DIY Organic Potting Mix's for Grass - Ace Spicoli

[acespicoli]

Impact of Different Growing Substrates on Growth, Yield and Cannabinoid Content of Two Cannabis sativa L. Genotypes in a Pot Culture

The impacts of different growing substrate compositions, consisting of peat (PM), peat substituted with 30% green fibre (G30) and coco coir fibre (CC) growth media, were investigated in regard to the plant height, biomass and floral yield, biomass nitrogen (N) content, root growth, and...

www.mdpi.com

To facilitate root harvesting and processing, aeroponic (AP) and aeroponic-elicited cultures (AEP) were established and compared to soil-cultivated plants (SP). Interestingly, considerably increased plant growth—particularly of the roots—and a significant increase (up to 20-fold in the case of β-sitosterol) in the total content of the aforementioned roots’ bioactive molecules were observed in AP and AEP.

In conclusion, aeroponics, an easy, standardized, contaminant-free cultivation technique, facilitates the harvesting/processing of roots along with a greater production of their secondary bioactive metabolites, which could be utilized in the formulation of health-promoting and health-care products.

5. Conclusions​

The results of this study showed that different substrate compositions, namely coco coir fibres (CC), standard peat-based media (PM) and peat substituted with 30% of green fibres (G30), had significant impacts on the growth, biomass yields, root development and nitrogen (N) tissue content of C. sativa after harvest.

The use of CC as a growing media indicated a reduction in total plant height, leaf N content, leaf DW yields and root length density (RLD) compared to PM and G30 growing media.

Both phytocannabinoid-rich cannabis genotypes reacted in a genotype-specific manner on flower yields. Whereas KAN had the highest floral yield when grown in PM, 0.2x showed no significant differences, with higher yields grown in G30 and CC compared to KAN.

A limiting effect on the CBD/A content enacted by the different substrates could not be confirmed. The impact of different substrate compositions on the growth, development and cannabinoid content of C. sativa is a major issue when considering cannabis’ use as a botanical therapeutic, ideally with a fixed dosage of active compound, with a small range of variation.

It can be concluded that the use of organic green fibres to partly replace the fractionated peat showed a genotype-specific option for constant plant development, a comparable high biomass yield and a stable cannabinoid content, compared to a peat containing standard substrate.

 

[acespicoli]

Terra preta soils also show higher quantities of nutrients, and a better retention of these nutrients, than surrounding infertile soils.[38] The proportion of P reaches 200–400 mg/kg.[51] The quantity of N is also higher in anthrosol, but that nutrient is immobilized because of the high proportion of C over N in the soil.[25]

Anthrosol's availability of P, Ca, Mn and Zn is higher than ferrasol. The absorption of P, K, Ca, Zn, and Cu by the plants increases when the quantity of available charcoal increases. The production of biomass for two crops (rice and Vigna unguiculata) increased by 38–45% without fertilization (P < 0.05), compared to crops on fertilized ferralsol.[25]

Amending with charcoal pieces approximately 20 millimeters (0.79 in) in diameter, instead of ground charcoal, did not change the results except for manganese (Mn), for which absorption considerably increased.[25]

Nutrient leaching is minimal in this anthrosol, despite their abundance, resulting in high fertility. When inorganic nutrients are applied to the soil; however, the nutrients' drainage in anthrosol exceeds that in fertilized ferralsol.[25]

As potential sources of nutrients, only C (via photosynthesis) and N (from biological fixation) can be produced in situ. All the other elements (P, K, Ca, Mg, etc.) must be present in the soil. In Amazonia, the provisioning of nutrients from the decomposition of naturally available organic matter fails as the heavy rainfalls wash away the released nutrients and the natural soils (ferralsols, acrisols, lixisols, arenosols, uxisols, etc.) lack the mineral matter to provide those nutrients. The clay matter that exists in those soils is capable of holding only a small fraction of the nutrients made available from decomposition. In the case of terra preta, the only possible nutrient sources are primary and secondary. The following components have been found:[38]

• Human and animal excrements (rich in P and N);
• Kitchen refuse, such as animal bones and tortoise shells (rich in P and Ca);
• Ash residue from incomplete combustion (rich in Ca, Mg, K, P and charcoal);
• Biomass of terrestrial plants (e.g. compost); and
• Biomass of aquatic plants (e.g. algae).

Saturation in pH and in base is more important than in the surrounding soils.[51][52]

Microorganisms and animals​

The peregrine earthworm Pontoscolex corethrurus (Oligochaeta: Glossoscolecidae) ingests charcoal and mixes it into a finely ground form with the mineral soil. P. corethrurus is widespread in Amazonia and notably in clearings after burning processes thanks to its tolerance of a low content of organic matter in the soil.[53] This as an essential element in the generation of terra preta, associated with agronomic knowledge involving layering the charcoal in thin regular layers favorable to its burying by P. corethrurus.[citation needed]

Some ants are repelled from fresh terra preta; their density is found to be low about 10 days after production compared to that in control soils.[54]

Modern research on creating terra preta​

Synthetic terra preta​

A newly coined term is 'synthetic terra preta'.[55][56] STP is a fertilizer consisting of materials thought to replicate the original materials, including crushed clay, blood and bone meal, manure and biochar[55] is of particulate nature and capable of moving down the soil profile and improving soil fertility and carbon in the current soil peds and aggregates over a viable time frame.[57] Such a mixture provides multiple soil improvements reaching at least the quality of terra mulata. Blood, bone meal and chicken manure are useful for short term organic manure addition.[58] Perhaps the most important and unique part of the improvement of soil fertility is carbon, thought to have been gradually incorporated 4 to 10 thousand years ago.[59] Biochar is capable of decreasing soil acidity and if soaked in nutrient rich liquid can slowly release nutrients and provide habitat for microbes in soil due to its high porosity surface area.[2]

The goal is an economically viable process that could be included in modern agriculture. Average poor tropical soils are easily enrichable to terra preta nova by the addition of charcoal and condensed smoke.[60] Terra preta may be an important avenue of future carbon sequestration while reversing the current worldwide decline in soil fertility and associated desertification. Whether this is possible on a larger scale has yet to be proven. Tree Lucerne (tagasaste or Cytisus proliferus) is one type of fertilizer tree used to make terra preta. Efforts to recreate these soils are underway by companies such as Embrapa and other organizations in Brazil.[61]

Synthetic terra preta is produced at the Sachamama Center for Biocultural Regeneration in High Amazon, Peru. This area has many terra preta soil zones, demonstrating that this anthrosol was created not only in the Amazon basin, but also at higher elevations.[62]

A synthetic terra preta process was developed by Alfons-Eduard Krieger to produce a high humus, nutrient-rich, water-adsorbing soil.[63]

Terra preta sanitation​

Terra preta sanitation (TPS) systems have been studied as an alternative sanitation option by using the effects of lactic-aid conditions in urine-diverting dry toilets and a subsequent treatment by vermicomposting.[64]

 

[acespicoli]

Why Not Just Use Field Soil

docs.google.com

 

[flower~power]

Why Not Just Use Field Soil

docs.google.com

 

[acespicoli]

https://tools.pthorticulture.com/CompareYourCost/CompareYourCost.aspx

http://hort.cornell.edu/greenhouse/crops/factsheets/beyond_liquid_feed.pdf

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article​

Front. Plant Sci., 16 November 2021

Sec. Crop and Product Physiology

Volume 12 - 2021 | https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2021.764103

This article is part of the Research Topic Behind the Smoke and Mirrors: Reflections on Improving Cannabis Production and Investigating Medical Potential View all 16 articles

Optimisation of Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Potassium for Soilless Production of Cannabis sativa in the Flowering Stage Using Response Surface Analysis​

 

[acespicoli]

Front. Plant Sci., 16 November 2021​

Sec. Crop and Product Physiology

Volume 12 - 2021 | https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2021.764103

​

Discussion​

The goal of this study was to determine the optimal concentration of N, P, and K in the nutrient solution for the flowering stage of soilless cannabis production using RSM. The optimal concentrations of nutrient solution N and P was predicted to be approximately 194 mg L–1 N, and 59 mg L–1 P, respectively. Based on analysis of the response surface model, it was found N and P were the most important factors in predicting inflorescence yield. Inflorescence yield decreased markedly outside of the range of 160–230 mg L–1 N, and 40–80 mg L–1 P. These findings suggest that drug-type cannabis responds well to nitrogen and phosphorus during the flowering stage. Inflorescence yield did not respond to nutrient solution K concentration within the tested range, indicating the K currently supplied (300–400 mg L–1) by some commercial cultivators are likely too high.

Inflorescence yield had a strong positive correlation with a number of vegetative growth attributes. The strong correlation between inflorescence yield and plant growth index indicates that larger plant size can result in higher inflorescence yield. Nutrient supply, especially N, can determine cannabis plant size as N is an essential component of plant chlorophyll and ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase-oxygenase (Rubisco). Low levels of N can reduce plant photosynthetic capacity and limit plant growth (Saloner and Bernstein, 2020). For flowering drug-type cannabis in soilless culture, supply of 30 and 80 mg L–1 N restricted whole plant and inflorescence growth, but plants performed optimally with supply of 160–320 mg L–1 N (Saloner and Bernstein, 2021). The optimal N supply (194 mg L–1) found in our study is within their range, despite the two studies using two different growing methods and plants with different genetic backgrounds. For drug-type cannabis during the flowering stage in an organic-based soilless production system, the optimal N supply was slightly higher (212–261 mg L–1; Caplan et al., 2017a) than the optimal level found in the present study. A possible explanation for the higher optimal N supply in the organic fertiliser study is that N from organic-based fertilisers may not always be readily available, as the release of N from organic fertilisers depends on the speed and extent of the mineralisation process (Hartz et al., 2010; Dion et al., 2020). Though it is unclear what source of organic nitrogen was used in their study, factoring in organic N availability of around 60% would put our findings in line with those by Caplan et al. (2017a). Along with aboveground growth, root growth also contributes to overall plant size. We found that inflorescence yield had a strong positive correlation with root dry weight, supporting our conclusion that larger plants produce higher yields. The context of where plants spend their energy is important. For industrial hemp, increasing N supply increased plant growth, but this growth was partitioned more towards stem material rather than valuable inflorescence material (Campiglia et al., 2017). Further investigations of cannabis response to nitrogen should consider product quality, and the distribution of biomass to various plant organs to maximise inflorescence growth and quality.

While modelling of cannabis inflorescence yield response to N, P, and K with surface analysis accounts for interaction between nutrients, the surface response model demonstrated that K, within the tested range of 60–340 mg L–1, had no effect on inflorescence yield. This lack of response may suggest that 60 mg L–1 K is not low enough to cause nutrient deficiency, and 340 mg L–1K is not high enough to cause toxicity. Moreover, cannabis responses to K may be genotype specific. Plants of one cannabis genotype Royal Medic supplied with 240 mg L–1 K had 25% reduced fresh shoot and root biomass by compared to those fed with 175 mg L–1, while plants of genotype Desert Queen had up to 40% increased shoot and root biomass (Saloner et al., 2019). Plant height, number of nodes on the main stem, and stem diameter of these two genotypes remained similar, so this difference in biomass was caused by one genotype becoming “bushier” than the other under high K supply. These differences in the response to K supply may be due to differences in plant tissue (e.g., main stem vs. side branch) sensitivity to K. Plant phenological stage (i.e., vegetative or flowering stage) may also be a factor in cannabis response to K supply. In a previous study of flowering aquaponic cannabis response to K, inflorescence yield increased when plants were provided with K up to 150 mg L–1 (Yep and Zheng, 2020). Genotype and plant phenological stage should be considered in future studies looking at cannabis response to nutrients, especially K.

