Phosphite: What companies aren't telling you - Page 3 - Cannabis Botany and Advanced Growing Science - International Cannagraphic Magazine Forums

spurr · 11-21-2010, 05:23 PM

Once someone calls me a "fuck*ing idiot" many times in one post, and attacks me personally in other manners, and the mods don't edit it, and I don't get an apology. And once someone makes claims they can't back up with proof, only conjecture and assumption and hearsay, that goes counter to proven scientific theory (i.e. as close to fact as science comes) over the past 70-80 years of research, I fell OK about indirectly referencing that person in my sig, esp. because I didn't name the person (and because that person that can lead other growers down the wrong path with good sounding, but flawed arguments).

This thread isn't about that person, please don't try to turn it into it. I explained to him many times why he probably didn't see a drop in P from petiole tests, and why his tests were probably flawed, but he kept ignoring my posts and then claimed I didn't explain it to him. That is all I have to say about that...

I am calling Nurti-Phite and Pure Flowers and Humbolt Ferts tomorrow to get their stance and to set them straight. I read the Nutri-Phite site, but not fully, I will do so today, so I will know what they are trying to claim. It seems they are trying to claim Phi is some kind of slow-release Pi source, and if so, that isn't accurate.

Like I wrote, Phi can be a (poor) SAR (Systemic Acquired Resistance) inducer, and when a plant has its' SAR induced the plant can grow faster, more robust and better deal with stresses; and like I wrote Phi mainly is a fungicide. That's the story of Phi...that and it's a very poor source for P.

spurr · 11-21-2010, 05:36 PM

If a mod asks me to remove the reference to him form my sig I will comply. I would also remove the reference to him from my sig if he apologizes and accepts that his is wrong when he claims Phi is a good source of P. By making those silly claims he is leading some growers to believe they can use Phi in place of/or in conjunction with Pi for P. He is doing a major disservice to growers by making the claims he makes. Mostly he is referenced in my sig so other growers don't get taken in by the BS.

The simple fact is: applying Phi to fertigation water or as foliar is a fail for P. Simply applying Pi for P is a much more intelligent, less expensive and more effective and efficient choice for P. Not only that, but Phi can damage plant tissue even in low concentrations, esp. if the plant tissue is low on P (e.g. Pi) in the first place.

spurr · 11-21-2010, 05:51 PM

@ organicsquarll:

OK, I thought about it for a minute, and I see your point. I will remove the reference to him in my sig for the sake of preventing what I am sure will be more sh*t talking by he-who-is-to-be-unnamed. I don't want this thread to be locked, and it might be if he-who-is-to-be-unnamed doesn't get his way, he will probably start more name calling and get this thread locked.

zenoonez · 11-21-2010, 06:06 PM

What is a better SAR inducer?

spurr · 11-21-2010, 06:15 PM

Chitosan is good, but IMO the best is methylated jasmonic acid because it is not only a good SAR inducer, but exogenous application (ex. via. foliar) increases glandular trichcome density (# of trich per X leaf area) and trich number. Methylated jasomic acid is naturally produced in plants and they use it, along with GA3 (and other chemicals), to form trichs.

If a plant is lacking methylated jasmonic acid it won't form trichs, this has been proven with mutants that lack MJA, and by application of chems that block production of MJA in non-mutants, and by application of MJA to non-mutants.

11-21-2010, 07:13 PM

Keep this thread on track. If it goes the same direction the other one did the concerned parties will receive time out.

V

11-21-2010, 07:31 PM

You now see this thread for what it is.

*EDIT*
This thread is open again.
Flaming/trolling will not be tolerated, nor the "calling out" of other members.
Any Mod from any forum has the right to interject in this forum, and I welcome it.
The OP posted an article for discussion, let's please get back on topic

12-01-2010, 02:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spurr

...

I am calling Nurti-Phite and Pure Flowers and Humbolt Ferts tomorrow to get their stance and to set them straight. I read the Nutri-Phite site, but not fully, I will do so today, so I will know what they are trying to claim. It seems they are trying to claim Phi is some kind of slow-release Pi source, and if so, that isn't accurate.

....

What was the result of the telephone call?

raphenilweed · 12-01-2010, 06:37 AM

What is the difference between phosphite, phosphate and phosphorous? And which is more commonly found in nature?
Going of this information you posted I gather that staying away from these phosphites is a safe thing to do. What is this phosphite labeled as?

BlueberryLovr · 12-01-2010, 08:39 AM

Different oxidation states, and phosphite + phosphate are P bonded to 3 and 4 O, respectively. Doesn't matter what's found more commonly in nature, what matters is which form plants prefer and benefit from.

Spurr had some nice sources posted before (previous version of this thread), methinks. If memory serves me correctly, phosphate is what plants prefer to eat as their P source and phosphite is good for the short term (inhibits phosphate uptake after awhile). Phosphite is also a good mold/fungi deterrent. But grapeman's real world experience gives a lot of credit to phosphites.

