[dizzlekush]

Set the mood. Click the link, play the video quietly while reading:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vedgTokXj04

O.k. not the most scientific title, but seriously, getting your plants drunk might give you both a pleasant surprise. C3 plants, such as cannabis, have shown to benefit from foliar applications of Methanol. Methanol seems to benefit C3 plants through several modes. The most accepted benefit is inhibition of photorespiration, making it useful in high light or heat environments. Applications of methanol also induce pectin methylesterase (PME) gene expression which influences plant development and stress responses, effects cellular adhesion, plasticity, ionic contents and pH of the cell wall. Methanol induced PME has been shown to stimulate certain cytokinin producing bacteria found endogenously in plants. Methanol also acts as a carbon source for the plant.

It is important to apply methanol to the foliage only! applications to the rhizosphere can be incredibly detrimental to plant growth. Typical tested application rates are between 5-50% methanol, mixed with filtered water and often a nitrogen source (Glycine, urea, calcium nitrate) and/or a non ionic surfactant. Most studies show optimum benefits achieved from treatments of 20-30% methanol applied to the foliage often co-applied with one or more of the above mentioned additives. I will do my own testing once i finish testing several PGR's first and comment on optimum dosage.

For those that are unaware, methanol is incredibly toxic for humans. Although methanol as itself has similar levels of toxicity to ethanol, our bodies metabolize it into formaldahyde, and then formic acid, which can cause permanent blindness and death... But C3 plants have no such issues with methanol, while ethanol (the alcohol we drink) has shown little to no benefits and is significantly more phytotoxic that methanol. Methanol is for C3 plants, ethanol is for humans. Like momma used to say, don't mix your hard liquors.

Ever needed an excuse to drink? well now you have one. A way to inhibit the toxic degradation of methanol in your body is to consume ethanol. ethanol competes with methanol in the liver during metabolization so the methanol passes through the body unmetabolized. So as an extra precaution (i.e. along with skin, eye and respiratory protection) maybe take a shot or 8 of hard alcohol after methanol handling/applications. Safety first, party second, again just like momma used to say.

Effect of Time and Foliar Spraying by Methanol on Growth and Yield of Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata)
Maziar Jafari Paskiabi, Mohammad Naghi Safarzadeh Vishekaei, Seyyed Ali Noorhosseini Niyaki, Mohammad Farzi and Ahmad Aslani

An experiment was conducted to evaluate the effects of concentration time and spraying methanol on growth and yield of cowpea of (Vigna unguiculata) in Rasht, north of Iran. This study was done as a two- factor factorial experiment in a basic plan of randomized complete blocks in three replications. The first factor was the time of methanol application in three levels [spraying in the morning (8:00-10:00 a.m.), at noon (13:00- 15:00 p.m.) and in the afternoon (17:00-19:00 p.m.)] and the second factor, i.e. methanol use was considered at four levels [0, 10, 20 and 30% methanol]. Results showed that concentration and time spraying methanol affected on pod and seed yield of cowpea. Among methanol concentration treatments, maximum pod and seed yield values of 1743.81 and 930.54kg/ha were recorded for the 20% and 30% methanol treatments, respectively. Furthermore, the spraying in afternoon resulted in the highest pod and seed yields amounting to 1649.56 and 902.42kg/ha, respectively.

Effects of foliar and root applications of methanol or ethanol on the growth of tomato plants (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill)
R. N. ROWE & D. J. FARR & B. A. J. RICHARDS

Young tomato plants were treated with foliar sprays and root applications of aqueous solutions of methanol and ethanol. Concentrations ranged from 5 to 20% v/v. Root applications caused severe plant damage. In contrast foliar sprays resulted in significant growth stimulation. Both alcohols increased leaf and stem fresh and dry weights with the maximum increases at the highest concentrations tested. Methanol produced a greater increase in stem length and stem fresh and dry weights than ethanol. There was no significant difference between the alcohols in terms of leaf weights or leaf number.

