 & 0.04) equates to 7.1% and 13.3% increase over SiO2--usually anything over 10% is significant and worthy of further investigation.

BTW...if one thinks that 0.04 gram increase ain't squat, then lets change the unit of measure to pounds. Using the 500kg rates, no NPK produced 16 pounds, adding NPK produced 29 pounds, with SiO2 produced 30 pounds (1 pound increase...whoppie!), and DE blessed you with 34 pounds (5 pound increase over NPK, 4 pound increase over NPK+SiO2...now we're talking!). Which one would you run....the 29 pounder, the 30 pounder or the 34 pounder routine?

And yes these soil studies are most pertinent--as this forum on "Nutrients and Fertilizers" is not restricted to hydro grows. I speculate that hydro growers are a minority on ICMag--so I would not be too hasty in dismissing us "soil" growers, as you are probably outnumbered here.

I produced what I have "available"...now it is time for you to walk your talk and produce "peer review" science that supports your position....and please do not be offended if/when you receive the similar levels of scrutiny; this give and take works both ways.

Which is a superior source of PAS...DE or SiO2? We know where I stand....now let's hear why you think SiO2 is a superior source of PAS.

EclipseFour20 said:

Sorry glow, I am not your research assistant. My job is not to convince you of DE's properties, rather I merely pointed you in the direction of what others are thinking and the results they claim. Peer reviews are great, especially when they include cannabis--but as we both know...comparative studies/trials on traditional crops using different sources of Si are a rarity, studies on cannabis and PAS are even more rare--if non existent.

Si researchers are entrenched in various camps....but they all agree on one thing, there is much to learn about Si and how it effects various plant species--especially passive Si uptake and its interaction with other elements/nutes/minerals/fertility/enzymes/bacteria/fungi; not much certainty here. And the results are not universal, the trials show excellent results for tomato crops but lousy for cucumbers. There is much to learn.

IMHO, that Barley experiment does tell an interesting tale, which I think you missed.

Control 0.16 grams (no NPK)
NPK 0.25 & 0.29 grams
NPK+SiO2 0.28 & 0.30 grams
NPK+DE 0.30 & 0.34 grams

Difference between SiO2 & DE 0.02 & 0.04 (7.1% & 13.3%).

Why did the NPK+SiO2 lag the NPK+DE? It took only 100 kg of NPK for NPK+DE to produce 0.30 grams...while NPK+SiO2 required 5 times the amount (500 kg NPK) to achieve the same results. Is it because DE is more efficient? Is it because SiO2 takes a while to "kick in" while DE was "immediate"? That extra weight (0.02 & 0.04) equates to 7.1% and 13.3% increase over SiO2--usually anything over 10% is significant and worthy of further investigation.

BTW...if one thinks that 0.04 gram increase ain't squat, then lets change the unit of measure to pounds. Using the 500kg rates, no NPK produced 16 pounds, adding NPK produced 29 pounds, with SiO2 produced 30 pounds (1 pound increase...whoppie!), and DE blessed you with 34 pounds (5 pound increase over NPK, 4 pound increase over NPK+SiO2...now we're talking!). Which one would you run....the 29 pounder, the 30 pounder or the 34 pounder routine?

And yes these soil studies are most pertinent--as this forum on "Nutrients and Fertilizers" is not restricted to hydro grows. I speculate that hydro growers are a minority on ICMag--so I would not be too hasty in dismissing us "soil" growers, as you are probably outnumbered here.

I produced what I have "available"...now it is time for you to walk your talk and produce "peer review" science that supports your position....and please do not be offended if/when you receive the similar levels of scrutiny; this give and take works both ways.

Which is a superior source of PAS...DE or SiO2? We know where I stand....now let's hear why you think SiO2 is a superior source of PAS.

Click to expand...