I personally use both in my grows (Thanks grapeman and krunchbubble!). They each have their purpose. You could use one or the other, really--my 0.02

11-21-2010, 06:15 PM	#25
spurr Banned Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: https://www.scirus.com/ & https://www.google.com/schhp?hl=en Posts: 2,431	Chitosan is good, but IMO the best is methylated jasmonic acid because it is not only a good SAR inducer, but exogenous application (ex. via. foliar) increases glandular trichcome density (# of trich per X leaf area) and trich number. Methylated jasomic acid is naturally produced in plants and they use it, along with GA3 (and other chemicals), to form trichs. If a plant is lacking methylated jasmonic acid it won't form trichs, this has been proven with mutants that lack MJA, and by application of chems that block production of MJA in non-mutants, and by application of MJA to non-mutants.
	1 members found this post helpful.

11-21-2010, 07:13 PM	#26
vonforne Guest Posts: n/a	Keep this thread on track. If it goes the same direction the other one did the concerned parties will receive time out. V
	0 members found this post helpful.

11-21-2010, 07:31 PM	#27
Guest 18340 Guest Posts: n/a	You now see this thread for what it is. EDIT This thread is open again. Flaming/trolling will not be tolerated, nor the "calling out" of other members. Any Mod from any forum has the right to interject in this forum, and I welcome it. The OP posted an article for discussion, let's please get back on topic Last edited by Guest; 11-21-2010 at 09:37 PM..
	1 members found this post helpful.

11-21-2010, 05:23 PM	#21
spurr Banned Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: https://www.scirus.com/ & https://www.google.com/schhp?hl=en Posts: 2,431	Once someone calls me a "fuck*ing idiot" many times in one post, and attacks me personally in other manners, and the mods don't edit it, and I don't get an apology. And once someone makes claims they can't back up with proof, only conjecture and assumption and hearsay, that goes counter to proven scientific theory (i.e. as close to fact as science comes) over the past 70-80 years of research, I fell OK about indirectly referencing that person in my sig, esp. because I didn't name the person (and because that person that can lead other growers down the wrong path with good sounding, but flawed arguments). This thread isn't about that person, please don't try to turn it into it. I explained to him many times why he probably didn't see a drop in P from petiole tests, and why his tests were probably flawed, but he kept ignoring my posts and then claimed I didn't explain it to him. That is all I have to say about that... I am calling Nurti-Phite and Pure Flowers and Humbolt Ferts tomorrow to get their stance and to set them straight. I read the Nutri-Phite site, but not fully, I will do so today, so I will know what they are trying to claim. It seems they are trying to claim Phi is some kind of slow-release Pi source, and if so, that isn't accurate. Like I wrote, Phi can be a (poor) SAR (Systemic Acquired Resistance) inducer, and when a plant has its' SAR induced the plant can grow faster, more robust and better deal with stresses; and like I wrote Phi mainly is a fungicide. That's the story of Phi...that and it's a very poor source for P.

11-21-2010, 05:36 PM	#22
spurr Banned Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: https://www.scirus.com/ & https://www.google.com/schhp?hl=en Posts: 2,431	If a mod asks me to remove the reference to him form my sig I will comply. I would also remove the reference to him from my sig if he apologizes and accepts that his is wrong when he claims Phi is a good source of P. By making those silly claims he is leading some growers to believe they can use Phi in place of/or in conjunction with Pi for P. He is doing a major disservice to growers by making the claims he makes. Mostly he is referenced in my sig so other growers don't get taken in by the BS. The simple fact is: applying Phi to fertigation water or as foliar is a fail for P. Simply applying Pi for P is a much more intelligent, less expensive and more effective and efficient choice for P. Not only that, but Phi can damage plant tissue even in low concentrations, esp. if the plant tissue is low on P (e.g. Pi) in the first place.

11-21-2010, 05:51 PM	#23
spurr Banned Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: https://www.scirus.com/ & https://www.google.com/schhp?hl=en Posts: 2,431	@ organicsquarll: OK, I thought about it for a minute, and I see your point. I will remove the reference to him in my sig for the sake of preventing what I am sure will be more sh*t talking by he-who-is-to-be-unnamed. I don't want this thread to be locked, and it might be if he-who-is-to-be-unnamed doesn't get his way, he will probably start more name calling and get this thread locked.

11-21-2010, 06:06 PM	#24
zenoonez Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Tripping down the path of life Posts: 2,321	What is a better SAR inducer?

12-01-2010, 06:37 AM	#29
raphenilweed Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Redwood Curtain, Jefferson Posts: 180	What is the difference between phosphite, phosphate and phosphorous? And which is more commonly found in nature? Going of this information you posted I gather that staying away from these phosphites is a safe thing to do. What is this phosphite labeled as?

12-01-2010, 08:39 AM	#30
BlueberryLovr Property of Tess Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 367	Different oxidation states, and phosphite + phosphate are P bonded to 3 and 4 O, respectively. Doesn't matter what's found more commonly in nature, what matters is which form plants prefer and benefit from. Spurr had some nice sources posted before (previous version of this thread), methinks. If memory serves me correctly, phosphate is what plants prefer to eat as their P source and phosphite is good for the short term (inhibits phosphate uptake after awhile). Phosphite is also a good mold/fungi deterrent. But grapeman's real world experience gives a lot of credit to phosphites. I personally use both in my grows (Thanks grapeman and krunchbubble!). They each have their purpose. You could use one or the other, really--my 0.02