Effects of foliar application of methanol on growth and yield of mungbean (Vigna radiata L.) in Rasht, Iran
Ahmad Aslani, Mohammad Naghi Safarzadeh Vishekaei, Mohammad Farzi, Seyyed Ali Noorhosseini Niyaki and Maziar Jafari Paskiabi

In order to study the effect of the time and concentration of methanol spraying on the growth and yield of mungbean (Vigna radiata L.), a factorial experiment in the form of randomized complete blocks was done with three replications in the research farm of the College of Agriculture of the Islamic Azad University, Rasht branch in the north of Iran in 2009. The concentration factor of spraying methanol was applied at four levels, that is control (without spraying (0)), 10, 20 and 30 volumetric percentages of methanol; while the time of spraying methanol was another factor used at three levels: in the morning (8:00 to 10:00 a.m.), at noon (13:00 to 15:00 p.m.) and in the evening (17:00 to 19:00 p.m.). Results showed that there was a significant difference between different methanol concentrations regarding number of seeds per pod, harvest index (p < 0.01) and seed yield per m2 (p < 0.05). The largest numbers of seeds per pod and harvest index were in 30% methanol, while the highest seed yield was that of the 20% methanol with an average of 13.11 seeds, 38.22% and 55.97 g/m2, respectively. Moreover, spraying times had also had a significant difference in terms of the seed yield per m2 and the harvest index at the level of 5%; the highest average values of seed yield and harvest index corresponding to spraying in the afternoon were 55.52 g/m2 and 36.69%, respectively. The interaction of these two factors with none of the studied traits was not significant.

Effects of methanol on sugar beet (Beta vulgaris)
I. Nadali, F. Paknejad, F. Moradi, S. Vazan, M. Tookalo, M. Jami Al-Ahmadi, A. Pazoki

In order to evaluate the effects of methanol on sugar beet quality and yield, a field study was conducted at Research Station of Islamic Azad University of Karaj, Iran, during 2008-2009. Aqueous methanol solutions with 0 (control), 7, 14, 21, 28 and 35% (v/v) concentrations were sprayed on foliage parts of sugar beet three times during growth season with two week intervals. The first foliar application was done at 80 days after planting. After 190 days, plants were harvested, and the fresh weight of root and leaf, sugar, and white sugar yields, the relative content of molasses, sugar and white sugar, and the content of Na, K, and N in roots were measured. Results indicated that there was a significant difference (p<0.01) between control plants and plants with methanol treatment in the fresh weight of root, leaf, sugar, and white sugar. Foliar application of 21% methanol solution increased root and leaf fresh weights and sugar yield. The plants with 14% (v/v) methanol application had the maximum white sugar yield (9.28 ton/h). The other parameters were not affected by methanol application. This study indicates that foliar application of 14-21% (v/v) methanol increase sugar yield of sugar beets.

Emission and utilization of methanol in higher plants
Yang Yueqin, YI Xianfeng

Methanol, as one of the major volatile organic compounds (VOCs) found in the atmosphere, has been proved to be emitted from leaves of most plant species. The formation, emission and metabolism of methanol in higher plants were reviewed in this paper. Photosynthetic processes and chlorophyll a fluorescence parameters were measured on peony leaves treated with different methanol concentrations. The primary results revealed that photosynthesis was greatly improved by methanol, as indicated by higher photosynthetic rates and stomata conductance (GS). Strikingly different patterns were observed for photochemical quenching (qP), non-photochemical quenching (qN and NPQ), and electron transport rate (ETR). Decreases in Fm/Fo, Fv/Fo and ΦPSII caused by methanol revealed dual effect of methanol (stimulation or inhibition) on the peony leaves, which were determined by the concentration of methanol and time duration. The data suggested that methanol can not only serve as carbon source, but also regulate energy distribution and dissipation, especially for non-photochemical quenching and photorespiration.

Influence of Methanol on Sugarbeet Yield and Photosynthesis
Lee Panellal , John N. Nishio, and Susan S. Martin