Many commercial cannabis cultivation operations currently use fertiliser formulations that contain very high levels of P (more than 200 mg L–1 P in some cases). This practice is based on anecdotal evidence that P enhances inflorescence production. These concentrations are much higher than the optimal rate of 60 mg L–1 P found in our study, and at the higher range could cause reduction of both plant growth and inflorescence yield. In addition to reducing plant growth and yield, excessive supply of nutrients is a potential source of environmental pollution. Though, cannabis does appear to have the ability to store and mobilise certain amount of P when required. When provided with P higher than 30 mg L–1 in the vegetative stage, cannabis sequestered excess P in root tissue to prevent excess accumulation in the shoots (Shiponi and Bernstein, 2021). A greater understanding of what cannabis P requirements are, and whether there is any truth to the practice of supplying high concentrations of P, should be a priority for making cannabis production more sustainable. However, based on existing data it appears that the levels of P found in many cannabis specific commercial fertilisers are far higher than needed and could lead to negative environmental impacts.

While the cannabinoid concentrations in the floral tissues in our study did not respond to nutrient solution NPK concentrations, other studies indicate that plant mineral nutrition can affect production of secondary metabolites in cannabis (Caplan et al., 2017a; Saloner and Bernstein, 2021). There appears to be an inverse relationship between cannabis yield and potency, with cannabinoid concentrations decreasing as plant inflorescence yield increases. Inflorescence from plants supplied with 160 mg L–1N had approximately 30 and 20% lower concentrations of THCA and CBDA than plants supplied with 30 mg L–1N (Saloner and Bernstein, 2021). However, while nutrient stress and deficiency may enhance inflorescence cannabinoid content, this method is not ideal for optimising overall plant productivity as plants supplied with 160 mg L–1 N yielded twice that of those supplied with 30 mg L–1N. Cannabis grown in two organic growing media with different organic fertiliser rates (i.e., 57, 113, 170, 226, and 283 mg L–1N) had negative linear relationships between the concentrations of inflorescence THCA and CBGA and the fertiliser application rate for some of the treatment combinations (i.e., growing media and fertiliser rate) (Caplan et al., 2017a). However, for the most of the treatment combinations, fertiliser rates from 57 to 226 mg L–1N did not have any effects on THCA or CBGA concentrations; and the cannabinoid concentrations only dropped when the fertiliser rate increased to the highest level of 283 mg L–1N. The context of yield is again important when analysing differences in cannabinoid content as THCA concentrations dropped by ∼20% in the highest fertiliser rate, but inflorescence yield almost doubled vs. lowest fertiliser rate. As noted by Bernstein et al. (2019), an understanding of how nutrient supply influences cannabinoid concentrations would be an important step towards controlling and standardising the cannabinoid contents of medical cannabis. Cannabinoid concentrations are also important to recreational consumers, who rank THC and CBD concentrations among the most important factors when making purchasing decisions (Zhu et al., 2020). Given that cannabinoids are the compounds that make cannabis so uniquely valuable, more work needs to be done to investigate the effect of mineral nutrition on cannabis yield, and the relationship between yield and potency. Further work should also evaluate other compounds that are known to impact product quality.

The use of central-composite design allows experimenters to account for potential interactions between the different nutrients. This is important as nutrient interactions have been shown to affect plant nutrient uptake (Fageria, 2001; Rietra et al., 2017). A recent study found that high K supply decreased concentrations of Ca and Mg in cannabis leaf tissue, indicating antagonistic relationships between these positively charged ions (Saloner et al., 2019). An understanding of how combinations of nutrients at different concentrations affect crop growth, yield, and quality is important for the development of recommendations for the commercial cannabis industry. Had the same number of nutrients and nutrient levels as were included in this study been investigated with a traditional full-factorial design, many more nutrient solution treatment groups would have been required, compared to the number of treatment groups used in this study. The difference in number of treatment groups needed can be more pronounced as more factors (i.e., Ca, Mg) are included. Considering the high cost of cannabis and growing space in controlled environments, the response surface approach allowed us to complete this study where another experimental design may have been prohibitive.

No matter the experimental design used, an inherent problem in nutrient solution experiments is that nutrients cannot be added individually but must be added as a compound containing both anions and cations. Further, the ionic balance constraint requires the sum of the charges of cations and anions in solution to be equal (De Rijck and Schrevens, 1999b). The implication for formulating experimental treatment solutions is that it is practically impossible to change the level of one nutrient while keeping concentrations of all other nutrients the same. In this study, we focused on N, P, and K concentrations while attempting to keep all other nutrients at reasonable levels using commonly available horticultural fertiliser compounds. For example, potassium nitrate and calcium nitrate usually contribute to the bulk of nitrogen, potassium, and calcium in horticultural nutrient solutions (Resh, 2012). Formulating a high N, low K nutrient solution with these fertilisers results in higher levels of Ca than other nutrient solution treatments. Likewise, a low N, high K nutrient solution necessitates an additional source of K such as KCl, which would increase solution Cl concentration. Higher concentrations of nutrients such as Ca and Cl bring the potential for nutrient interactions which may affect experimental results. The lack of response to K in the range of 60–340 mg L–1 observed in our trial may be partially due to competition for uptake from Ca. Regarding experimental Cl levels, hydroponic cannabis has been shown to tolerate rates of 180 mg L–1 Cl with no impact on yield or potency (Yep et al., 2020a) so it is unlikely Cl levels limited plant growth in this trial. Though less than ideal in an experimental setting, there is no perfect solution for the problem of keeping all nutrient concentrations the same when formulating treatment solutions.

While this trial determined the theoretical optimum levels of N and P for the DWC growing method, these levels may not be definitive for all production methods or genotypes. Our trial was conducted in solution culture with weekly nutrient solution changes, and the EC and pH dynamics of our DWC units are likely different than other growing methods, meaning that plant nutrient availability and overall salinity of the nutrient solution would also likely be considerably different. Many commercial cannabis operations utilise substrate-based soilless cultivation systems, such as coir in containers, that may offer more nutrient and pH buffering capacity (Zheng, 2020). Having said that, our trial does represent or closely resemble some common soilless production practices, such as growing cannabis in rockwool, in the current cannabis production industry (Zheng, 2021). The treatments were applied only during the short-day period (i.e., flowering stage), and considering that plant nutrient requirement may vary at different development stages, the same experiment may also need to be conducted for the vegetative stage. Another limitation of our study was that we only used a single cannabis cultivar. Similar experiments should be performed on different cultivars, with disparate growth habits and cannabinoid compositions to investigate how individual cultivars may respond to NPK treatment levels. Additionally, this study only looked at inflorescence yield and cannabinoid composition and did not evaluate the impact of NPK on inflorescence terpene content or organoleptic properties.

Drug-type cannabis is still a relatively new crop in the legal setting, especially for large-scale commercial production, and many aspects of its cultivation are relatively unknown. We found that response surface methodology was a suitable experimental approach for investigation of cannabis responses to NPK, and that modelling of yield response to these nutrients aided us in achieving our experimental objective. Based on the results of this study, we recommend providing plants with a nutrient solution containing N and P at approximately 194 and 59 mg L–1, respectively, to achieve maximal inflorescence yield. Future studies should investigate the inflorescence yield and vegetative growth response of genetically diverse cultivars to macronutrients and include more quality parameters to ensure that plant yields do not compromise product quality. Improving our understanding of cannabis responses to mineral nutrients is an essential step towards the effective and sustainable cultivation of this high-value horticultural crop

 

[acespicoli]

Basic Fertilizer Programs for Containerized Greenhouse Crops

What fertilizer program should I use to grow my greenhouse crop? This is a common question and one that has more than one answer. Different approaches to fertilizing can be used to produce a high quality crop of any species. Often despite major differences in fertilizer programs between two...

ag.umass.edu

Frontiers | Cannabis Hunger Games: nutrient stress induction in flowering stage – impact of organic and mineral fertilizer levels on biomass, cannabidiol (CBD) yield and nutrient use efficiency

Indoor medicinal cannabis cultivation systems enable year-round cultivation and better control of growing factors, however, such systems are energy and resou...

www.frontiersin.org

Effect of Potassium (K) Supply on Cannabinoids, Terpenoids and Plant Function in Medical Cannabis

We have demonstrated in previous studies that the essential macro-nutrients nitrogen (N) and phosporous (P) have profound effects on the production of cannabinoids and terpenoids in the cannabis plant. The present study was undertaken to evaluate the hypothesis that potassium (K) supply, which...

www.mdpi.com

Frontiers | Impact of N, P, K, and Humic Acid Supplementation on the Chemical Profile of Medical Cannabis (Cannabis sativa L)

Mineral nutrition is a major factor affecting plant growth and function. Increasing evidence supports the involvement of macro and micronutrients in secondar...

www.frontiersin.org

 

[acespicoli]

Inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Soilless Greenhouse Media​

Saturated Media Extract (SME) Test .........................................................$ 30.00 per sample


Provides pH of water saturated media, electrical conductivity and nutrient content (Nitrate-N, Ammonium-N, P, K, Ca, Mg, Zn, B, Mn, Cu, and Fe)

Optional Additional Greenhouse Media Analysis

Percent Organic Matter (determined by loss on ignition)...............$ 6.00 per sample

Additional Elements, Sulfur and Sodium............................................$ 5.00 per sample

Saturated Media pH and Electrical Conductivity only.............................$ 15.00 per sample


Optional Additional Greenhouse Media pH & EC only


Percent Organic Matter (determined by loss on ignition).............$ 6.00 per sample


Recommendations are given to commercial greenhouses and growers by an Extension Educator as needed.

Lab Services

Soil - The Routine Soil Analysis is not intended for greenhouse planting mixes or organic soils containing more than 20% organic matter. Routine Soil Analysis ...............................................................................$ 20.00 per sample Analysis includes pH, exchangeable...

ag.umass.edu

 

[acespicoli]

Indoor grown cannabis yield increased proportionally with light intensity, but ultraviolet radiation did not affect yield or cannabinoid content

Cannabis (Cannabis sativa) flourishes under high light intensities (LI); making it an expensive commodity to grow in controlled environments, despite its high market value. It is commonly believed that cannabis secondary metabolite levels may be enhanced ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[acespicoli]

No matter the experimental design used, an inherent problem in nutrient solution experiments is that nutrients cannot be added individually but must be added as a compound containing both anions and cations. Further, the ionic balance constraint requires the sum of the charges of cations and anions in solution to be equal (De Rijck and Schrevens, 1999b). The implication for formulating experimental treatment solutions is that it is practically impossible to change the level of one nutrient while keeping concentrations of all other nutrients the same.

For flowering drug-type cannabis in soilless culture, supply of
30 and 80 mg L–1 N restricted whole plant and inflorescence growth,
but plants performed optimally with supply of
160–320 mg L–1 N (Saloner and Bernstein, 2021).

Based on the results of this study, we recommend providing plants with a nutrient solution containing at approximately
N 194 mg L–1
P 59 mg L–1,
respectively, to achieve maximal inflorescence yield.

For drug-type cannabis during the flowering stage in an organic-based soilless production system, the
optimal N supply was slightly higher
( N 212–261 mg L–1; Caplan et al., 2017a) than the optimal level found in the present study.
A possible explanation for the higher optimal N supply in the organic fertiliser study is that N from organic-based fertilisers may not always be readily available, as the release of N from organic fertilisers depends on the speed and extent of the mineralisation process (Hartz et al., 2010; Dion et al., 2020).

Though, cannabis does appear to have the ability to store and mobilise certain amount of P when required. When provided with P higher than 30 mg L–1 in the vegetative stage, cannabis sequestered excess P in root tissue to prevent excess accumulation in the shoots (Shiponi and Bernstein, 2021).

A recent study found that high K supply decreased concentrations of Ca and Mg in cannabis leaf tissue, indicating antagonistic relationships between these positively charged ions (Saloner et al., 2019).

Inflorescence yield did not respond to nutrient solution K concentration within the tested range, indicating the K (300–400 mg L–1) by some commercial cultivators are likely too high.

Plants of one cannabis genotype Royal Medic supplied with 240 mg L–1 K had 25% reduced fresh shoot and root biomass by compared to those fed with 175 mg L–1, while plants of genotype Desert Queen had up to 40% increased shoot and root biomass (Saloner et al., 2019).

In a previous study of flowering aquaponic cannabis response to K, inflorescence yield increased when plants were provided with K up to 150 mg L–1 (Yep and Zheng, 2020). Genotype and plant phenological stage should be considered in future studies looking at cannabis response to nutrients, especially K.

