[shaggyballs]

Originally Posted by Only Ornamental

Hi Shag,
I suppose you know how to breed good buds, right?

I am very ignorant when it comes to breeding.
I get the concept but Random mixing of genetics seems to move backward....It is like the lottery for me.... your chance of hitting the jackpot are slim.
For me any way.
I think breeding is best left to the experts.
But I have some pretty good genetics on hand.
Now, get yourself a few clones from a plant you know well and treat one as always, and the others differently and measure °Bx regularly. That will give you maybe the best idea.
What you could, do once you see what affects °Bx, push it to the limit like deliberately increase or decrease °Bx with one single thing (for example add sugar or remove nitrogen) in a clone and compare the results afterwards . Now if you have two different ways of changing °Bx in the same way, one might expect the same result because of the same Brix but a different one because of a different strategy (like less light and less nutrients might lower Brix but are unlikely to give the same herb quality, if you see what I mean)...

I think I get it now.
It would be a good indicator of whether or not the change made to the plant had a positive effect or a negative or no effect at all.

If one were to become proficient at this....it could be used to identify snake oils compared to products that really work.

Sounds time consuming and one should take notes.
I guess I got all excited with the hype and all.
I will consider it a tool in the tool box.
Thank you again 00
Shag

[Only Ornamental]

Well, I shouldn't have used the term 'breeding' but rather 'growing'...
But you got the point! Maybe it is not all that time consuming after all (if you don't use hydropontics) but taking notes will surely be indispensable. If you take only 2-3 clones and for each change only one thing at a time and not too drastically your normal harvest won't suffer that much and you get a few nice insights for your next grow. Nobody expects you to find all the parameters! Just try a few you can easily control and if you get a clear correlation between harvest quality (quantity) and °Bx you know that you have to let Brix guiding you; if there's non or just for one but not the other, then use Brix only as plant health indicator and nothing more .
Simple, no?

[milkyjoe]

Like I said I don't think brix taken as a stand alone number means much of anything. Brix is a single number that tells you how many solids you have jammed into the plant...what makes up those solids and the balance between those minerals is far more important. I would rather have lower brix with a balanced mineral profile than high brix made up of an ubalanced mix. But if you follow it for a while and sorta correlate it with stuff you learn something.

For example I have found one way to lower brix every time. That would be to up the nitrate you feed a plant beyond the level where it can be converted to complete proteins. It brings, and holds, extra water in the plant...more water equals less solids. conversely when you see that foliar feeding Mg seems to improve it over time.

For me it is about having the longest chain compounds possible. That seems to be the best way the best way to increase plant health and quality.

And to me, based on observation only, that means a wide variety of enzymes...a wide variety of enzyme co factors. So some combo of lots of trace minerals...basalt, kelp, sea minerals and sulfate salts of the main micros. And tons of biology to chelate stuff going into the plant to minimize the energy the plant needs to convert stuff. That is, of course, controversial cause conventional wisdom is a plant only takes up soluble ions.

I have no idea how to quantify all of that...or to tell you the truth if it is even true. But I use brix, sap pH and soil EC to give me a clue which direction to head.

One day I will be able to do tissue testing...but not yet.

Originally Posted by shaggyballs

Could you or Milkyjoe help us understand this complex science and how this is done on a cannabis plant.

I have yet to see conclusive studies published or even good information in the forums that would give me the skill and knowledge to use this invaluable information to my benefit.

I have a good understanding how it works with food, but Cannabis now that is a totally different animal.

Millkyjoe is the one that could probably help. He knows his stuff and only getting better. My knowledge is fairly limited in actual application of the science. I've gotten my info from people who work with the science in practical application a lot.

Yes no conclusive studies and information, to date, on forums very limited. Only people that come to mind on IC that have experience are Milkyjoe, Cep, Veg n Out when he was here, and know of at least one other yet don't know if he's posted his experience.

A different way to look at that bolded part is it's all plants. I don't see cannabis as a totally different animal...just a different animal. One group I'm working with now has developed a program specific for cannabis. This year there will be a lot of field trials and some pretty darn big. I'm also setting up some indoor tests. There will be lots of data collected including that for sap. It will be overseen by professionals. To them it's just another plant with certain characteristics just like hops, soybeans or tomatoes. A grower last year that used the program had his flowers tested at a lab. The lab said it had the highest level of CDB they've ever seen and this out of about 4,000 samples. It was a plain Jane strain.