Foliar application of methanol has improved growth and productivity experimentally in a number of agricultural crops. To test the possibility that methanol application might improve sugarbeet yield, we conducted a replicated field study at Fort Collins, Colorado in 1994 with two commercial sugarbeet varieties (Monohikari, Beta 2398) and one public breeding line (FC709-2). Methanol was foliarly applied at about ten day intervals throughout the growing season starting at 40 dap. Plants were treated with 50% methanol plus 0.1% Triton-X surfactant, or 50% methanol plus 0.1% Triton-X plus 0.2% monoso*dium glutamate (MSG) as a nitrogen source. Control plants received no spray treatment. Two regimes of irri*gation were included, one that provided water at a level typical of commercial growing practice and one in which about 50% as much water was applied on the same schedule, intentionally causing chronic water stress. Photosynthetic gas exchange was determined on August 26 and September 8 at mid-day on a subset of plots. Root yield and percentage root sucrose were determined at harvest, and sucrose yield was calculated from those values. The summer was warm and dry in 1994 and even plants in the higher irrigation regime were water-stressed (i.e., wilted at mid-day), and no significant differences in root yield, percent root sucrose, or sucrose yield occurred due to irrigation treatment. Significant differences for each of the three parameters occurred among varieties and for methanol treatments. Both methanol treatments re*sulted in significantly lower root weight and sucrose yield than the control, and methanol plus MSG application resulted in significantly lower root weight and sucrose yield than application of only methanol. Percentage su* crose was statistically similar in control and methanol treatments, but treatment with methanol plus MSG re* sulted in lower percentage sucrose. Photosynthesis was increased in methanol treated plots, but this result was not consistent. If methanol treatment resulted in higher photosynthesis in the short term, this may have resulted in greater above-ground growth at the expense of root growth and root sucrose storage, which could account for the observed lower root and sucrose yield in the treated plots. Ifearly-season methanol application tim* ing and concentration could be adjusted to stimulate early canopy formation, so that maximal light interception could be achieved earlier in the season, this might lead to increased sucrose yield at harvest.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...NOQBAhMI9QFYPQ

Methanol-lnduced Growth, Biomass, and Economic Productivity in Hibiscus esculentus, Vigna radiata, and V. catjung in Tropics
D. DORCUS AND M. VIVEKANANDAN

Treatment of agricultural crops in high solar light intensities with methanol was initiated as a source of fixed carbon or supplement of methyl groups for pectin production. Methanol is rapidly metabolized in plants. Study of the path of carbon in photosynthesis revealed very rapid metabolism of (14C)methanol (1-3). From comparison of the relative rates of fixation of [14C]carbon dioxide and [14C]methanol by Chlorella and Scene- desmus strains, it was concluded that methanol was utilized for sugar and amino acid production fully as rapidly as carbon dioxide (4). Earlier studies of methanol spray in eggplant, cotton, cabbage, watermelon, wheat, grapes, and so forth, revealed that rather than merely supporting normal growth, it stimulated plant growth, which far exceeded that expected of a foliar nutrient. Plants treated with nutrient-supplemented methanol showed up to 100% increases in yield when maintained under direct sunlight in desert agriculture (5).
Therefore, a preliminary study of methanol spray under tropical conditions during the dry season (April-July 1993) on crop plants was conducted, and the novel results obtained are presented.

PHYSIOLOGICAL RESPONSE OF COTTON TO METHANOL FOLIAR APPLICATION
Muhammad Iqbal Makhdum, Muhammad Nawaz A. Malik, Shabab-ud- Din, Fiaz Ahmad and Fazal Illahi Chaudhry

A study was conducted at Central Cotton Research Institute, Multan during crop season 1995 to determine the effects of foliar applications of methanol on physiological processes, water relations, growth and yield on cotton cultivar CIM-240. The treatments consisted of untreated check, 30% methanol, 30% methanol plus 2% urea and 30% methanol + 2% urea + 2.5 litre per hectare foliar fertilizer (Omex Foliar 3x Emulsion). Four foliar applications of solutions were made during bloom stage. The results showed that foliar application of methanol, and/or of urea/foliar fertilizer had positive effect on physiological processes, water relations, plant structure and seed cotton yield. The foliar application of 30% methanol caused significant increase in seed cotton yield by about 9% over untreated check. These data suggest that methanol has potential to improve productivity of cotton crop under our arid and semi-arid environment.