Frontiers | Response of Medical Cannabis (Cannabis sativa L.) Genotypes to K Supply Under Long Photoperiod

Potassium is involved in regulation of multiple developmental, physiological, and metabolic processes in plants, including photosynthesis and water relations...

www.frontiersin.org

Front. Plant Sci., 17 November 2019
Sec. Crop and Product Physiology
Volume 10 - 2019 | https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2019.01369
Concentration of K in the leachate solution is another indicator of plant requirement and uptake. In the present study, K concentration in the leachate was higher than in the irrigation solution only at the 175 and 240 ppm K treatments (Figure 8B), indicating that K supply under these treatments exceeded plant uptake. Nutrient concentration in the leachate is an integral result of water and mineral uptake by the plants. When water is taken up to a greater extent than a mineral, its concentration in the leachate will exceed the concentration in the irrigation solution. The concentration of K in the leachates of the three lower K treatments was similar to the concentration in the irrigation solution, demonstrating similar uptake rates of K and water. Under 175–240 ppm K application, the higher concentration of K in the leachate compared to the irrigation solution demonstrate that the rate of water uptake was higher than for K, resulting in an increase in K. This suggests that 175 ppm K is higher than the plant requirement.

Micronutrient uptake is a limiting growth factor for foliage and shoot development in many plant species under various growing conditions (Baszyński et al., 1978; Ohki et al., 1980; Clark, 1982; Webb and Loneragan, 1988; Yu and Rengel, 1999). No information is currently available about micronutrient requirements or effects on medical cannabis, and our results present initial understanding. Under the cultivation conditions and rate of nutrient supply at the present study, the two cannabis cultivars examined did not show any signs of micronutrient deficiencies, suggesting sufficient supply (Figure 4). Surprisingly, most micronutrients and the beneficial element Na, did not translocate to the shoot but tended to accumulate in the root. Zinc, Mn, Fe, Cu, and Cl as well as Na concentrations were all higher in the root compared to the shoot, suggesting a compartmentation strategy for temporary storage, or for prevention of access concentrations at the shoot tissues. Results of the comparative analyses point at competitive uptake between K and Mn, Zn and Fe, since concentrations of the latter decreased with increased K supply. Na uptake was less affected by this competition (Figure 4E), in accord with its known strong competition abilities with K for root uptake (Amtmann and Leigh, 2010), or due to its very low concentration in the fertigation solution, which was prepared with distilled water. The uptake of another micronutrient, Cl, was not affected by cultivar or K supply (Figure 4F), probably because its concentrations was low and within the range accepted as optimal to most plants (Parker et al., 1983; Marchner, 2012).

 

[acespicoli]

Soil-Nutrient Relationships​

Cation exchange​

The ‘soil cations’ essential for plant growth include ammonium, calcium, magnesium, and potassium. There are three additional ‘soil cations,’ which are not essential plant elements but affect soil pH. The additional ‘soil cations’ include sodium, aluminum and hydrogen.

Soil cations that are essential to plant growth

• Ammonium
• Calcium
• Magnesium
• Potassium

Soil cations that affect soil pH

• Sodium
• Aluminum
• Hydrogen

The major distinguishing characteristic of cations is their positive charge. Just like a magnet, a positive charge is strongly attracted to a negative charge. When soil particles have a negative charge, the particles attract and retain cations. These soils are said the have a cation exchange capacity. Although most soils are negatively charged and attract cations, some Hawaii soils are exceptions as we will see.


The ‘soil cations’ are further divided into two categories. Ammonium, calcium, magnesium, potassium, and sodium are known as the ‘base cations,’ while aluminum and hydrogen are known ‘acid cations.’

Base Cations

• Ammonium
• Calcium
• Magnesium
• Potassium
• Sodium*

* Unlike the other base cations, sodium is not an essential element for all plants. Soils that contain high levels of sodium can develop salinity and sodicity problems.

Acid Cations

• Aluminum
• Hydrogen

The words ‘base’ and ‘acid’ refer to the particular cation’s influence on soil pH. As you might suspect, a soil with a lot of acid cations held by soil particles will have a low pH. In contrast, a highly alkaline soil predominately consists of base cations.


Cations in the soil compete with one another for a spot on the cation exchange capacity. However, some cations are attracted and held more strongly than other cations. In decreasing holding strength, the order with which cations are held by the soil particles follows: aluminum, hydrogen, calcium, potassium and nitrate, and sodium.

Figure 2. CEC values of various soil type, media, and minerals. Soils which have high amounts of organic matter and moderately weathered clays tend to have high CECs. As soils become highly weathered, the CEC of the soil decreases. Sandy soils, too, generally have lower CEC values. This is due to the lesser surface of sandy particles in comparison with clay minerals, which decreases the ability of sand particles to hold and retain nutrients.
Source: Brady and Weil. 2002. Elements of the Nature and Properties of Soil. Prentice Hall, New Jersey.

Anion exchange​

In the tropics, many highly weathered soils can have an anion exchange capacity. This means that the soil will attract and retain anions, rather than cations. In contrast to cations, anions are negatively charged. The anions held and retained by soil particles include phosphate, sulfate, nitrate and chlorine (in order of decreasing strength). In comparison to soils with cation exchange capacity, soils with an anion capacity have net positive charge. Soils that have an anion exchange capacity typically contain weathered kaolin minerals, iron and aluminum oxides, and amorphous materials. Anion exchange capacity is dependent upon the pH of the soil and increases as the pH of the soil decreases.

Base Saturation​

Base saturation is a measurement that indicates the relative amounts of base cations in the soil. By definition, it is the percentage of calcium, magnesium, potassium and sodium cations that make up the total cation exchange capacity. For example, a base saturation of 25 % means that 25 % of the cation exchange capacity is occupied by the base cations. If the soil does not exhibit an anion exchange capacity, the remainder 75 % of the CEC will be occupied by acid cations, such as hydrogen and aluminum. Generally, the base saturation is relatively high in moderately weathered soils that formed from basic igneous rocks, such as the basalts of Hawaii. The pH of soil increases as base saturation increases.


In contrast, highly weathered and/or acidic soils tend to have low base saturation.

Movement of nutrient from soil to root​

There are three basic methods in which nutrients make contact with the root surface for plant uptake. They are root interception, mass flow, and diffusion.

• Root interception: Root interception occurs when a nutrient comes into physical contact with the root surface. As a general rule, the occurrence of root interception increases as the root surface area and mass increases, thus enabling the plant to explore a greater amount of soil. Root interception may be enhanced by mycorrhizal fungi, which colonize roots and increases root exploration into the soil. Root interception is responsible for an appreciable amount of calcium uptake, and some amounts of magnesium, zinc and manganese.
• Mass flow: Mass flow occurs when nutrients are transported to the surface of roots by the movement of water in the soil (i.e. percolation, transpiration, or evaporation). The rate of water flow governs the amount of nutrients that are transported to the root surface. Therefore, mass flow decreases are soil water decreases. Most of the nitrogen, calcium, magnesium, sulfur, copper, boron, manganese and molybdenum move to the root by mass flow.
• Diffusion: Diffusion is the movement of a particular nutrient along a concentration gradient. When there is a difference in concentration of a particular nutrient within the soil solution, the nutrient will move from an area of higher concentration to an area of lower concentration. You may have observed the phenomenon of diffusion when adding sugar to water. As the sugar dissolves, it moves through parts of the water with lower sugar concentration until it is evenly distributed, or uniformly concentrated. Diffusion delivers appreciable amounts of phosphorus, potassium, zinc, and iron to the root surface. Diffusion is a relatively slow process compared to the mass flow of nutrients with water movement toward the root.

Nutrient Uptake into the root and plant cells​

Before both water and nutrients are incorporated into plants, both must first be absorbed by plant roots.

Uptake of water and nutrients by roots​

• Root hairs, along with the rest of the root surface, are the major sites of water and nutrient uptake.
• Water moves into the root through osmosis and capillary action.
• Soil water contains dissolved particles, such as plant nutrients. These dissolved particles within soil water are referred to as solute. Osmosis is the movement of soil water from areas of low solute concentration to areas of high solute concentration. Osmosis is essentially the diffusion of soil water.
• Capillary action results from water’s adhesive (attraction to solid surfaces) and cohesion (attraction to other water molecules). Capillary action enables water to move upwards, against the force of gravity, into the plant water from the surrounding soil.
• Nutrient ions move into the plant root by diffusion and cation exchange.
• Diffusion is the movement of ions along a high to low concentration gradient.
• Cation ion exchange occurs when nutrient cations are attracted to charged surface of cells within the root, called cortex cells. When cation exchange occurs, the plant root releases a hydrogen ion. Thus, cation exchange in the root causes the pH of the immediately surrounding soil to decrease.
• Once water and nutrient ions enter the plant root, they move though spaces that exist within the root tissue between neighboring cells.
• Water and nutrients are then transported into the xylem, which conducts water and nutrients to all parts of the plant.

Once water and nutrients enter the xylem, both can be transported to other parts in the plant where the water and nutrients are needed. The basic outline of how nutrient ions are absorbed by plant cells follows.

Absorption of nutrients into plant cells​

• Plant cells contain barriers (plasma membrane and tonoplast) that selectively regulate the movement of water and nutrients into and out of the cell. These cell barriers are:
• permeable to oxygen, carbon dioxide, as well as certain compounds.
• semi-permeable to water.
• selectively permeable to inorganic ions and organic compounds, such as amino acids and sugars.
• Nutrient ions may move across these barriers actively or passively
• Passive transport is the diffusion of an ion along a concentration gradient. When the interior of the cell has a lower concentration of a specific nutrient than the outside of the cell, the nutrient can diffuse into the cell. This type of transport requires no energy.
• Active transport is the movement of a nutrient ion into the cell that occurs against a concentration gradient. Unlike passive transport, this type of movement requires energy.

Nutrient Mobility​

Within plant​

An important characteristic of some nutrients is the ability to move within the plant tissue. In general, when certain nutrients are deficient in the plant tissue, that nutrient is able translocate from older leaves to younger leaves where that nutrient is needed for growth. Nutrients with this ability are said to be mobile nutrients, and include nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, magnesium, and molybdenum. In contrast, immobile nutrients do not have the ability to translocate from old to new growth. Immobile nutrients include calcium, sulfur, boron, copper, iron, manganese, and zinc.
Nutrient mobility, or immobility, provides us with special clues when diagnosing deficiency symptoms. If the deficiency symptom appears first in the old growth, we know that the deficient nutrient is mobile. On the other hand, if the symptom appears in new growth, the deficient nutrient is immobile.

Within the soil​

Mobility of a nutrient within the soil is closely related to the chemical properties of the soil, such as CEC and AEC, as well as the soil conditions, such as moisture. When there is sufficient moisture in the soil for leaching to occur, the percolating water can carry dissolved nutrients which will be subsequently lost from the soil profile. The nutrients which are easily leached are usually those nutrients that are less strongly held by soil particles. For instance, in a soil with a high CEC and low AEC, nitrate (an anion) will leach much more readily than calcium (a cation). Additionally, in such a soil, potassium (a monovalent cation) will leach more readily than calcium (divalent cation) since calcium is more strongly held to the soil particles than potassium.


Silica from minerals also dissolves and leaches from the soil profile during the processes of weathering. It is this dissolution and leaching that transforms primary minerals to the more weathered, secondary minerals that make up the finely-textured soils of Maui.

 

[shiva82]

it is a pleasure reading your posts acespicoli .i feel i always need a pen and paper when i read your threads. you are a credit to the community . thanks

 

[acespicoli]

Movement of nutrient from soil to root​

There are three basic methods in which nutrients make contact with the root surface for plant uptake. They are root interception, mass flow, and diffusion.

