Originally Posted by *mistress*

btw, which "microbes"?

bacteria?
fungi?
nematodes?

LOL...nematodes are not microbes.

Spurr...I hear where you're coming from with the testing on teas and soil stuff and looking forward to what you find out.

[trichrider]

microbes are present whether or not the medium is marbles, gravel, fluid.
how can you say plants do not need microbes...or that they are not actually beneficial to plant metabolization? they are everywhere.
Even if they are only contributing cations by the reduction of inorganic compounds, they are enabling the plant to grow to potential...why not try to boost microbial populations?
humble pie is being served, I had a slice...

[spurr]

Originally Posted by YosemiteSam

spurr...your formula appears to have a lot of calcium and not a whole lot of S, at least to me. Could you comment on these levels and why you think they are appropriate?

Would you also comment on what EC you run in veg and flower? How much citric acid do you use and where do you source it?

Would you also comment on your use of PGRs?

Wow, I forgot to respond to you sorry! I need to start a social group analogous to the Ask Lucas thread at CW-2 so I can keep track of requests for info...


RE: Ca:

Yes, my mix has more Ca than S because Ca should really be a primary nutrient, not secondary. Plants need/use more Ca than P and S, thus I add more. Also, Ca and Bo (boron) are unique in the way roots use them: they get 'sucked' up into roots along with water, unlike other ions that can freely pass into roots. Plants depend upon rate of transpiration to suck up Ca and Bo, and then they move within xylem to needed areas of plants, such as younger tissue. Thus it good to have sufficient levels of Ca ions in the rhizosphere and 'soil solution'.

Unlike N, P and K, Ca is very immobile inside plant tissue, yet another reason to supply sufficient levels.

Also, Ca is cation, so it can bind to CEC sites strongly if the media has good bulk destiny (which isn't the case with un-amended coco and peat).

Here is a breakdown of plant elements by ash, this is a very common breakdown, and cannabis is very similar to the following table. I have many studies looking at cannabis tissue assays and it's very similar:

"Understanding Plant Nutrition: An Introduction"
By Bill Argo and Paul Fisher
January 2008
https://www.greenhousegrower.com/magazine/?storyid=109

RE: EC:

I don't monitor EC, I prefer to use ppm by element instead of EC (or TDS) as a total sum. The breakdown I did for my mix shows what levels of elements are provided, this is more useful and tells us more than EC. My tap water is soft, total TDS is ~100 ppm and water alkalinity is ~50-60 ppm.

If I grew using hydro I would monitor EC...


RE: citric acid:

I add enough to drop pH to 6.00 to 6.10, it's hard to say how much I add because it's fluxes depending upon season. I get granules of citric acid from a beer brewing shop, it's like $3 for 56 grams. You can order it online from a beer/wine brewing/fermenting shop, FWIW, earth juice pH down is citric acid.

Citric acid is good for many reasons, it chelates P (i.e. phosphates) and some micro's like Fe too. And it mineralizes P from some organic matter, N also, ex. from bat guano (due to pH). Critic acid also binds "carbonic acid" (Co2 + water) making it more difficult to dissociate back into Co2 and water; this is good because carbonic acid also mineralizes P from some organic matter. However, some microbes (mostly) bacteria that do not like acidic conditions will not be able to dissociate carbonic acid as well with the "carbonic anhydrase" they release to do so...

Roots and microbes create carbonic acid when they respire Co2 into media.

Below is a good read about carbonic acids, etc. I do not agree with a few premises of the author, and thus I don't agree with her argument in total, because she is wrong. However, the info about carbonic acid and carbonic anhydrase is good:

"Ecosystem Physiology: The Plant-Microbe Dance"
by Leslie H. Kirkegaard
https://grow-orchid-grow.com/Science_...obe_Dance.html

RE: PGRs (Plant Growth Regulators):
(all via. foliar spray)

This is worth a whole thread, but for now here are the main PGRs I use, these are all naturally found in plants:


1. Triacontanol:
increases rate of photosynthesis, growth rate and yield. I use it at 25 ppm, but 10 ppm is also good, apply every 2 weeks into pre-flower.


2. Brassinosteroid (as brassinolide or 24-homobrassinolide or 24-epibrassinolide):
probably the most important plant hormone to exogenously apply; it's really a plant steroid. It increases rate of photosynthesis, phototropism (light tracking), stress resistance, yield, growth, etc., etc. I found if applying in pre-flower can make plants stretch if over applied; I am testing not applying during pre-flowering. I use it at 0.05 ppm, but 0.01 ppm is also good (esp. during pre-flowering), co-apply with triacontanol.


