[milkyjoe]

Originally Posted by Only Ornamental

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 .

No offense taken at all. I don't claim to have any real answers, I am learning.

I do not know for a fact longer chains are formed. Other than in plants where tissue testing is done things like protein have formed...that is N plus sugar, right? Or Ca Pectate is a longer chain compound, right?

And yea...a lot of that stuff becomes part of plant and is no longer soluble in the plant. I wonder if Ca influences sap at all. My understanding is it pretty much gets where it is going, forms whatever it forms and that is it. On the other hand something like K mostly stays soluble in the sap, so it greatly influences brix...yet too much k does you no good at all. Plus I wonder if our female plants even have a true sugar sink at all...I am thinking that only happens when a plant is pollinated.

I am looking to get enzyme co factors...does not every enzyme have some metal co factor it needs to form...mostly trace stuff. That is why I like to get a variety of sources in there. And no, not all main traces are through sulfates, obviously the anions cannot be delivered that way...B, Mo for example. I over simplified that.

I actually meant sea salt...I use one that has had the NaCl reduced to about 12%.

I am thinking biology can chelate metals, or complex the single valent stuff, with amino acids and the plant can take that up. There would be energy to break that bond but the plant could then use the amino vs using energy to convert nitrate into amino. No? What I don't know for sure is how much energy does it take to break the bond vs convert nitrate to amino. And I am wondering can you chelate ions with peptides...that could potentially save two energy steps...right?

And, if you have an enzyme that catalyzes any of these reactions you save energy vs not having it right?

That is my thinking anyways. No clue if it is true or not.

[milkyjoe]

And that chelating with organic acids is something I think I have observed that helps. When I use CaNO3 I always add a little fulvic acid to the water with it. I "seem" to get a quicker response that way.

So I wonder is it just the ability of the plant to take up a chelate more effectively that an ion...or is it that it uses less energy once it is in the plant. I don't know.

[Only Ornamental]

Originally Posted by NorCalDreaming

So I'll vote he tried to simplify too much.

That's why I usually don't ask consultants or sales reps but the technician/scientist behind 'em .

Just look at potassium: That ion always stays an ion; it can't be fixed or bound under normal conditions. It also never gives energy off nor turns into energy. It is just resorbed as is, stais mainly in the sap and cytoplasm where it acts as osmotic regulator, helps maintaining the membrane potential and serves as second messenger.
What you can affect, is its behaviour in the soil; for example how fast it will be resorbed and that will directly affect how fast it will be washed out, too.

Using nutrients which should be metabolised by bacteria to be easily available for plants is also not as simple: Maybe you don't have the required mycorrhiza so it won't work. Or you have enough of the right bacteria but they need energy as well; from where do they take it? Right, the plant which they have a symbiosis with provides them with sugar and you have gained nothing!

Every single ion/nutrient is different, each cannabis variety is different, each soil is different; there is no perfect nut mix. You have to adapt by observing your plants; some might do better with organic farming, others in pure chemical hydropontics etc...

[milkyjoe]

And OO....completely off topic but transmutation and pleomorphism...real or no?

[Only Ornamental]

First to the transmutation and pleomorphism:
The former is some sort of 'neoesoteric charlatanry' to me, the latter a simple biological behaviour (that is, if we speak of the same thing here LoL).
To the rest: That has to wait, got to go, sorry .

[milkyjoe]

Originally Posted by Only Ornamental

Using nutrients which should be metabolised by bacteria to be easily available for plants is also not as simple: Maybe you don't have the required mycorrhiza so it won't work. Or you have enough of the right bacteria but they need energy as well; from where do they take it? Right, the plant which they have a symbiosis with provides them with sugar and you have gained nothing!

That is a point I have often wondered about. Is the energy always a wash? Or does one reaction sometimes require less. And does it matter anyways in our case where we can easily provide ferts cause they are such a minor cost compared to the price we get.

Originally Posted by Only Ornamental

That's why I usually don't ask consultants or sales reps but the technician/scientist behind 'em .

Every single ion/nutrient is different, each cannabis variety is different, each soil is different; there is no perfect nut mix. You have to adapt by observing your plants; some might do better with organic farming, others in pure chemical hydropontics etc...

He's an agronomist. Don't know if you consider someone like that a technician/scientist.

I agree there is no perfect nute program. As for variations in varieties, soil, etc. that's where plant testing comes into play such as tissue analysis and sap testing...which is what this thread is about. Well brix really yet that is only one piece of the puzzle.

Originally Posted by Only Ornamental

Using nutrients which should be metabolised by bacteria to be easily available for plants is also not as simple: Maybe you don't have the required mycorrhiza so it won't work. Or you have enough of the right bacteria but they need energy as well; from where do they take it? Right, the plant which they have a symbiosis with provides them with sugar and you have gained nothing!

Wanted to chew on this a bit and hopefully I'm on the right track. Maybe part of that energy loop between the bacteria and plant in regards to sugar should include the energy available from sunlight and CO2?

Milkyjoe...as for the amino acid/complete protein thing can't you monitor sap NO3 as part of determining what's going on in that cycle?

[milkyjoe]

All of the energy comes from sunlight...no? Photosynthesis makes simple sugar which then combines with minerals, N, etc to form other things. Jacking up photosynthesis provides more energy.

It is one reason a lot of the Albrecht/Reams guys have added foliars. Which makes me believe OO is right about the energy thing...the foliars provide the energy for the plant to send sugars to the roots/microbiology which then use that energy to chelate minerals. You are kinda providing those soluble ions just a different way. The question is does this improve plant health, yield, secondary metabolite formation..or not.

A nitrate meter tells you how much nitrate is in the sap, it does not say anything about aminos. When it reaches a certain level it is certain your brix just dropped is all I know.

Thx for the input.

I was just going to the comment about the energy swap of sugar from the plant and bacteria gaining nothing that OO mentioned which I get yet. Was looking at the entire cycle. I need to re-read later when I have more time.

I could have swore I remember reading something about monitoring NO3 levels as part of something to look at in that regard. For sure tissue testing will answer a lot and see why it's so important in monitoring crops.

Anyway should be an interesting year.