plant sap pH 6.4

Just because something has been around longer doesn't mean it's better, right?

I wish I could retain more information from listening to lectures. When the DVD comes from the lecture I will review this information and give a detailed answer for you. Until then, I am too dumb to remember exactly what was said, and I fear I will give out false information. It was enough for me to buy the K meter and skip the Ca.

Should the question be "how do they test" or "are their tests accurate"? I believe the information compiled proves beyond a reasonable doubt that these guys are breaking ground on extremely accurate new systems. Why should you believe their "secret method is more accurate?" Test it out for yourself. When they build a stateside facility send in your own samples. I understand why one might question these methods, however when some of the brightest minds in agriculture come together and are totally convinced sap analysis is the wave of the future, I tend to believe them over stoner talk. Detailed graphs with years of information compiled, paired with super healthy high yielding crops sold me.

Would just knowing the sap extraction process really change your mind? I would review the years of info they have on hundreds of crops before making my mind up.

I did not say old is better. I merely questioned. I do not know which is better...but I think asking questions makes sense. That kinda is the scientific method...no?

The sap extraction is not the question...after they have the sap what analytic method is used to determine the elements?

I will chuck some epsom salt and k sulfate in the meter. See if it reads mag or k.

If it just reads base cations then sap pH and K may be best.

Asking all these questions makes perfect sense, and yes that is the base of scientific methods. Let us know what the meters tell you when adding Mg and K, has me interested.

Were any of these scientists at the conference?

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1044030508006922

http://www.plantphysiol.org/content/103/2/493.full.pdf

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC155900/pdf/pp0502000374.pdf

http://www.plantphysiology.org/content/130/3/1436.full

From the sounds of it Michael Malone is da Man... Using insects as his extraction technique.

I am goona bite. Why do you ask that?

milkyjoe said:

I am goona bite. Why do you ask that?

Click to expand...

You got me. Just foolin around because these guys spell out the methods used for their form of sap analysis.

You made laugh...nicely

StrongBeef said:

Asking all these questions makes perfect sense, and yes that is the base of scientific methods. Let us know what the meters tell you when adding Mg and K, has me interested.

Click to expand...

So I used distilled water and made saturated at room temp solutions. K sulf did not register any reading. Epsom measured 5 ppm. The meter was calibrated at 2000 ppm.

What else should I test?

mag sulfate actually contains a minute amount of calcium.

what does it read when you add 5.25 grams CaNO3 to one liter pure water?

does it change if you then add 5 grams Epsom salt to the same one liter?

Can we reduce that down to say an ounce or two of water...say 60 ml. I can do it tomorrow morning.

Is that gonna be near 2000 ppm? I should get best accuracy there

0.315 grams Cal nit per 60mL is around 1000 ppm Ca.

I will use the liter.

Strongbeef;

You seemed to take offense in the other thread but you did make a couple of statements which are all I've been asking for. If I missed the scientific references/citations please point me in the right direction. Just referring to an entire book does not work.

It is akin to referring to Einstein to support a specific point in relativity or quantum physics or the entire bible to support the hypothesis of creation.

If you read back, I did reference a couple or three scientific articles to clarify or to seek clarity.

Here is what you said;

I then proceeded to give countless examples of scientific papers that back my point of view.

I have learned its better to show the science, than try to repeat it myself.

BTW - answering peoples questions with books, scientific papers and links is a way to show you to the water, but I can't make you drink.

Click to expand...

In a naked attempt at being punny, 'where's the beef?'

In the event that you are unaware just linking to someone's writings is not the same as citing an article written in a legitimate scientific journal or to a book which is supported by numerous citations. If you link to someone's hypothetical writings, it can be interesting but it is not proof nor science.

Suppose you referred to some of my hypotheses; you could state that herein lies an interesting opinion and here is the logic upon which it is based but it does not mean that it should be accepted as scientific evidence.

On the other hand, if you referenced some of my writing on living soil, you could state that, MM supports the opinion expressed by citing Dr X, Y and Zs peer reviewed studies and the following scientific reviews. This could then be accepted as scientific evidence providing MM interpreted the literature correctly.

On the basis of front line research, if one said that MM proved that a crop of corn can be grown using only compost tea as illustrated by his photos and description from the growing season of 2012, this would be conjecture because too many variables were possibly at play, there were no controls and it has not been repeated.

However if one said that MM proved that sphagnum peatmoss (SPM) is not lifeless/inert in 2003-7 by growing out and videoing several microbial species from hydrated and fed SPM this would be a statement of scientific fact because the variables were limited, controls were used, other scientists found the information irrefutable and it involved the disproving of a negative statement (myth).

On your method of growing and your journey of learning, that's great and if it works for you, makes you happy and does no harm, keep it up.

I just don't think its a great idea to make folks think they need to make it more complicated than necessary.

What I've learned myself is that the simplest way is usually the best way. I do believe in harnessing knowledge from nature but keep bearing in mind that nature figured it out a long time ago and that nature grows plants everywhere despite the climate and pH of the soil. (don't forget pH only means power or potential of hydrogen) There are some plants which seem to grow in every climate and soil type, like dandelions & many other herbs including hemp.

Any one ever buy an inexpensive ion chromatography machine for plant sap?

Hi guys. Was wondering if someone in this forum can help. I ran some tests on my plants today (which visually appear healthy). Ph was 6.6 which is a little high. Potassium in Older foliage is 1860 vs new foliage is 790. Brix levels 7.4. On observation the foliage is rather dark green so I’m guessing nitrogen levels are a little high. The line on the Brix meter was rather blurry. Plants are in 2nd or 3rd week of flowering. Was wondering what I can do to raise bricks levels and lower sap ph by .2. Any help would be appreciated. Tha ks