3. Jasmonic acid (as methylated jasomic acid):
it is a SAR (Systemic Acquired Resistance) inducer and it also increases glandular trichome density (over X leaf area) and number (total trichs). This is the better choice than using salicylic acid (i.e. Advanced Nutrients 'Scorpion', or the analog aspirin) to induce SAR because salicylic acid hinders trichome density and number and has "negative cross-talk" to jasmonic acid, i.e. it hinders jasmonic acid.

There is some evidence that brassinosteroid and jasmonic acid also have negative cross-talk, thus I apply methylated jasmonic acid alone, and only in pre-flowering. I apply it as 100 ppm, but 50 ppm is also good.


4. Gibberellic acid (as GA3):
it makes plants stretch/grow, but that's not why I use it, when co-applied with methylated jasmoic acid they work in synergy to increase trich density and number. However, this can really make plants stretch so use with cation. This can really make plants stretch so I won't suggest ppm right now, I need to do more testing with methylated jasmoic acid during pre-flowing...

[spurr]

Originally Posted by *mistress*

what are they?

microbe = micro-scopic organism....

beneficial biology.......
by drs. e. ingram, c.a. rollins

"nematodes
bacterial-feeders, fungal-feeders, predatory nematodes and root feeders.......

nematodes are worms. they move like snakes.

........

nematodes should be counted and classified as how many seen per field....."

Dr. Ingham and Dr. Rollins are not a good cites. YankeeGrower is correct in essence: nematodes are "mesofauna", protozoa are "microfauna" and microorganisms bacteria, archaea and fungi are "microflora".

Protozoa and nematodes prey upon bacteria and some fungi, that is the microbial loop...

Originally Posted by *mistress*

what are they?

Nematodes are not microbes. For me when I talk about microbes it's basically single cell stuff like archae, bacteria, fungi, protozoa, etc. Nematodes are a more highly developed organism and not in the class of microbes, even though they may be 'microscopic', as I see it/them regardless of what others may define them as.

[spurr]

Oh yea,

It's pretty amazing, but some protozoa prey upon some nematodes!

Originally Posted by spurr

Oh yea,

It's pretty amazing, but some protozoa prey upon some nematodes!

No knowledge of that but for sure some fungi prey upon nematodes. I guess we're trying to define a 'microbe' for the sake of this discussion. Kind of semantic BS.

[spurr]

No knowledge of that but for sure some fungi prey upon nematodes. I guess we're trying to define a 'microbe' for the sake of this discussion. Kind of semantic BS.

Mistress is just trying to assert her (imagined) greater knowledge into semantics; you are correct in not lumping nematodes in with bacteria/archaea and lower fungi imperfecti.

Nematodes are microscopic multicellular animals, not microbes (per say).

Refs:

What are Nematodes?
Unvistiy of Nebraska-Linkon; Nematology
https://nematode.unl.edu/Wormgen.htm


Soil-inhabiting nematodes - Phylum Nematoda
Robert McSorley, University of Florida
https://entnemdept.ufl.edu/creatures/...l_nematode.htm


Introduction to the Nematoda: the roundworms
University of California, at Berkly
https://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/phyla/e.../nematoda.html

Some root-eating nematodes are attacked/hindered by some fungi, ex. AM fungi in mycorrhiza with host roots. But some protozoans also prey upon some nematodes, I have some good studies if you'd like to see them, AFAIK this is pretty new info. I was quite surprised when I read the studies.

Best, spurr

[spurr]

Originally Posted by *mistress*

*edit*
goal of the study?

To find ppms of various elements that do not hinder populations of soil biota. I am doing this to provide and collect data on co-application of chems and biological organics (e.x. Aerated Compost Teas), a la, the hybrid of conventional and organic farming paradigms that many cannabis growers employ. Many cannabis grows and giant pumpkin growers like to mix both, and they make unsubstantiated and unproven claims that it's OK to mix them in any concentration without data or proof of effects upon soil biota (e.x. you can't mix chems with AM fungi to due levels of P ions hindering AM fungi greatly in a few ways). My goal is to collect data and proof for edification of the greater growing community (I don't mix them).

the microbes should adapt & survive in very diverse environments.

but, maybe, plants dont require microbes @ all.... they require inorganic ions.

Plant do require microbes for certain biological processes, and you can't separate the two with unless using aseptic methods that no one uses. Even if plant's didn't need microbes, they benefit from they in many ways.

plants seem to have capacity to uptake elements w/ discretion. the internal concentration of elements generally higher than any fertilizer applied. the plant stores energy......

For some elements yes, but not for all elements, e.g. ammoniacal nitrogen. Too much ammoniacal N leads to phytotoxicity in roots due to insufficient movement of sugar into roots to covert the ammoniacal N.

but, what does this have to do w/ microbes?