Originally Posted by milkyjoe

And tons of biology to chelate stuff going into the plant to minimize the energy the plant needs to convert stuff. That is, of course, controversial cause conventional wisdom is a plant only takes up soluble ions.

I was talking to an agronomist about something along these lines just a few days ago. In doing some research I came across a company offering a canna specific nute line that are salts. Basically his response was...

The problem with salts are that the plants need to waste a lot of their photosynthetic energy to formulate compounds from the ions they take up from these ferts. The preference is to use plant available, but not soluble, materials that the microbes metabolize into the compounds plants require. This can save as much as 70% of the energy required to formulate compounds and they can utilize that energy for building strong immune systems at a higher level of plant health.

[Only Ornamental]

Originally Posted by milkyjoe

For me it is about having the longest chain compounds possible. That seems to be the best way the best way to increase plant health and quality.

And to me, based on observation only, that means a wide variety of enzymes...a wide variety of enzyme co factors. So some combo of lots of trace minerals...basalt, kelp, sea minerals and sulfate salts of the main micros. And tons of biology to chelate stuff going into the plant to minimize the energy the plant needs to convert stuff. That is, of course, controversial cause conventional wisdom is a plant only takes up soluble ions.

Hi Milky,
No offense, but I do have a few questions/comments concerning your statement (the passages in question are underlined):
- How do you know that your primary metabolites are converted to chains? Cause those are often no more solid and/or no longer in the plant sap, hence 'invisible' using plant sap refractometry...
- Why would you want to add 'a wide variety of enzymes' as fertiliser?
- Every good fertiliser contains a 'combo of lots of trace minerals' because they are as important to the plants as vitamins are to us. Basalt, kelp, sea minerals and sulfate salts of the main micros: That part, I don't get... Basalt and kelp may be nice natural sources for minerals, sea salt too but what is 'sea minerals' and why only sulfate salts?
- Also the sentence 'tons of biology to chelate stuff going into the plant to minimize the energy the plant needs to convert stuff' is somewhat weird. What do you mean exactly by that? A plant doesn't use energy to convert something it can't resorb and resorbed minerals, may they be free or bound to a synthetic or natural chelate, are treated the same way. There's always energy used to 'put them in place' if they don't do it by their own; especially chelates have to be metabolised afterwards to get rid of them.
- And finally that one 'controversial cause conventional wisdom is a plant only takes up soluble ions' is wrong. Because many chelates (natural or synthetic) are soluble and modern science has realised that for example metal complexes with humus can still be resorbed and may even have advantages over 'standard' fertilisers. It's just not understood HOW that works .

[milkyjoe]

A lot of the Albrecht/Reams influenced consultants believe that. But where is the peer reviewed university research backing it up...I can't find it, then again I have not spent that much time looking for it. And every time I ask one of those consultants for it I get blown off.

I would love to hear OO's opinion on that.

My best grow is a mostly Albrecht balanced soil with some salt inputs (CaNO3 and micro salts). Soil also having plenty of basalt and kelp meal added. Extra B fertigated (Albions product) was also very helpful.

[Only Ornamental]

Originally Posted by NorCalDreaming

I was talking to an agronomist about something along these lines just a few days ago. In doing some research I came across a company offering a canna specific nute line that are salts. Basically his response was...

The problem with salts are that the plants need to waste a lot of their photosynthetic energy to formulate compounds from the ions they take up from these ferts. The preference is to use plant available, but not soluble, materials that the microbes metabolize into the compounds plants require. This can save as much as 70% of the energy required to formulate compounds and they can utilize that energy for building strong immune systems at a higher level of plant health.

That, my friend, sounds a loooot like marketing . Or he tried to simplify too much...

Originally Posted by milkyjoe

A lot of the Albrecht/Reams influenced consultants believe that. But where is the peer reviewed university research backing it up...I can't find it, then again I have not spent that much time looking for it. And every time I ask one of those consultants for it I get blown off.

Got it...thx.

Originally Posted by Only Ornamental

That, my friend, sounds a loooot like marketing . Or he tried to simplify too much...

Only thing I can say in response is these people have focused a lot of their consulting working with 'conventional' farms and know their salts. So saying most of their business, maybe that's changed, was derived from this area and not a focus on organic/biological farming. They make money in both areas and their experience/knowledge says that for various reasons biological is the way to go.

So I'll vote he tried to simplify too much. I got the general gist of what he was attempting to convey even though I don't understand things anywhere near on the level you do.