• Root interception: Root interception occurs when a nutrient comes into physical contact with the root surface. As a general rule, the occurrence of root interception increases as the root surface area and mass increases, thus enabling the plant to explore a greater amount of soil. Root interception may be enhanced by mycorrhizal fungi, which colonize roots and increases root exploration into the soil. Root interception is responsible for an appreciable amount of calcium uptake, and some amounts of magnesium, zinc and manganese.
• Mass flow: Mass flow occurs when nutrients are transported to the surface of roots by the movement of water in the soil (i.e. percolation, transpiration, or evaporation). The rate of water flow governs the amount of nutrients that are transported to the root surface. Therefore, mass flow decreases are soil water decreases. Most of the nitrogen, calcium, magnesium, sulfur, copper, boron, manganese and molybdenum move to the root by mass flow.
• Diffusion: Diffusion is the movement of a particular nutrient along a concentration gradient. When there is a difference in concentration of a particular nutrient within the soil solution, the nutrient will move from an area of higher concentration to an area of lower concentration. You may have observed the phenomenon of diffusion when adding sugar to water. As the sugar dissolves, it moves through parts of the water with lower sugar concentration until it is evenly distributed, or uniformly concentrated. Diffusion delivers appreciable amounts of phosphorus, potassium, zinc, and iron to the root surface. Diffusion is a relatively slow process compared to the mass flow of nutrients with water movement toward the root.

it is a pleasure reading your posts acespicoli .i feel i always need a pen and paper when i read your threads. you are a credit to the community . thanks

studying all this does seem similar to being in a class you enjoy now that you mention it
Very kind, glad to see we have similar interests Will follow along with your studies as well. Thank you!

Uptake processes​

Nutrients in the soil are taken up by the plant through its roots, and in particular its root hairs. To be taken up by a plant, a nutrient element must be located near the root surface; however, the supply of nutrients in contact with the root is rapidly depleted within a distance of ca. 2 mm.[14] There are three basic mechanisms whereby nutrient ions dissolved in the soil solution are brought into contact with plant roots:

1. Mass flow of water
2. Diffusion within water
3. Interception by root growth

All three mechanisms operate simultaneously, but one mechanism or another may be most important for a particular nutrient.[15] For example, in the case of calcium, which is generally plentiful in the soil solution, except when aluminium over competes calcium on cation exchange sites in very acid soils (pH less than 4),[16] mass flow alone can usually bring sufficient amounts to the root surface. However, in the case of phosphorus, diffusion is needed to supplement mass flow.[17] For the most part, nutrient ions must travel some distance in the soil solution to reach the root surface. This movement can take place by mass flow, as when dissolved nutrients are carried along with the soil water flowing toward a root that is actively drawing water from the soil. In this type of movement, the nutrient ions are somewhat analogous to leaves floating down a stream. In addition, nutrient ions continually move by diffusion from areas of greater concentration toward the nutrient-depleted areas of lower concentration around the root surface. That process is due to random motion, also called Brownian motion, of molecules within a gradient of decreasing concentration.[18] By this means, plants can continue to take up nutrients even at night, when water is only slowly absorbed into the roots as transpiration has almost stopped following stomatal closure. Finally, root interception comes into play as roots continually grow into new, undepleted soil. By this way roots are also able to absorb nanomaterials such as nanoparticulate organic matter.[19]

Estimated relative importance of mass flow, diffusion and root interception as mechanisms in supplying plant nutrients to corn plant roots in soils[20]

Mass flow	Root interception	Diffusion
Nutrient	Approximate percentage supplied by:
Nitrogen	98.8	1.2	0
Phosphorus	6.3	2.8	90.9
Potassium	20.0	2.3	77.7
Calcium	71.4	28.6	0
Sulfur	95.0	5.0	0
Molybdenum	95.2	4.8	0

In the above table, phosphorus and potassium nutrients move more by diffusion than they do by mass flow in the soil water solution, as they are rapidly taken up by the roots creating a concentration of almost zero near the roots (the plants cannot transpire enough water to draw more of those nutrients near the roots). The very steep concentration gradient is of greater influence in the movement of those ions than is the movement of those by mass flow.[21] The movement by mass flow requires the transpiration of water from the plant causing water and solution ions to also move toward the roots.[22] Movement by root interception is slowest, being at the rate plants extend their roots.[23]

Plants move ions out of their roots in an effort to move nutrients in from the soil, an exchange process which occurs in the root apoplast.[24] Hydrogen H+ is exchanged for other cations, and carbonate (HCO3−) and hydroxide (OH−) anions are exchanged for nutrient anions.[25] As plant roots remove nutrients from the soil water solution, they are replenished as other ions move off of clay and humus (by ion exchange or desorption), are added from the weathering of soil minerals, and are released by the decomposition of soil organic matter. However, the rate at which plant roots remove nutrients may not cope with the rate at which they are replenished in the soil solution, stemming in nutrient limitation to plant growth.[26] Plants derive a large proportion of their anion nutrients from decomposing organic matter, which typically holds about 95 percent of the soil nitrogen, 5 to 60 percent of the soil phosphorus and about 80 percent of the soil sulfur. Where crops are produced, the replenishment of nutrients in the soil must usually be augmented by the addition of fertilizer or organic matter.[20]

Because nutrient uptake is an active metabolic process, conditions that inhibit root metabolism may also inhibit nutrient uptake.[27] Examples of such conditions include waterlogging or soil compaction resulting in poor soil aeration, excessively high or low soil temperatures, and above-ground conditions that result in low translocation of sugars to plant roots.[28]

 

[acespicoli]

Plant nutrients in soil - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Leaching (chemistry) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In general, however, the three substances can be described as:

• a carrier, substance A;
• a solute, substance B;
• and a solvent, substance C.

The physiochemical and biological properties of the carrier and solute should be considered when observing the leaching process, and certain properties may be more important depending on the material, the solvent, and their availability.[9] These specific properties can include, but are not limited to:

• Particle size[1]
• Solvent[1]
• Temperature[1]
• Agitation[1]
• Surface area[9]
• Homogeneity of the carrier and solute[9]
• Microorganism activity[9]
• Mineralogy[10]
• Intermediate products[10]
• Crystal structure[10]

The general process is typically broken up and summarized into three parts:[1]

1. Dissolution of surficial solute by solvent
2. Diffusion of inner-solute through the pores of the carrier to reach the solvent
3. Transfer of dissolved solute out of the system

Recognize the role of the following in supplying nutrients from the soil.​

1. Soil solution
2. Cation exchange sites
3. Soil organic matter
4. Soil minerals
5. Plant residue

​	The soil solution is the liquid in the soil. Plant nutrients (solids and gases) dissolved in the soil solution can move into the plant as the water is taken up by the roots. This is the medium through which most nutrients are taken up by the plant.

Cations are positively-charged ions (such as Ca2+, Mg2+, K+, and NH4+) which are held on anionic (negatively-charged) exchange sites in the soil.�Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC) is a measure of the amount of cations that can be held by the soil and released into the soil solution.�Soils with a greater cation exchange capacity are able to hold onto more nutrients.�See PO 10 for more information.


Soil organic matter refers to hydrocarbon compounds in various stages of decomposition.�Humus is organic material resistant to further decomposition, and which does not supply many nutrients.�It can cause a negative charge in the soil, increasing CEC.


Soil minerals weather, break down, and dissolve, releasing nutrients that plants can take up. Some also can retain nutrients by adsorption on their surfaces, much like CEC. Soil minerals are divided into two categories based on the degree of weathering.

1. Primary minerals persist with little change in composition. Examples include: quartz, micas and feldspars.
2. Secondary minerals are formed by the breakdown and weathering of primary minerals. Examples include clay minerals, iron and aluminum oxides, dolomite, calcite and gibbsite.

Plant residues include contributions to the soil such as green manure or plowing down of cover crops. As these break down, the nutrients contained are leached into the soil, where they become available to growing plants. Nitrogen is one of the nutrients most commonly associated with residue, but the other essential nutrients will become available as well.

Describe how the following affect the fate of N in soil: the Nitrogen Cycle.​

1. Fixation by clay
2. Ammonification and mineralization: R-NH2 → NH3 → NH4+ (organic N & ammonia & ammonium)
3. Nitrification: NH4+ (ammonium) → NO2- (nitrite) → NO3- (nitrate)
4. Volatilization: CO(NH2)2 (urea) → NH4+ (ammonium) → NH3 (ammonia)
5. Denitrification: NO3- (nitrate) → NO2- (nitrite) → NO (nitric oxide gas) → N2O (nitrous oxide gas) → N2 (dinitrogen gas)
6. Immobilization: NH4+ (ammonium) and NO3- (nitrate) → R-NH2 (organic N)
7. Leaching
8. Plant uptake
9. Symbiotic fixation: N2 → NH3 → R-NH2 → amino acids → proteins

Nitrogen is an essential and often growth-limiting plant nutrient. Crops take up and release N through a series of processes known as the Nitrogen Cycle. N availability limits the productivity of most cropping systems in the US, and a deficiency in nitrogen leads to yield declines or even complete crop failure. Excessive applications however may contribute to acid rain, destruction of the ozone layer in the stratosphere, the greenhouse effect, eutrophication of surface waters, contamination of ground water, and fish and other marine life kills, as well as blue baby syndrome in infants and amphibian mortality and deformations. The nitrate concentration in ground and surface waters is an important water-quality index; the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has set the Federal Standard for the maximum permitted amount of nitrate N in drinking water at 10 mg N/L or 43 mg NO3-/L.


It is important from both an economic and an environmental standpoint to manage N optimally. Thus, the two primary objectives of N management are:

1. To have adequate inorganic N available during the growing season
2. To minimize the availability of inorganic N during the fall, winter, or early spring, when N may be transported to surface and groundwater.

Fixation by clay refers to association of nitrogen with the soil. Since the soil has a negative charge, the ammonium ion (NH4+) can be bound to the soil particle. Depending on the type of clay, this ion can be trapped in the actual structure of the clay mineral and become unavailable to plant uptake.


Ammonification and Mineralization is a process that converts organic N in manure, crop residues and soil organic matter to ammonia and ammonium. Annual mineralization rates vary, though in general about 1.5-3.5% of the organic nitrogen in the soil will be mineralized each year. The exact rates depend on soil temperature, moisture and aeration status; most rapid mineralization occurs in hot climates (68-95°F), well-aerated soils, and moist soils. If large amounts of N-rich organic materials with narrow C:N ratios (<15-20) are added, significant levels of NH4+ can be produced. This will then be converted to nitrate via nitrification, absorbed by plants, fixed or held by the soil, or converted to ammonia and lost to the air via volatilization. In NY, about 60-80 lbs N/acre is mineralized from soil OM each year.


Nitrification is the process by which microbes use enzymes to convert ammonium (NH4+) to nitrate (NO3-) to obtain energy. It is a two step process, with a different species of bacteria performing each step. Nitrate is most readily available to plants and is the preferred N form. Nitrification is most rapid when soil is warm (67-86°F), moist, and well aerated (late May, June). However, it will not occur when soil temperature drops below 41°F or goes above 122°F. Because the process releases H+ ions, nitrification lowers soil pH.


Volatilization is the production and loss of ammonia gas from ammonium. Ammonia volatilization increases with soil pH, as the high H+ concentration promotes the conversion of nitrate to ammonium. Volatilization losses may be high for unincorporated urea fertilizer or manure (urine). The high level of evaporation assists this loss. Incorporation of manure and fertilizers can reduce ammonia losses by 25-75%.


Denitrification occurs when NO3- is converted into gaseous forms of N. The process is common in poorly drained (anaerobic) soils, even those that are tile-drained, and in warm conditions.


Immobilization is the reverse of mineralization. Microbes compete with crops for NH4+ and NO3- for their own survival; when nitrogen is scarce the microbes convert inorganic N forms into their own organic forms, preventing plants from taking the N up. This commonly occurs in aerated soils (as opposed to denitrification, which occurs in anaerobic soils), particularly with high carbon-to-nitrogen (C:N) ratio. This happens when materials like straw, sawdust, etc. are incorporated. Immobilization ties up available N in microbial tissue, which must be "re-mineralized" to become available to plants again.


Leaching is the loss of NO3- from the soil with water movement. Since nitrate is an anion, it does not attach to soil particles and thus easily leaches from the soil. Total losses are determined by water movement and nitrate contents of the soil.


Plant uptake occurs when nitrate is available and conditions are aerobic (i.e. not wet or flooded).