Microbes provide "dissolved organic nitrogen" to plants, also "dissolved organic phosphorous", both of which the roots take up, as is, for 'food'. They don't only use ions for food, not by a long shot!

Read this thread of mine for more info, but please don't try to argue this here, you are wrong on many points (as usual):

"Info about DON vs. ions: plants don't only use ions"
https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=190599

the plant can & will grow healthy & thrive w/out the least concern over adding or sustaining "microbes".....

Huh? Up to 25-30% of carbs from photosynthesis go to roots to feed soil (rhizosphere) biota, and some also goes to leafs to feed phyllosphere biota. You can't separate plants from microbes when growing cannabis unless doing so aseptically. Plants want/need microbes and many microbes need/want plants...it's the simple.

btw, which "microbes"?

bacteria?
fungi?
nematodes?

there are many different species of all of these creatures. some aerobic, some anaerobic.... they eat each other, & their waste product is potentially available to plants.... if have 100X light microscope, maybe view & count the types of creatures present. if not viewing media w/ microscope, what organisms are present? & what from their activities is available to the plan?.....

<face plam> I do have a good microscope, do you? I won't get into this with you because I don't want to teach you what you don't know; it's just too much work having you argue each point. Just hang out in the organic soil section and pay attention to posts by MicobeMan, CTGuy and myself (and others), but don't intergect because you don't have a good base of understanding. You have too many misconceptions, misunderstandings...

so.... there are maybe 3 topics here....

1. how do plants absorb, or assimilate elements?

2. are microbes necessary for healthy plant growth?

3. what is the optimum nutrient profile for healthy plants?

plants take up elements as in-organic ions, store energy internally.

They also take up organic substances like amino acids, organic acids, etc., as food without needing to be broken down into ions. The myth that plants only use ions as food is something I rail against because it's so wrong...

does the plant require microbes?.....

the topics seem different..... microbes & nutrients.

Yea, plants use microbes for many functions, not only as food sources (ions and organic substances) but also for protection from harmful microbes and other functions.

growing tomatoes w/out adding water-soluble fertilisers, and only microbes, may, be possible, but will fruit bloom the same?....

Of course, as will cannabis.

or, will adding microbes to water-soluble fertilisers make nutrients move available?

Yes they do, some soluble ions such as P and miconutrients can become insoluble if they are not chelated, and microbes can chelate many of those ions.

so, maybe start w/ what plants actually require for nutrition - not what humans want plants to eat....

<face palm> Maybe you should start with re-learning everything you think you know?

a gardener can use aquarium gravel, or marbles & water-soluble nutrient solution, to grow plants thru-out the entire season, w/out ever adding or checking for microbes....

No one claimed otherwise...maybe you should leave this thread...

[spurr]

Originally Posted by *mistress*

@ op, spurr


nematode - any of a phylum (Nematoda) of worms, often parasites of animals and plants, with long cylindrical, unsegmented bodies and a heavy cuticle; as the hookworm, pinworm, etc.......

Sigh, yes, I am well aware, trust me. I happen to specialize in topics of microbes. I was referring to your post when it seemed to me you meant the nematodes were worms, as in red worms, etc. When you called them worms and snakes that made me think you were referring to something else.

the effective application rate of triancontanol is only 1ug/l, or 1 micro-gram per liter.... or, parts per billion.......10ppm is maybe over-application, of that pgr, as too much applied may inhibit benefits....

No it's not. I have a ton of studies on this topic. You just make shit up don't you?

are they counted?

how much bacteria is required to be host to protazoa?

What!?! Maybe you need to re-word and re-think that question...

what is the sum energy out-put, in 1 teaspoon of "microbial loop" activty in the media - when it is in suitable form to be dissolved into the poured water, & available to roots?

<face palm> You are over your head and spouting nonsense, that question doesn't even make sense. I am sorry I am being terse and harsh with you, it's just that you always try to come into threads and take control, but your so often wrong I think you would want to stay in your sandbox.

I am putting you on ignore, I don't have time or care to waste on you.

....compared to the available energy out-put of 1 teaspoon of 5n-15p-14k-6ca-3mg-6s, dissolved in 1 gallon of water?

That is way too much P and too little Ca and neraly too much S.

microbes should be defined. they should also be counted, or their presence or effect may not be accurate....

Microbes are defined, you are just trying to re-write the definition. Are nematodes microscopic? Yes. Are they the same as bacteria/archaea and lower fungi? No.

Anyone who knows anything about microbial assays knows about "direct microscopic enumeration" of soil biota.

how is this waste made available to plants? if plants can only assimilate in-organic ions?

As DON and DOP. Plants do not "only assimilate in-organic ions". BTW, it's redundant to write "in-organic ions", ions by definition are inorganic. Also, it's spelled "inorganic", not "in-organic".

/done teaching you the basics