The effect of foliar application of methanol on productivity and fruit quality of grapevine cv. Flame Seedless
T. RAMADAN and Y. A. M. M. OMRAN

Field experiments were conducted in 2002 and 2003 on 6-year-old grapevine cv. Flame Seedless. The content of chlo- rophyll a and b, carotenoids and total carbohydrates in- creased after methanol application. Foliar application of aqueous methanol was very effective increasing the number of leaves per shoot and leaf area. Furthermore, 30 % methanol increased significantly the number of stomata of developing leaves at the first application time (shoot length: 20-30 cm) while 10, 30, 40 and 50 % methanol solutions were more effective at the second application date (pre- bloom). Increasing the chlorophyll content, the leaf area and the number of stomata per unit leaf area by methanol application increased net productivity of vines. There was a highly significant positive correlation between total yield, chlorophyll and carbohydrates content. Generally, all methanol treatments significantly increased length and diameter of shoots and internode length at both application dates. Application of methanol increased total soluble solids (TSS), the TSS/acid ratio and total anthocyanins in berry skins but decreased total acidity. Most significant effects were obtained by spraying 30 % methanol at the two application dates.

The path of carbon in photosynthesis: Improved crop yields with methanol
A. M. NONOMURA* AND A. A. BENSON

Foliar sprays of aqueous 10-50% methanol increased growth and development of C3 crop plants in arid environments. The effects of low levels (<1 ml per plant) of methanol were observed for weeks after the brief time necessary for its rapid metabolism. Within several hours, foliar treatment with methanol resulted in increased turgidity. Plants treated with nutrient-supplemented methanol showed up to 100% increases in yields when maintained under direct sunlight in desert agriculture. In the shade and when winter crops were treated with methanol, plants showed no improvement of growth. When repeatedly treated with nutrient-supplemented methanol, shaded plants showed symptoms of toxicity. Repeated methanol treatments with glycine caused increased turgidity and stimulated plant growth without injury under in direct sunlight, but indoors with artificia lillumination, foliar damage developed after 48hr. Addition of glycerophosphate to glycine/methanol solutions allowed treatment of artificialy illuminated plants indoors without injury. Plants with C4 metabolism showed no increase in productivity by methanol treatment. Plants given many applications of aqueous methanol showed symptoms of nutrient deficiency. Supplementation with a source of nitrogen sustained growth, eliminating symptoms of deficiency. Adjustment of carbon/nitrogen ratios was undertaken in the field by decreasing the source of nitrogen in the final application, resulting in early maturation; concomitantly, irrigation requirements were reduced.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...01094-0438.pdf

[dizzlekush]

Effects of Foliar and Root Applications of Methanol on the Growth of Arabidopsis, Tobacco, and Tomato Plants
Ingrid Ramírez, Fernando Dorta, Valeria Espinoza, Edra Jiménez, Ana Mercado and Hugo Peña-Cortés

The effects of aqueous methanol solutions applied as a foliar spray or via irrigation were investigated in Arabidopsis, tobacco, and tomato plants. Methanol applied to roots leads to phytotoxic damage in all three species tested. Foliar application causes an increase of fresh and dry weight in Arabidopsis and tobacco plants, but not in tomato plants. The increase in fresh and dry weight of Arabidopsis plants does not correlate with increased levels of soluble sugars, suggesting that increased accumulation of other products is responsible for the differences in the methanol-treated leaves. Foliar application of methanol can induce pectin methylesterase (PME) gene expression in Arabidopsis and tomato plants, activating specific PME genes.

https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/springer-...-of-udQpRRyR5G

A new insight into foliar applied methanol influencing phylloplane methylotrophic dynamics and growth promotion of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) and sugarcane.
M Madhaiyan, S Poonguzhali, S Sundaram, T Sa

Foliar applied methanol has been purported to enhance growth and yield of cotton and sugarcane possibly by stimulation of plant hormone production mediated by pink-pigmented facultative methylotrophic (PPFMs) bacteria. In vitro studies were performed on the relations between leaf methanol and pectin methylesterase (PME: EC 3.1.1.11) in young and old leaves of cotton and sugarcane. Results of field trials and pot culture studies of cotton showed that application of 30% methanol or PPFMs as foliar spray significantly increased plant height, plant dry weight, leaf area, boll number, and boll dry weight, leading to an increase of seed cotton yield (SCY) over control. Foliar application of PPFMs increased plant height and specific leaf area of sugarcane and led to a cane yield increase of 9.8% over control. The overall PPFMs population in the phyllosphere of cotton remained higher than sugarcane. Applications of methanol or PPFMs increased the total cytokinins in cotton and sugarcane. The methanol emission process, regulated by PME activity that catalyzes demethoxylation of pectins, could trigger PPFMs population on the leaf surface and subsequent cytokinin production in plants, and might play a role in plant growth promotion. In our study, the foliar applications of methanol or PPFMs increased the PPFM populations and cytokinin production resulting in increased yield in cotton and sugarcane.