Symbiotic fixation is the conversion of N2 from the atmosphere to plant protein. Atmospheric N is fixed in a symbiotic process carried out by microorganisms, the Rhizobium bacteria which form root nodules in legumes. This nitrogen becomes available when N fixers die. The process requires energy and the enzyme nitrogenase (Fe, Mo, P, S), so if a plant-available N source is present, the crop will use that instead of fixing N from the air

Describe how the processes of mass flow, diffusion, and root interception affect nutrient uptake.​

Mass flow is the movement of dissolved nutrients into a plant as the plant absorbs water for transpiration. The process is responsible for most transport of nitrate, sulfate, calcium and magnesium.


Diffusion is the movement of nutrients to the root surface in response to a concentration gradient. When nutrients are found in higher concentrations in one area than another, there is a net movement to the low-concentration area so that equilibrium is reached. Thus, a high concentration in the soil solution and a low concentration at the root cause the nutrients to move to the root surface, where they can be taken up. This is important for the transport of phosphorus and potassium.


Root interception occurs when growth of a root causes contact with soil colloids which contain nutrients. The root then absorbs the nutrients. It is an important mode of transport for calcium and magnesium, but in general is a minor pathway for nutrient transfer.


The actual pathway of nutrients into the root itself may be passive (no energy required; the nutrient enters with water) or active (energy required; the nutrient is moved into the root by a "carrier" molecule or ion).

Describe the following nutrient transformations and interactions.​

1. Mineralization
2. Immobilization
3. Nutrient uptake antagonism

Mineralization is the conversion of a nutrient from the organic (i.e. bound to carbon and hydrogen) form to the inorganic form. The process occurs when organic materials, such as soil organic matter, manure, plant residue, or biosolids, are decomposed by soil microorganisms. The nutrient is released, and is available for uptake by new plants.


Immobilization is the reverse process of mineralization, wherein nutrients are converted from the inorganic to organic forms (i.e. taken by soil microbes and incorporated into their cells), making them unavailable to plants.


Nutrient uptake antagonism refers to the competition between nutrients for uptake by plants. The two nutrients, often ions with the same charge, are said to be antagonistic with regard to the other. Some examples include:

• Phosphorus excess can lead to reduced zinc uptake
• Potassium excess has been found to reduce magnesium uptake and vice versa
• Calcium excess can cause boron or magnesium deficiencies

Nutrient Transport Processes

Nutrient​	Mass Flow​	Diffusion​	Root Interception​
Nitrogen	X
Phosphorus		X
Potassium	X	X
Calcium	X		X
Magnesium	X		X
Sulfur	X	X
Boron	X
Copper	X
Iron	X	X	X
Manganese	X		X
Zinc	X	X	X
Molybdenum	X

 

[acespicoli]

This is why the general advice is to grow on the dry side: when you water, some of the root hairs become redundant. To limit the energy-loss (dissimilation energy), the oldest root hairs will die off. If you give the plant too much water, all the root hairs will die off.

Leaching processes in soil​

Leaching in soil is highly dependent on the characteristics of the soil, which makes modeling efforts difficult.[4] Most leaching comes from infiltration of water, a washing effect much like that described for the leaching process of biological substances.[4][11] The leaching is typically described by solute transport models, such as Darcy's Law, mass flow expressions, and diffusion-dispersion understandings.[4] Leaching is controlled largely by the hydraulic conductivity of the soil, which is dependent on particle size and relative density that the soil has been consolidated to via stress.[4] Diffusion is controlled by other factors such as pore size and soil skeleton, tortuosity of flow path, and distribution of the solvent (water) and solutes.[4]

​

Effect of liming on soil organic carbon​

The net effect of soil liming on soil organic carbon is primarily the result of three processes.[8]

1. Increased plant productivity resulting in larger organic matter inputs. As soil liming ameliorates soil conditions that inhibit plant growth, an increase in plant productivity is expected. The higher yields resulting from lime applications will produce increased returns of organic matter to the soil in the form of dying roots and decaying crop residue.[9]
2. Increased organic matter mineralization due to a more favorable pH. Lime applications are known to have short-term stimulating effects on soil biological activity, thus favoring organic matter mineralization and very likely accelerating organic matter turnover rates in soil.[10]
3. Amelioration of soil structure leading to a reduction of mineralization by means of protecting soil organic carbon. Liming is known to ameliorate soil structure, as high Ca2+ concentrations and high ionic strength in the soil solution enhance the flocculation of clay minerals and, in turn, form more stable soil aggregates.[9]

Calcium in biology - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Calcium is needed to stabilize the permeability of cell membranes. Without calcium, the cell walls are unable to stabilize and hold their contents. This is particularly important in developing fruits. Without calcium, the cell walls are weak and unable to hold the contents of the fruit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnesium#Function_in_plants
Plants require magnesium to synthesize chlorophyll, essential for photosynthesis.[102] Magnesium in the center of the porphyrin ring in chlorophyll functions in a manner similar to the iron in the center of the porphyrin ring in heme. Magnesium deficiency in plants causes late-season yellowing between leaf veins,[103] especially in older leaves, and can be corrected by either applying epsom salts (which is rapidly leached), or crushed dolomitic limestone, to the soil.

​

An agricultural study at the Faculty of Forestry in Freising, Germany, that compared tree stocks two and twenty years after liming found that liming promotes nitrate leaching and decreases the phosphorus content of some leaves.[11]

Non-essential nutrients​

Nutrients which enhance the health but whose deficiency does not stop the life cycle of plants include: cobalt, strontium, vanadium, silicon and nickel.[112] As their importance is evaluated they may be added to the list of essential plant nutrients, as is the case for silicon.[113]

 

[acespicoli]

Dynamics of Mineral Uptake and Plant Function during Development of Drug-Type Medical Cannabis Plants​

Agronomy 2023, 13(12), 2865; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13122865
Submission received: 7 November 2023 / Revised: 14 November 2023 / Accepted: 15 November 2023 / Published: 21 November 2023

Membrane transport
Mechanisms for chemical transport through biological membranes
Passive transport	Simple diffusion (or non-mediated transport) Facilitated diffusion Osmosis Channels Carriers
Active transport	Uniporter Symporter Antiporter Primary active transport Secondary active transport
Cytosis	Endocytosis Efferocytosis Non-specific, adsorptive pinocytosis Phagocytosis Pinocytosis Potocytosis Receptor-mediated endocytosis Transcytosis Exocytosis Degranulation

Categories:

• Transport phenomena
• Cellular processes
• Membrane biology
• Physiology
• Cell biology

 

[acespicoli]