I'm pretty much sitting on the fence of this one (my position) but we certainly agree on one thing and that is there are huge gaps in the research. And no I think you are onto something for sure re DE use in soils - I simply tend to stick to research and the issue here for me has always been about whether a silicate additive could act like a chemical PGR, subclass growth retardant. If I do come across anything while researching other things (Si simply isn't part of my thesis and much more important things to focus on right now) I'll be sure to trade notes. The input though has been very interesting and did get me thinking. Might throw the question at someone I know actually and ask their thoughts - they're pretty switched on in this area. Maybe they know of some credible papers.

Re this: "And yes these soil studies are most pertinent--as this forum on "Nutrients and Fertilizers" is not restricted to hydro grows. I speculate that hydro growers are a minority on ICMag--so I would not be too hasty in dismissing us "soil" growers, as you are probably outnumbered here."

You're putting words into my mouth - I'm a hydroponics specialist/exponent - focused on that for years and what I simply said is that using soil based research to support claims as to what things will do in hydroponic settings is extremely flawed - like comparing chalk and cheese. Far too many manufacturers do this however.

In actual fact I think you'd find that the vast majority of people in the nutrient and fertilizer area/threads of IC Mag are hydro growers. Actually, I've said this before and that is perhaps IC Mag should split the inorganic nutrients and organic nutrients into two separate topic areas.

BTW - the research I have read shows great results with SiO2 in tomatoes and cucumbers because it is hydroponic based research. Chalk and cheese. DE for hydroponics I expect isn't such a good thing but given the lack of data who really knows. Soils is another thing but something I am not at all interested in.

Fair enough--Si and PAS efficiencies from ALL growing disciplines is a funny "black hole"; yeah we know its there but little is known about how it works. I believe Rudolph Steiner and his Biodynamics crowd were the ones that kick started the idea of treating Si as a mandatory soil nutrient. Without them, I doubt the interest into PAS would be what it is today.

BTW...not putting words into anyone's mouth--you stated my research was "inappropriate" while I thought it was spot on--

glow said:

... I think also we have a wall as you keep pointing towards soil based research which is typically inappropriate when discussing hydroponic growing methodologies (bit like comparing chalk and cheese). ...

Click to expand...

For Si/PAS research, may I suggest putting Vladimir Matichenkov's published work and patents on top of your list. He is the "go to guy" when it comes to agriculture and Si/PAS; it is no coincident he is cited in everyone's Si research/studies.

All is good. And yes, Si is water soluble (requires constant agitation) large scale operations usually do the spray boom thing for soil applications.

I include DE in a DYI pesticide spray; maximizing the symbiotic thing between DE and pyrethrin. The pesticide spray is super effective (fungus gnats, spiders, ants, etc. around the garden and house, pet safe, and synthetic/chem free). Recipe: 7.5ml neem oil, 7.5ml Riptide (pyrethrin+pbo), 60ml Fossil Shell Flour & 32 oz water. Shake and spray. Once the liquid dries a fine "dusting" of DE remains--nice! I use a mason jar to mix it--start with half the water, add DE then the other liquids. Seal, shake 30 seconds, pour contents into good quality 32 oz spray bottle, then fill spray bottle with warm tap water. Done--easy peesy.

I may of missed it...but is there a ratio of how much DE per gallon of media(eg: coco)?

From here: http://www.organicagardensupply.com/health/diatomaceous-earth-home-garden-health-benefits/

Gardening with Diatomaceous Earth:

Gardeners can find that diatomaceous earth is a dream come true. The sharp points scratch the exoskeleton of insects causing them to dry out and die and the powder also absorbs fats (lipids) from the hard exoskeletons of the insects, drying them even further. It makes an excellent pesticide, effectively controlling aphids, thrips, mites, snails, and slugs without harming worms or beneficial soil microorganisms.

Diatomite Food Grade fossil shell flour for Growing Amendments This can be mixed into a Resivior, or for hand watering mix 1 1/2 tablespoons per Gallon H2O, Top Dressing any growing medium, or Row Crops. Food grade DE only requires a light dusting to help with insects in your home or garden. More is not alway better, as insect tend to avoid large quantities. If you are simply trying to keep insects from entering your home you can put as much as you like as a barrier around your home and it should make a big difference. Remember that food grade diatomaceous earth works physically so it is not as quick as chemical insecticides, but it is much safer and will last as long as it is still present in the area.