https://www.mendeley.com/research/a-n...officinarum-l/

Effect of Foliar Application of Methanol on Efficiency, Production and Yield of Plants - A Review
Tavassoli Abolfazl, Galavi Mohammad

Many cultivated area are situated in arid zone, where crop photosynthesis and productivity is limited by drought. Thus any treatment, such as methanol, that improves plant water relation and reduces stress impacts, could be of benefit. This paper investigated the effects of methanol application on some physiological and growth properties of plants. Recent reports indicate that vegetative growth and yield of C3 crops were enhanced by foliar methanol application and that overall crop water use was reduced by methanol sprays. It has been suggested that methanol may act as a C source for the plant and a photorespiration inhibitor. However foliar application of methanol solutions on crops would improve their accelerate ripening, reduce impacts of drought and decline crop water requirements. Methanol also appeared to improve the efficiency of water use in C3 plants, especially under water stress situations. On the other hand, methanol leads to increase of plants resistance to drought stress because these compounds play primarily a role in preventing increasing photorespiration induced in stressed plants.

https://indianjournals.com/ijor.aspx?...=1&article=001

[IMO]

goddamnit, another awesome post/thread. thanks again for all the legwork. quick question - your testing will only occur during the veg period correct?

[dizzlekush]

Originally Posted by IMO

goddamnit, another awesome post/thread. thanks again for all the legwork. quick question - your testing will only occur during the veg period correct?

Thanks

Im planning on testing only in the first half of the flowering period, since methanol applications are less phytotoxic the higher the light intensity (at least according to experimental results) and since inhibition of photorespiration and increase of cytokinin production are some of the modes methanol benefits plant growth, i think methanol applications would be more effective during the bloom cycle where i have more intense light and increased cytokinin production would be more optimal. Im going to do some more reading before i commit to how often applications occur or what i will be co-applying with the methanol. the dosages for testing will be 2.5%, 7.5%, 15%, 22.5%, and 30% aqueous methanol along with a control group.

Would love to see this tested

[legalizeDK]

cool. but wont the methanol dissolve the trichs when in flower?

[AgronomyDomine]

Been using methanol since '97, methanol speeds transfer of nutrients across cell membranes. Anything over 5% will start to cause damage to foliage of most sensitive plants, most beneficial for me has been at 2-2 1/2%. Ethanol works as well, just less effectively in my experience. Make sure all other variables are set correctly, CO2, light, and ferts consumption will increase by at least 25% in my experience if unable to provide perfection plants will suffer and decline rapidly. This is rocket fuel make sure you have a good guidance system y'all or you will not make it into orbit! Try adding a little tricantanol and maybe a little electro-stimulation and watch out. Methanol is a must for outdoor growers!!! Love all y'all! AgD

[dizzlekush]

Originally Posted by AgronomyDomine

Anything over 5% will start to cause damage to foliage of most sensitive plants, most beneficial for me has been at 2-2 1/2%.

I've never seen a study where it mentions phytotoxicity from methanol at anything less than 28% (edit - on outdoor/greenhouse applications). some plants that have a naturally high alcohol content such as peppermint can handle 100% methanol spray without showing any negative (or positive) effects. plants tested under artificial lighting had much higher sensitivity to methanol. thanks for confirming this applies to cannabis as well

are you saying that you've tested foliar applications of methanol on cannabis, and applications over 5% caused phytotoxicity in your cannabis? if not, where did you get your dosages? almost all studies show maximum benefits are achieved from foliar applications between 20-30% aqueous methanol. perhaps you are talking about rhizosphere applications instead of applications to the foliage?

[prince kali]

very interesting read. thanks to dizzlekush!
i like that you are planning to test it in five different concentrations, keep it real!

greets
pk

Wonder if moonshine will work as well? ...