References​

1. Saloner, A.; Bernstein, N. Effect of potassium (K) supply on cannabinoids, terpenoids and plant function in medical cannabis. Agronomy 2022, 12, 1242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
2. Bevan, L.; Jones, M.; Zheng, Y. Optimisation of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium for soilless production of Cannabis sativa in the flowering stage using response surface analysis. Front. Plant Sci. 2021, 12, 764103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
3. Shiponi, S.; Bernstein, N. The highs and lows of P supply in medical cannabis: Effects on cannabinoids, the ionome, and morpho-physiology. Front. Plant Sci. 2021, 12, 657323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
4. Saloner, A.; Bernstein, N. Nitrogen source matters: High NH4/NO3 ratio reduces cannabinoids, terpenoids, and yield in medical cannabis. Front. Plant Sci. 2022, 13, 830224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
5. Saloner, A.; Bernstein, N. Nitrogen supply affects cannabinoid and terpenoid profile in medical cannabis (Cannabis sativa L.). Ind. Crops Prod. 2021, 167, 113516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
6. Morad, D.; Bernstein, N. Response of medical cannabis to magnesium (Mg) supply at the vegetative growth phase. Plants 2023, 12, 2676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
7. Danziger, N.; Bernstein, N. Light matters: Effect of light spectra on cannabinoid profile and plant development of medical cannabis (Cannabis sativa L.). Ind. Crops Prod. 2021, 164, 113351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
8. Eichhorn Bilodeau, S.; Wu, B.S.; Rufyikiri, A.S.; MacPherson, S.; Lefsrud, M. An update on plant photobiology and implications for cannabis production. Front. Plant Sci. 2019, 10, 296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
9. Rodriguez-Morrison, V.; Llewellyn, D.; Zheng, Y. Cannabis inflorescence yield and cannabinoid concentration are not increased with exposure to short-wavelength ultraviolet-B radiation. Front. Plant Sci. 2021, 12, 725078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
10. Rodriguez-Morrison, V.; Llewellyn, D.; Zheng, Y. Cannabis yield, potency, and leaf photosynthesis respond differently to increasing light levels in an indoor environment. Front. Plant Sci. 2021, 12, 456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
11. Westmoreland, M.; Kusuma, P.; Bugbee, B. Cannabis lighting: Decreasing blue photon fraction increases yield but efficacy is more important for cost effective production of cannabinoids. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0248988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
12. Yep, B.; Gale, N.V.; Zheng, Y. Aquaponic and hydroponic solutions modulate NaCl-induced stress in drug-type Cannabis sativa L. Front. Plant Sci. 2020, 11, 1169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
13. Yep, B.; Gale, N.V.; Zheng, Y. Comparing hydroponic and aquaponic rootzones on the growth of two drug-type Cannabis sativa L. cultivars during the flowering stage. Ind. Crops Prod. 2020, 157, 112881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
14. Danziger, N.; Bernstein, N. Too dense or not too dense: Higher planting density reduces cannabinoid uniformity but increases yield/area in drug-type medical cannabis. Front. Plant Sci. 2022, 13, 713481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
15. Danziger, N.; Bernstein, N. Plant architecture manipulation increases cannabinoid standardization in ‘drug-type’ medical cannabis. Ind. Crops Prod. 2021, 167, 113528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
16. Danziger, N.; Bernstein, N. Shape matters: Plant architecture affects chemical uniformity in large-size medical cannabis plants. Plants 2021, 10, 1834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
17. Clarke, R.C.; Merlin, M.D. Cannabis domestication, breeding history, present-day genetic diversity, and future prospects. CRC. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 2017, 35, 293–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
18. Moher, M.; Jones, M.; Zheng, Y. Photoperiodic response of in vitro Cannabis sativa plants. HortScience 2021, 56, 108–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
19. Weller, J.L.; Kendrick, R.E. Photomorphogenesis and photoperiodism in plants. In Photobiology: The Science of Life and Light, 2nd ed.; Björn, L.O., Ed.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2008; pp. 417–463. ISBN 9780387726540. [Google Scholar]
20. Vitale, L.; Arena, C.; Carillo, P.; di Tommasi, P.; Mesolella, B.; Nacca, F.; de Santo, A.V.; Fuggi, A.; Magliulo, V. Gas exchange and leaf metabolism of irrigated maize at different growth stages. Plant Biosyst. Int. J. Deal. Asp. Plant Biol. 2011, 145, 485–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
21. Reekie, E.G.; Bazzaz, F.A. Reproductive effort in plants. 3. Effect of reproduction on vegetative activity. Am. Nat. 1987, 129, 907–919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
22. Bielczynski, L.W.; Łaçki, M.K.; Hoefnagels, I.; Gambin, A.; Croce, R. Leaf and plant age affects photosynthetic performance and photoprotective capacity. Plant Physiol. 2017, 175, 1634–1648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
23. Murray, G.A. The relationship of light quality, duration, and intensity to vegetative and reproductive growth in alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.). PhD Thesis, The University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA, 1967. [Google Scholar]
24. Nadalini, S.; Zucchi, P.; Andreotti, C. Effects of blue and red LED lights on soilless cultivated strawberry growth performances and fruit quality. Eur. J. Hortic. Sci. 2017, 82, 12–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
25. Schwarz, D.; Thompson, A.J.; Kläring, H.P. Guidelines to use tomato in experiments with a controlled environment. Front. Plant Sci. 2014, 5, 625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
26. Saloner, A.; Sacks, M.M.; Bernstein, N. Response of medical cannabis (Cannabis sativa L.) genotypes to K supply under long photoperiod. Front. Plant Sci. 2019, 10, 1369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
27. Muntendam, R.; Happyana, N.; Erkelens, T.; Bruining, F.; Kayser, O. Time dependent metabolomics and transcriptional analysis of cannabinoid biosynthesis in Cannabis sativa var. Bedrobinol and Bediol grown under standardized condition and with genetic homogeneity. Online Int. J. Med. Plant Res 2012, 1, 31–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
28. Apicella, P.V.; Sands, L.B.; Ma, Y.; Berkowitz, G.A. Delineating genetic regulation of cannabinoid biosynthesis during female flower development in Cannabis sativa. Plant Direct 2022, 6, e412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
29. Aizpurua-Olaizola, O.; Soydaner, U.; Öztürk, E.; Schibano, D.; Simsir, Y.; Navarro, P.; Etxebarria, N.; Usobiaga, A. Evolution of the cannabinoid and terpene content during the growth of Cannabis sativa plants from different chemotypes. J. Nat. Prod. 2016, 79, 324–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
30. Bauerle, W.L.; McCullough, C.; Iversen, M.; Hazlett, M. Leaf age and position effects on quantum yield and photosynthetic capacity in hemp crowns. Plants 2020, 9, 271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
31. Smith, P.F. Mineral analysis of plant tissues. Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. 1962, 13, 81–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
32. White, P.J. Ion uptake mechanisms of individual cells and roots: Short-distance transport. In Marschner’s Mineral Nutrition of Higher Plants, 3rd ed.; Marchner, P., Ed.; Academic Press: London, UK, 2012; pp. 7–47. ISBN 9780123849052. [Google Scholar]
33. Wang, H.; Inukai, Y.; Yamauchi, A. Root development and nutrient uptake. CRC Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 2006, 25, 279–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
34. Nestby, R.; Lieten, F.; Pivot, D.; Raynal Lacroix, C.; Tagliavini, M. Influence of mineral nutrients on strawberry fruit quality and their accumulation in plant organs: A review. Int. J. fruit Sci. 2008, 5, 139–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
35. Garcia, C.B.; Grusak, M.A. Mineral accumulation in vegetative and reproductive tissues during seed development in Medicago truncatula. Front. Plant Sci. 2015, 6, 622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
36. Hawkesford, M.; Horst, W.; Kichey, T.; Lambers, H.; Schjoerring, J.; Skrumsager Møller, I.; White, P. Functions of macronutrients. In Marschner’s Mineral Nutrition of Higher Plants; Marschner, P., Ed.; Academic Press: London, UK, 2012; pp. 135–190. ISBN 9780123849052. [Google Scholar]
37. Vittori Antisari, L.; Carbone, S.; Gatti, A.; Vianello, G.; Nannipieri, P. Uptake and translocation of metals and nutrients in tomato grown in soil polluted with metal oxide (CeO2, Fe3O4, SnO2, TiO2) or metallic (Ag, Co, Ni) engineered nanoparticles. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2015, 22, 1841–1853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
38. Wu, C.Y.; Lu, L.L.; Yang, X.E.; Feng, Y.; Wei, Y.Y.; Hao, H.L.; Stoffella, P.J.; He, Z.L. Uptake, translocation, and remobilization of zinc absorbed at different growth stages by rice genotypes of different Zn densities. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2010, 58, 6767–6773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
39. Akhter, M.F.; Macfie, S. Species-specific relationship between transpiration and cadmium translocation in lettuce, barley and radish. J. Plant Stud. 2012, 1, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
40. Clarkson, D.T.; Hanson, J.B. The mineral nutrition of higher plants. Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. 1980, 31, 239–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
41. Engels, C.; Marschner, H. Root to shoot translocation of macronutrients in relation to shoot demand in maize (Zea mays L.) grown at different root zone temperatures. Z. Pflanzenernähr. Bodenkd. 1992, 155, 121–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
42. Saloner, A.; Bernstein, N. Response of medical cannabis (Cannabis sativa L.) to nitrogen supply under long photoperiod. Front. Plant Sci. 2020, 11, 1517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
43. Shiponi, S.; Bernstein, N. Response of medical cannabis (Cannabis sativa L.) genotypes to P supply under long photoperiod: Functional phenotyping and the ionome. Ind. Crops Prod. 2021, 161, 113154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
44. Hall, J.; Bhattarai, S.P.; Midmore, D.J. Review of flowering control in industrial hemp. J. Nat. Fibers 2012, 9, 23–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
45. Clarke, R. Botany of the genus Cannabis. In Advances in Hemp Research; Haworth Press: Binghamton, NY, USA, 1999; pp. 1–19. [Google Scholar]
46. Bernstein, N.; Gorelick, J.; Zerahia, R.; Koch, S. Impact of N, P, K, and humic acid supplementation on the chemical profile of medical cannabis (Cannabis sativa L.). Front. Plant Sci. 2019, 10, 736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
47. Angelini, L.; Tavarini, S.; Cestone, B.; Beni, C. Variation in mineral composition in three different plant organs of five fibre hemp (Cannabis sativa L.) cultivars. Agrochimica 2014, 58, 1–18. [Google Scholar]
48. Small, E. Cannabis: A Complete Guide; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2016; ISBN 9781315367583. [Google Scholar]
49. Bernstein, N.; Ioffe, M.; Bruner, M.; Nishri, Y.; Luria, G.; Dori, I.; Matan, E.; Philosoph-Hadas, S.; Umiel, N.; Hagiladi, A. Effects of supplied nitrogen form and quantity on growth and postharvest quality of Ranunculus asiaticus flowers. HortScience 2005, 40, 1879–1886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
50. Lichtenthaler, H.K.; Wellburn, A.R. Determinations of total carotenoids and chlorophylls a and b of leaf extracts in different solvents. Biochem. Soc. Trans. 1983, 11, 591–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
51. Bernstein, N.; Shoresh, M.; Xu, Y.; Huang, B. Involvement of the plant antioxidative response in the differential growth sensitivity to salinity of leaves vs roots during cell development. Free Radic. Biol. Med. 2010, 49, 1161–1171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
52. Chouvy, P.A. Cannabis cultivation in the world: Heritages, trends and challenges. In EchoGéo; OpenEdition Press: Marseille, France, 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
53. Small, E. Botanical Classification and Nomenclatural Issues. In Cannabis: A Complete Guide; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2016; pp. 477–504. [Google Scholar]
54. Munné-Bosch, S.; Alegre, L. Die and let live: Leaf senescence contributes to plant survival under drought stress. Funct. Plant Biol. 2004, 31, 203–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
55. Wingler, A.; Purdy, S.; MacLean, J.A.; Pourtau, N. The role of sugars in integrating environmental signals during the regulation of leaf senescence. J. Exp. Bot. 2006, 57, 391–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
56. Wolstenholme, B.N. Root, shoot or fruit. South Afr. Avocado Grow. Assoc. Yearb. 1981, 4, 27–29. [Google Scholar]
57. Bonifas, K.D.; Walters, D.T.; Cassman, K.G.; Lindquist, J.L. Nitrogen supply affects root:shoot ratio in corn and velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti). Weed Sci. 2005, 53, 670–675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
58. Iwasa, Y.; Roughgarden, J. Shoot/root balance of plants: Optimal growth of a system with many vegetative organs. Theor. Popul. Biol. 1984, 25, 78–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
59. Tezara, W.; Domínguez, T.S.T.; Loyaga, D.W.; Ortiz, R.N.; Chila, V.H.R.; Ortega, M.J.B. Photosynthetic activity of oil palm (Elaeis guineensis) and interspecific hybrid genotypes (Elaeis oleifera × Elaeis guineensis), and response of hybrids to water deficit. Sci. Hortic. 2021, 287, 110263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
60. Haldimann, P. Low growth temperature-induced changes to pigment composition and photosynthesis in Zea mays genotypes differing in chilling sensitivity. Plant. Cell Environ. 1998, 21, 200–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
61. Bacelar, E.A.; Moutinho-Pereira, J.M.; Gonçalves, B.C.; Lopes, J.I.; Correia, C.M. Physiological responses of different olive genotypes to drought conditions. Acta Physiol. Plant. 2009, 31, 611–621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
62. Bond, B.J. Age-related changes in photosynthesis of woody plants. Trends Plant Sci. 2000, 5, 349–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
63. Niinemets, Ü. Stomatal conductance alone does not explain the decline in foliar photosynthetic rates with increasing tree age and size in Picea abies and Pinus sylvestris. Tree Physiol. 2002, 22, 515–535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
64. Kennedy, R.A.; Johnson, D. Changes in photosynthetic characteristics during leaf development in apple. Photosynth. Res. 1981, 2, 213–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
65. Munné-Bosch, S.; Alegre, L. Plant aging increases oxidative stress in chloroplasts. Planta 2002, 214, 608–615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
66. Bonini, S.A.; Premoli, M.; Tambaro, S.; Kumar, A.; Maccarinelli, G.; Memo, M.; Mastinu, A. Cannabis sativa: A comprehensive ethnopharmacological review of a medicinal plant with a long history. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2018, 227, 300–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
67. Sklensky, D.E.; Davies, P.J. Resource partitioning to male and female flowers of Spinacia oleracea L. in relation to whole-plant monocarpic senescence. J. Exp. Bot. 2011, 62, 4323–4336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
68. Fan, K.; Zhang, Q.; Liu, M.; Ma, L.; Shi, Y.; Ruan, J. Metabolomic and transcriptional analyses reveal the mechanism of C, N allocation from source leaf to flower in tea plant (Camellia sinensis L.). J. Plant Physiol. 2019, 232, 200–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
69. Clifford, P.E.; Neo, H.H.; Hew, C.S. Regulation of assimilate partitioning in flowering plants of the monopodial orchid Aranda Noorah Alsagoff. New Phytol. 1995, 130, 381–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
70. Poulson, M.E.; Thai, T. Effect of high light intensity on photoinhibition, oxyradicals and artemisinin content in Artemisia annua L. Photosynthetica 2015, 53, 403–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
71. Allen, R.D.; Webb, R.P.; Schake, S.A. Use of transgenic plants to study antioxidant defenses. Free Radic. Biol. Med. 1997, 23, 473–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
72. Faisal, M.; Anis, M. Changes in photosynthetic activity, pigment composition, electrolyte leakage, lipid peroxidation, and antioxidant enzymes during ex vitro establishment of micropropagated Rauvolfia tetraphylla plantlets. Plant Cell. Tissue Organ Cult. 2009, 99, 125–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
73. Cakmak, I.; Kurz, H.; Marschner, H. Short-term effects of boron, germanium and high light intensity on membrane permeability in boron deficient leaves of sunflower. Physiol. Plant. 1995, 95, 11–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
74. Maathuis, F.J. Physiological functions of mineral macronutrients. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 2009, 12, 250–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
75. Mitra, G. Essential plant nutrients and recent concepts about their uptake. In Essential Plant Nutrients; Naeem, M., Ansari, A., Gill, S., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 3–36. ISBN 9783319588414. [Google Scholar]
76. Bassirirad, H. Kinetics of nutrient uptake by roots: Responses to global change. New Phytol. 2000, 147, 155–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
77. Cockson, P.; Schroeder-Moreno, M.; Veazie, P.; Barajas, G.; Logan, D.; Davis, M.; Whipker, B.E. Impact of phosphorus on Cannabis sativa reproduction, cannabinoids, and terpenes. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 7875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
78. Pardo, J.M.; Quintero, F.J. Plants and sodium ions: Keeping company with the enemy. Genome Biol. 2002, 3, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
79. Monaci, F.; Leidi, E.O.; Mingorance, M.D.; Valdés, B.; Oliva, S.R.; Bargagli, R. Selective uptake of major and trace elements in Erica andevalensis, an endemic species to extreme habitats in the Iberian Pyrite Belt. J. Environ. Sci. 2011, 23, 444–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
80. Qin, S.; Liu, H.; Nie, Z.; Rengel, Z.; Gao, W.; Li, C.; Zhao, P. Toxicity of cadmium and its competition with mineral nutrients for uptake by plants: A review. Pedosphere 2020, 30, 168–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
81. Drechsler, N.; Zheng, Y.; Bohner, A.; Nobmann, B.; von Wirén, N.; Kunze, R.; Rausch, C. Nitrate-dependent control of shoot K homeostasis by the nitrate transporter1/peptide transporter family member NPF7.3/NRT1.5 and the Stelar K+ outward rectifier SKOR in arabidopsis. Plant Physiol. 2015, 169, 2832–2847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
82. White, P.J. Long-distance Transport in the Xylem and Phloem. In Marschner’s Mineral Nutrition of Higher Plants, 3rd ed.; Marchner, P., Ed.; Elsevier Ltd.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2012; pp. 49–70. ISBN 9780123849052. [Google Scholar]
83. Broadley, M.; Brown, P.; Cakmak, I.; Rengel, Z.; Zhao, F. Function of nutrients: Micronutrients. In Marschner’s Mineral Nutrition of Higher Plants; Marschner, P., Ed.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2012; pp. 191–248. ISBN 9780123849052. [Google Scholar]
84. Rahman, H.; Sabreen, S.; Alam, S.; Kawai, S. Effects of nickel on growth and composition of metal micronutrients in barley plants grown in nutrient solution. J. Plant Nutr. 2007, 28, 393–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
85. Siebrecht, S.; Herdel, K.; Schurr, U.; Tischner, R. Nutrient translocation in the xylem of poplar—Diurnal variations and spatial distribution along the shoot axis. Planta 2003, 217, 783–793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
86. Mclaughlin, S.B.; Wimmer, R. Calcium physiology and terrestrialecosystem processes. New Phytol. 1999, 142, 373–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
87. Kobayashi, T.; Nishizawa, N.K. Iron uptake, translocation, and regulation in higher plants. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 2012, 63, 131–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Phloem - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Approximate composition of cane molasses