Diatomaceous Earth can be found in powder and rock form. It can be added to a reservoir, mixed as an amendment, or added as a top dressing to the soil.

The brand I use is Perma-Guard: http://www.perma-guard.com/
Better info on Perma-Guard is here: http://www.agrogreencanada.com/products/diatomaceous-earth.php

EclipseFour20 said:

Fair enough--Si and PAS efficiencies from ALL growing disciplines is a funny "black hole"; yeah we know its there but little is known about how it works. I believe Rudolph Steiner and his Biodynamics crowd were the ones that kick started the idea of treating Si as a mandatory soil nutrient. Without them, I doubt the interest into PAS would be what it is today.

BTW...not putting words into anyone's mouth--you stated my research was "inappropriate" while I thought it was spot on--



For Si/PAS research, may I suggest putting Vladimir Matichenkov's published work and patents on top of your list. He is the "go to guy" when it comes to agriculture and Si/PAS; it is no coincident he is cited in everyone's Si research/studies.

All is good. And yes, Si is water soluble (requires constant agitation) large scale operations usually do the spray boom thing for soil applications.

I include DE in a DYI pesticide spray; maximizing the symbiotic thing between DE and pyrethrin. The pesticide spray is super effective (fungus gnats, spiders, ants, etc. around the garden and house, pet safe, and synthetic/chem free). Recipe: 7.5ml neem oil, 7.5ml Riptide (pyrethrin+pbo), 60ml Fossil Shell Flour & 32 oz water. Shake and spray. Once the liquid dries a fine "dusting" of DE remains--nice! I use a mason jar to mix it--start with half the water, add DE then the other liquids. Seal, shake 30 seconds, pour contents into good quality 32 oz spray bottle, then fill spray bottle with warm tap water. Done--easy peesy.

Click to expand...

No I've enjoyed the interchange - it's nice to talk to people who know their stuff for a change (bit rare on forums). Definitely will follow up on it when I can free up a bit of time. I perhaps need to write something about this at some point re most suitable forms of Si for various applications.

I hope you guys don't mind me joining the game with a half-off/half-on topic reply .

Did it ever occur to you that commercial 'orthosilicic acid' preparations are either stabilised or polymerised?

One of the more often cited preparations (which also has the most patent claims -> which BTW don't prove anything, you can claim whatever you want...) regarding stabilised silicic acid is a mixture with boric acid and a polyol such as glycerol or sorbitol. There are other preparations using quaternary amines as stabiliser and/or other polyols like PEGs. All these have a very low pH. So far, I just found one preparation which differs considerably and has for example a high pH; it's sold as food additive in solid form but it's not very unstable once in solution.

Anyway, increasing the concentration of Si also increases that of the other additives. Boron is an essential element but fairly toxic at elevated levels. Additionally, glycerol is known to stunt plant growth (Glow already mentioned the trade-off with the immune response) too and sorbitol is a know 'in vivo complexant' of boron making it more mobile in plants (naturally in Rosaceae) and hence might increase boron bioavailability and ultimately toxicity. Most quaternary ammonium salts are anything but great and even the few natural ones show negative effects on plant growth at higher concentrations.

So, reducing stretch with certain products might entirely be caused by adverse effects of additives .
Then again, silicic acid at physiological pH is very unstable and the actual form (oligo-/polymer, complex) and hence bioavailability depends mainly on concentration, pH, and the presence of bivalent cations such as calcium. Under most setting, silicic acid is very hard to overdose without getting indirect effects (such as calcium or iron deficiency).

Regarding DE:
I couldn't find anything I call reliable which shows that the many benefits of DE are caused by absorbed silicic acid itself and not its physiochemical properties.