A Pain In Molasses

[grapeman]

the fact something is peer-reviewed does not mean it supports your position. you have nothing but anecdotes. when confronted with lack of evidence, your response is to ask for evidence refuting your assertion.

"can you prove it isn't true", in other words.

In other words, "peer review" is only taken as gospel when it comes to man made global warming.

LOLOL

 

[grapeman]

imagine?

Sulphur is a fungicide. It is added to agricultural molasses to prevent infection by fungus. [besides the sulfur naturally occurring in some molasses]

Yes, but it is a weak fungicide (needs continuous weekly use at rates from 8 to 12 lbs./acre applied on the green plant tissue to be effective), which is why the benefits far outweigh the negatives in soil.

I have never seen recommendations for using sulfur as a soil fungicide for soil borne diseases (which would mean it might kill beneficial soil microbes also). Contrarily, augmenting soil with sulfur is recommended all over the planet.

I can see however, how if you have designed and nurtured a soil over time, why you might not see the need. But that is idealistic goal that most will never obtain.

 

[Hank Hemp]

Ever how I'm growing I use nothing but plain water the last 2 weeks. I'm frugal, well cheap anyway.

 

[Microbeman]

What was too much in your greenhouse?

To answer honestly, I do not know but in retrospect I may have mis-spoken because we mixed elemental sulfur into the soil during the initial mix and it is likely different in time of availability than what you used. There is a substance Langbeinite which is sulphate of potash that is directly mined but is apparently almost water soluble.

 

[Microbeman]

Yes, but it is a weak fungicide (needs continuous weekly use at rates from 8 to 12 lbs./acre applied on the green plant tissue to be effective), which is why the benefits far outweigh the negatives in soil.

I have never seen recommendations for using sulfur as a soil fungicide for soil borne diseases (which would mean it might kill beneficial soil microbes also). Contrarily, augmenting soil with sulfur is recommended all over the planet.

I can see however, how if you have designed and nurtured a soil over time, why you might not see the need. But that is idealistic goal that most will never obtain.

In the use I was describing, mixed into a liquid which one is trying to grow microorganisms in, weak or not, its effects would be detrimental. This is entirely different than using it as a general fertilizer or applied directly onto fungi in the rhyzosphere.

Do you use it as a foliar?

I have seen recommendations for applying sulfur as a fungicide foliarly and have used it this way.

I have read some reports/studies indicating that sulfur applications are valuable in soils with low organic matter but may be wasted on rich OM soils.

As to whether S enhances fruit flavor, I have no knowledge but to extrapolate that molasses sweetens cannabis flowers because molasses itself is sweet, which is what most of the supposed intelligent 'marijuana elders' are suggesting (along with the orange juice thing) is in my opinion founded upon imagination. As far as it being the sulfur in molasses which may be contributing to this, well most of the precious elder's recommend unsulfured molasses as I recall.

Any effect occuring is likely a boost in nutrient uptake brought about by feeding the soil microbes and/or a shot of micronutrients and antioxidants.

 

[Microbeman]

I have never seen recommendations for using sulfur as a soil fungicide for soil borne diseases

Do you consider powdery mildew a soil borne disease?

 

[grapeman]

Do you consider powdery mildew a soil borne disease?

No MM, I do not. I consider PM an air borne disease.

I'll have to look through my digital files, but I do recall a study wherein soil sulfur increased terpiniods, increasing odor and flavor in fruit. Having said that, I'm use sulfate of potash in small quantities from week 3 or 4 on. I don't re-cycle my soil. But I'm sure there is profound differences in how one treats soil in a container and how one treats soil in the field. Money comes to mind first.

But using sulfur to increase terpiniods/flavor/odor is Probably so slight that simple genetics might be a better answer.

 

[rrog]

The whole flavor thing is certainly interesting. To me at least. Clearly there's no definitive proof one way or the other, so I would label it "Plausible."

 

[Microbeman]

No MM, I do not. I consider PM an air borne disease.

I found a higher incidence of PM when high chem phosphorous levels were applied to the soil so it makes me wonder. I know the spores are in the air. Perhaps it just sets the conditions for infection.

 

[big_daddy]

Who is Tim?

 

[heady blunts]

Who is Tim?

 

[grapeman]

I found a higher incidence of PM when high chem phosphorous levels were applied to the soil so it makes me wonder. I know the spores are in the air. Perhaps it just sets the conditions for infection.

What would you surmise the correlation to be? Weaker green tissue and more prone to infection then a healthier plant?

 

[TaterMcnuggys]

epic thread

 

[h.h.]

Any thought to the idea that plants conserve their own sugar when it is already present in the soil. Osmosis of sugar would stop with higher soil saturation levels, would it not?
Not that we want more sugar. Not that it tastes bad. We are not smoking pure sugar. Apparently a little bit does add flavor. Flavored tobacco is nothing new. Sweet cigars. Personally, I've been 25 years without nicotine and I no longer want to smoke sugar as well.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691506001773

 

[mad librettist]

yes, that's exactly what the worry is hh. sugar added by people cuts out the middleman, which happens to be your plant.

 

[rrog]

h2, I'm not thinking there's an active system for a plant to uptake anything as large as Sucrose. If acid is added, the Sucrose can be hydrolyzed to Glucose, which is smaller, but my understanding is that Osmolar pressure isn't significant with the plant roots and the cell walls. I believe you'd need a specific active absorption site on the root for absorption of glucose or sucrose, and I don't believe there is one. We know glucose is made by roots and offered up, just not thinking there's a mechanism to absorb glucose. Please correct me if any of that is off base.

MadL brings up a great point. If we feed the bacteria directly, there's no need for the root exudates. A short term bacterial feast would likely increase Protozoa that eats the bacteria. Also given the abobe statement, there may be no feedback for the roots to stop producing bacteria-specific exudates.

 

[Microbeman]

What would you surmise the correlation to be? Weaker green tissue and more prone to infection then a healthier plant?

I just do not know. I can speculate. When using phosphorous many studies show a lack of fungal activity in the rhyzosphere, particularly endomycorrhizal species. Could it be that there is a soil fungi (maybe dark septate endophyte) which may protect against pathogens, either systemically or via physical barrier??

 

[h.h.]

h2, I'm not thinking there's an active system for a plant to uptake anything as large as Sucrose. If acid is added, the Sucrose can be hydrolyzed to Glucose, which is smaller, but my understanding is that Osmolar pressure isn't significant with the plant roots and the cell walls. I believe you'd need a specific active absorption site on the root for absorption of glucose or sucrose, and I don't believe there is one. We know glucose is made by roots and offered up, just not thinking there's a mechanism to absorb glucose. Please correct me if any of that is off base.

MadL brings up a great point. If we feed the bacteria directly, there's no need for the root exudates. A short term bacterial feast would likely increase Protozoa that eats the bacteria. Also given the abobe statement, there may be no feedback for the roots to stop producing bacteria-specific exudates.

i'm not talking about absorbing sugars, rather the plant reserving the sugar it produces as a result of higher levels in the soil.

 

[h.h.]

yes, that's exactly what the worry is hh. sugar added by people cuts out the middleman, which happens to be your plant.

By discouraging even plant produced sugars, wouldn't I get cleaner burning smoke or would something else take it's place?

 

[mad librettist]

we are talking about feeding plant sugar to soil organism - root exudates vs. molasses