Main constituents	Components	Normal range
Water		17–25%
Sugars	Sucrose	30–40%
	Glucose (dextrose)	4–9%
	Fructose (levulose)	5–12%
	Other reducing substances (as invert)	1–4%
	Total reducing substances (as invert)	10–25%
Other carbohydrates	Gums, starch, pentosans, also traces of hexitols; myoinositol, d-mannitol, and uronic acids	2–5%
Ash	As carbonatesa	7–15%
	Bases:
	Potassium oxide (30–50%)
	Calcium oxide (7–15%)
	Magnesium oxide (2–14%)
	Sodium oxide (0.3–9%)
	Metal oxides (as ferric) (0.4–2.7%)
	Acids:
	Sulfur trioxide (7–27%)
	Chloride (12–20%)
	Phosphorus pentoxide (0.5–2.5%)
	Silicates and insolubles (1–7%)
Nitrogenous compounds	Crude protein (as N × 6.25)	2.5–4.5%
	True protein	0.5–1.5%
	Amino acids, principally aspartic and glutamic acids, including some pyrrolidine carboxylic acids	0.3–0.5%
	Unidentified nitrogenous compounds	1.5–3.0%
Nonnitrogenous	Aconitic acid (1–5%), citric, malic, oxalic, glycolic	1.5–6.0%
	Mesaconic, succinic, fumaric, tartaric	0.5–1.5%
Wax, sterols, and phosphatides		0.1–1.0%
Vitamins	Thiamin (B1)	2–10 p.p.m.
	Riboflavin (B2)	1–6 p.p.m.
	Pyridoxine (B6)	1–10 p.p.m.
	Nicotinamide	1–25 p.p.m.
	Pantothenic acid	2–25 p.p.m.
	Folic acid	10–50 p.p.m.
	Biotin	0.1–2 p.p.m.

Source: United Molasses Company, London, UK. By courtesy of the Technology Division of Crompton and Knowles Corporation, Mahwah, NJ, USA.
Composition of molasse obtained in the state of Alagoas after the production of granulated and demerara sugar.

Element	Granulated Sugar	Demerara Sugar
Empty Cell	Molasse Originated From
C (%)	23.66a±1.21b	22.26±0.79
CaO (%)	1.36±0.12	1.35±0.10
MgO (%)	1.03±0.10	0.99±0.07
N (%)	0.49±0.02	0.49±0.03
K2O (%)	3.51±0.21	3.80±0.13
P2O5 (%)	0.07±0.01	0.15±0.02
Cu (ppm)	16.85±7.7	5.60±1.60
Zn (ppm)	19.45±4.01	11.96±0.78
Fe (ppm)	225.16±55.74	274.44±24.84
Mn (ppm)	19.61±3.53	38.22±4.93
Brix (%)	78.61±0.81	81.33±0.88
Pol (%)	36.58±1.13	33.58±0.69
AR (%)	16.20±0.49	19.20v±0.90
ART (%)	54.73±1.14	54.65±0.69
Purity (%)	46.54±1.29	41.41±1.01

�
aAverage.bstandard deviation.
Source: Vasconcelos (1983)

The Fermented Plant Extract of Hemp


Lactobacillus bacteria are saprophytes, meaning they are decomposers, they break down organic matter. This trait is harnessed in the production of Fermented Plant Extracts where lactobacillus are fed specific nutrient dense food sources for the purpose of breaking down plant compounds and extracting them into a liquid form.


Derived From: Clean Mountain Water, Hemp, molasses, sorghum syrup, Lactic Acid Bacteria sourced from local goat whey, and EM-1. This is then fermented until the plant matter is digested and extracted into the liquid and the sugars are consumed by the microbes to lock in the PH for stability and ease of use in the garden.


Ingredients: Water, Lactic Acid Bacteria sourced from local goat whey, Molasses, Sorghum Syrup, Plant Matter (Hemp), EM1

Useful Info​

Lactobacillus varieties are:
Saprophytic - they break down organic matter and generally do not harm living things.
Antipathogenic - they are effective and beneficial microbes that outcompete and
overcome “the bad guys,” or pathogenic microbes.
Ubiquitous - they are everywhere!
Facultative - surviving in both aerobic and anaerobic environments.
Microaerophilic - preferring environments with less oxygen than typical environmental air similar to conditions in soil.
Rod shaped - bacillus means “wand” or “small staff”- the “magic wand” because
fermentation has an alchemical nature of transmuting raw materials into more nutritious
valuable preparations.
Heterofermentative - translates to producing a variety of outputs including nutrients,
CO2, yeasts, acids, and carbohydrates, which plants crave.


Store in a cool & dark place at room temperature, 68F to 86F (20C-30C) and out of
direct sunlight.

How to Use​

Soil Drench: 1 - 4 oz to 1 gal of water
Foliar Spray: 1 - 4 oz to 1 gal of water
Field Application: 10 - 30 gal per acre
Compost Booster: 4 - 8 oz to 1 gal of water


fish kelp molasses

Hashshashin​

Mar 27, 2010​

• #4

This is one thing i should have mentioned. Using oxygen makes it an AACt not a FPE. The problem is we need the fermentation process due to alcohol and pH to change. This is what breaks down the insoluble nutrients. Granted thats a good AACt you can do wtihout the GH Florablend as excess sugars create bacterial blooms which is uncessary and can be a problem due to the population of bacteria intaking most or in the worst case all of the dissolved o2. As long as you have food sources for the fungi the life cycle will occur and different microorganisms will be produced over time.

I'll go over AACT a different time. This thread is all about Fermentation.

I will help you break the habit if interested so you can make your own liquid karma. I'll post that thread here next which is on Ascophyllum Nodosum. With few organic ingredients you can make a something that covers all the basics just like LK.
Since your interested i'll tell you how i make my AN FPE without LB. i only do this because at the time i didnt realize there was a water soluble powder already available. This way you'll get an idea how to make it though.

Ascophyllum Nodosum Extract
1. Take about a cup per gallon of powdered Ascophyllum Nodosum and molasses, in this case the bacterial bloom is beneficial since were trying to remove the o2 to create a fermentation.
2. Put powder in bottle and mix with water. Shake until mixed well. Leave cap loose and place somewhere you'll see it
3. Everyday shake/stir it as much as you can and than keep lid loose again.(Remember to tighten the lid if your gonna shake it!!)
4. Do this for 2-4 weeks you'll notice a creamy head layer to the solution when shaken. It will also be a nice light brown color and should smell sweet.
5. Once you can see that the life has ceased inside the solution(Lack of bubbles at top) you filter the solution so the original food source is drained.
6. You can put this in a bottle and store it up to a year, dilute it as necessary. I can't guarantee a nutritional analysis, but YOU CAN BURN PLANTS WITH THESE, so start low and work your way up. Maybe try it on some garden plants before you try your valuable crop. That is how FPE differ from AACT, they are nutrient extracts not microbial extracts.

Fish Fermentation- This is a FPE but is another fermented product. I think its the best you can get and works much better with Lactobacillus because i hate the smell while fermenting and lactobacillus takes good care of the smell. I'd suggest using papaya if you cant find LB, because it has enzymes that help break down the matter. It works well for FPE or Fish Hydroslate.

1. Grind down left fish you may have, the oilier the fish the better(salmon, mackerel, tuna; if they have bones in them thats even better). Grind this in a blender with until its a paste to make sure to speed up the process.
2. In a bucket fill with a carbon source half full such as sawdust. Mix water fish, molasses and humic acid.
3. Let this rot for a couple of weeks and stir as much as possible(once a day) until it has rotted.
4. You can add this straight to your compost/soil mix which is what i do. It adds pretty much all the good things you can imagine. Vitamins, Omega Acids, Proteins, Macro nutrients, Micro nutrients and Humic/Fulvic Acids.

Fish plus seaweed Ascophyllum Nodosum in general provides everything that liquid karma does. Granted LK smells a lot better and can be used as a foliar feed. I think the fish hydroslate is a great thing when "cooking" your soil though since it brings many microbes to the mix.

TCM- i'm glad you liked my idea on Ascophyllum Nodosum. Right now i'm to the point where since i use cloning powder i simply mix 50powder/50AN.
My favorite is to soak the clones in the solution of AN and humic acid directly after being cut to make sure theres a minimal chance of o2 from entering the wound. 15-30mins later I dip in the 50/50 powder and plant directly in jiffy cubes with some mychrozzial in the hole.
Its worked well for me, with the exception of finding the right clone mix and the move. Just make sure not to let a cut sit out of water for to long after being snipped, thats probably the biggest killer IMO.

 

[acespicoli]

Front. Plant Sci., 30 January 2020
Sec. Plant Pathogen Interactions
Volume 11 - 2020 | https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2020.00006

Optical Microscopy​

Light microscopy is the most common microscopic technique for assessing microorganisms in root systems due to its low costs of purchasing, maintaining, and servicing (Hulse, 2018).

Bright-field light microscopy was employed by White et al. (2014), who developed a combination of stains to evaluate the bacterial colonization of seedling root tissues. This approach was based on the use of 3,3'-diaminobenzidine tetrachloride (DAB) to stain hydrogen peroxide associated with bacterial invasion of eukaryotic cells followed by counterstaining with aniline blue/lactophenol to stain protein in bacterial cells. This elementary technique allowed the visualization of bacteria and their eventual lysis in seedling roots, providing information on the defensive response of host cells and the bacterial degradation process (White et al., 2014).

Microscopy techniques that use different dyes are also usually used to assess mycorrhizal relationships with host plants. A wide number of staining procedures, which each have advantages and disadvantages, have been developed for studying AMF colonization, as extensively reported by Hulse (2018). Among these is a very simple, nontoxic, reliable and inexpensive staining technique for AMF colonization in root tissues; this technique is based on the use of an ink-vinegar solution after adequate clearing with KOH (Vierheilig et al., 1998). This solution stains all fungal structures, rendering them clearly visible by bright-field light microscopy.

The level of root colonization by mycorrhizal strains is usually evaluated using the microscopic procedure described by Phillips and Hayman (1970) and by Giovannetti and Mosse (Newman's intersection method, 1980). This method requires a stereomicroscope for observation; randomly dispersed roots are stained, placed on a grid in a 9-cm Petri plate and quantified by counting the number of intersections between grid lines and colonized roots. Although this method is strongly influenced by operator skill, it could provide sufficient information to evaluate the mycorrhizal colonization level. In fact, the gridline intersect method has been extensively used in many works to assess and quantify root colonization of mycorrhizal fungi (Sharma et al., 2009; Sharma et al., 2011; Sharma et al., 2012; Singh et al., 2013).

 

[acespicoli]

• Converting nutrient analysis to composition

The values in an NPK fertilizer label are related to the concentrations (by weight) of
phosphorus and potassium elements as follows:

• P2O5 consists of 56.4% elemental oxygen and 43.6% elemental phosphorus by weight. Therefore, the elemental phosphorus percentage of a fertilizer is 0.436 times its P value.
• K2O consists of 17% oxygen and 83% elemental potassium by weight. Therefore, the elemental potassium percentage is 0.83 times the K value.

The N value in NPK labels represents actual percentage of nitrogen element by weight, so it does not need to be converted.
So, for example, an 18−51−20 fertilizer contains by weight

• 18% elemental nitrogen,
• 0.436 × 51 = 22% elemental phosphorus, and
• 0.83 × 20 = 17% elemental potassium.

Chicken (and turkey, etc)​

• Bird manures are very high in nutrients, especially nitrogen because urine is contained in the droppings.
• They are more acidic than most manure sources, so are particularly good for acid-loving plants.
• They also tend to be very hot, and will burn plants if applied fresh.
• Composting is highly recommended both to cool it and to reduce pathogen risk.
• Chicken manure will release most of its nutrients into the soil within the first year of application.
• Composted chicken manure such as Sup'r Green has an NPK of 3-2-2.

Goat​

• Sheep and goat manures are nearly identical.
• They are hot, dry, and very rich in nutrients.
• They typically have an NPK value of 0.7-0.3-0.9.
• They should be aged or composted before working into the soil.
• If collected with soiled bedding such as straw, they can be used fresh as a mulch around trees, vines and bushes where the manure can age while feeding the plants. However, even fresh manure mixed with bedding can burn more tender plants like annual veggies.

 

[acespicoli]

How to Make Compost at Home​

Back to Resources
Found In

• Soils, Compost, and Fertilizer

Related Programs

• Home and Garden Information Center

Updated: February 13, 2024


Share Facebook Twitter Pinterest Email
PrintFriendly

About making compost​

• Compost is a dark, crumbly, earthy-smelling material produced by the natural decomposition of leaves, grass clippings, and many other organic materials.
• The composting process "happens" without human intervention because microbes and soil animals are on the job 24 hours a day, decomposing plant and animal remains.
• Composting allows you to expedite this natural process to produce a regular supply of compost (a.k.a. "black gold") for your landscape.
• Finished compost contains major and minor nutrients necessary for plant growth and also improves soil structure.

Why should I compost?​

• It reduces the amount of material going to landfills. Municipal waste is composed of 13% yard wastes, 12% food waste, and 34% paper, most of which can be composted (U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste 2005).
• Compost is a valuable and free soil amendment that saves gardeners the money used to buy alternatives, such as peat moss, fertilizer, or vermiculite. It improves soil tilth (physical condition of the soil), aeration (reducing compaction, improving root growth and water penetration), water-holding capacity (important during droughts), and contains a wide range of plant nutrients. Most soils benefit from regular additions of compost.
• Compost suppresses some soil-borne diseases. Populations of some microbes in compost may out-compete pathogens for food and habitat while others attack or repel plant pathogens.
• It's good for the environment, fun, educational, and an activity the whole family can help with.

How is compost made?​

• Bacteria, fungi, and other microbes are the key players in composting. These organisms "feed" on organic matter and use the carbon and nitrogen it contains to grow and reproduce.
• The heat generated by your compost pile is a result of microbial activity. Microbes are active in small numbers at temperatures just above freezing and are most numerous at 130º–140º F.
• They are assisted by many larger organisms like earthworms, slugs, snails, millipedes, sow bugs, ants, and various insect larvae that feed on plant and animal matter in the soil. These same organisms are responsible for the decay of both forest floor litter and the corn stubble in a farmer's field. Therefore, do not be alarmed if you find any in your compost pile. They are performing the initial breakdown of coarse materials - biting, chewing, decreasing the size of the materials, and thus increasing the surface area so that the microorganisms can do their work.
• Composting microbes use carbon for energy and nitrogen for growth (protein synthesis). When you mix various forms of organic material in your compost bin, it is important to achieve a proper balance of carbon to nitrogen (C:N ratio).
• The proportion can vary; the microbes will function well at C:N ratios from 25:1 to 40:1. A mixture of materials containing 30 parts of carbon to 1 part of nitrogen is considered ideal.
• Most organic materials do not fit the 30:1 ratio exactly, so different materials are mixed together. With the proper mix, microbes and other digesters will quickly start working to make compost for you. Finished compost has a C/N ratio of 20 - 25:1.

Carbon, nitrogen sources, and items not to compost​

Carbon Sources (Browns)	Cornstalks & corncobs Dry leaves* Newsprint Pine needles Straw & hay Sawdust Wood chips Shrub trimmings Shredded copier paper (Uncoated) *Some organic materials are initially acidic (low pH) like oak leaves. However, the composting process results in a finished product with a pH of around 7.0, or neutral pH.
Nitrogen Sources (Greens)	Coffee grounds and tea leaves* Crab/fish waste - Trench method only Fruit & vegetable scraps Grass clippings (untreated) Fresh hay Manure: cow, horse, poultry, sheep, rabbit Seaweed *Check labels; many tea bags contain plastics and should not be composted.
Items not to compost	Bones Cheese Cooking oil Dairy products Lard Mayonnaise Meat products Milk Peanut butter Salad dressing Cleaning solvents Pet feces Petroleum products Plastic Soil Synthetic fabrics Wood ashes (large amounts alters the pH) Avoid adding lime to your compost pile/bin as it can cause a chemical reaction that releases nitrogen gas in the form of ammonia, denying nitrogen to the microorganisms that do the composting

Types of composting​

Cool or passive composting​

• This method is not labor-intensive but requires patience.
• This process is carried out by a narrow range of microorganisms (mesophiles) that reproduce in the ambient (outdoor) temperature range, i.e., 40° F. to about 110° F.
• These microbes are thorough and produce excellent compost, but they need about a year to complete the process.
• If you constantly add fresh materials to your pile, the materials on top of the pile will be in the early stages of decomposition when the material at the bottom is ready to use.
• Remove the top of the pile and harvest the compost at the bottom annually, or start a new pile when the first pile is 3'x3'x3'.
• Don't build a pile over 5' high because the weight and volume will compact the organic wastes and limit air movement. This can cause smelly, anaerobic decomposition.
• Turn the pile once or twice a year, to hasten the process and create a more uniform product.

Hot or active composting​

• This method produces a compost harvest in the shortest period of time but requires more careful attention and periodic labor.
• Hot composting usually involves a bin, or perhaps a pile, which is filled all at one time with the necessary ingredients without the addition of more raw materials later.
• The ideal bin size is a minimum of 3'x3'x3' or 27 cubic feet.
• A heap this size involves a broad range of microorganisms and generates significant heat.
• Once triggered into action and provided with the appropriate mixture of carbon (browns), nitrogen (greens), water, and air, the 'thermophiles' (heat-loving bacteria) will generate temperatures of 130-170° F., and will produce a compost harvest in six to eight weeks.
• The temperature will typically rise within 24 hours after the bin is filled. As the thermophiles consume nutrients and oxygen, they produce enough heat to evaporate some of the moisture.
• The temperature will decrease as they begin to die. This occurs when all of the easily digested sugars and starches are broken down and the tougher compounds like hemicellulose and cellulose remain.
• Before the temperature drops below 100° F., turn the materials so that fresh materials, air, and, if necessary, water are available at the core of the bin.
• In time, the volume of the original material will decrease. DO NOT add more raw materials unless the process is not working properly.
• Continue checking the temperature, turning, adding moisture, etc., until the volume of the material is about 50% of the original. The temperature will not rise again.
• The compost should be dark brown and should not resemble the original materials. Let the pile sit for two weeks, allowing the mesophiles to finish it off. This is known as curing and will help stabilize the nutrients.

Compost Temperature Control​

• Temperature can be monitored in several ways. Compost thermometers are available for purchase.
• Or use your hand to monitor the temperature. If the pile feels cool when you thrust your hand into it, it probably needs to be turned. (The target temperature is 100º and body temperature is about 98.6°).
• If the pile/bin feels at least as hot as the hot water from your faucet, it is doing fine. If it feels really hot and has the aroma of ammonia, it may need a little more carbon, because excess nitrogen may cause anaerobic (no oxygen) decomposition that results in bad odor and more heat.

Sheet composting​

• This is an excellent method for creating a new bed in late summer for planting the following spring.
• Mow or weed-eat the grass and weeds in the area as low as possible.,
• Place overlapping sections of newspaper or unwaxed corrugated cardboard over the entire area.
• Cover with 8 inches of one or more of the following: compost, aged manure, shredded leaves, or grass clippings (avoid weeds with seedheads and herbicide-treated turf).
• In spring, you'll be able to plant directly into the soil without the need for rototilling.
• This method uses up large amounts of locally-available organic material, requires some initial labor, does not require turning, and boosts the earthworm population.

Trench composting​

• This method offers the small-plot vegetable gardener an opportunity to improve the soil on a continuous basis.
• Dig a trench or hole in a garden bed about eight to twelve inches deep.
• Bury your kitchen waste (fruit and vegetable peelings and cores, coffee grounds, etc.) covering the material as you go with soil or chopped leaves. Chopping the scraps with a shovel prior to covering will speed decomposition. The kitchen waste will feed soil animals and microorganisms increasing soil fertility. Note: many tea bags contain plastics. Only plastic-free tea bags should be composted. Otherwise, open the tea bags, empty the contents into your food scraps bucket, and dispose of the bags as trash.
• Rotate the location of the trenches and holes. It works best in fenced gardens that exclude raccoons, possums, and groundhogs.
• You can trench compost kitchen waste throughout the year although the process slows significantly from November through March.

Instructions for a wire compost bin​

Composting tips​

• Locate compost bins and piles away from trees to reduce the likelihood of roots growing into the compost.
• Mix materials thoroughly; it's usually not helpful to layer materials.
• To speed up the process you can add an extra nitrogen (e.g., cottonseed meal, blood meal) source at each turning.
• Keep your compost pile moist (like a wrung-out sponge) but not soggy for efficient decomposition. Excess moisture causes anaerobic decomposition and offensive odors. During dry weather, it may be necessary to add water at weekly intervals.
• Do not add branches and other woody materials unless they are chipped into small pieces.
• In dry weather, cover the pile to prevent excess moisture loss and to aid decomposition. A tarp or other cover also protects the pile from becoming too wet during periods of heavy rainfall and helps prevent nutrient leaching.
• Turn or mix the pile regularly. If fall-gathered leaves make up the bulk of the pile, turn the pile in mid-November before freezing occurs. Do not turn the pile in winter because this allows too much heat to escape and slows decomposition.
• When kitchen scraps are collected or composted it can be helpful to mix in a dry, high-carbon material, such as leaves, sawdust, or shredded paper, to reduce odors and facilitate decomposition.
• Enclosed compost tumblers can quickly become soppy wet and anaerobic if you add too many kitchen scraps and rotted fruits and vegetables, and not enough brown materials.

Comparison of composting methods​

Type	Advantages	Disadvantages
Hot	Quicker harvest. Kills many weed seeds and diseases. Less likely to attract unwanted animals.	Requires careful attention and frequent labor. Requires storage of some materials prior to use. (Most carbon sources can easily be stored for many months.)
Cool	Materials added as generated. Less labor. Compost rich in beneficial organisms.	Takes a year or more. Some nutrients lost to leaching. Can attract animals and flies.
Bin	Neat and tidy appearance. Can be used for either hot or cool methods.	Must purchase or fabricate. May be difficult to turn in materials. Generally requires more labor than other methods.
Tumbler	Neat and tidy. Good for maintaining aeration. Works well for cool composting. Good for small spaces.	Costly. Volume is usually inadequate for hot composting. Filling and/or harvesting may be awkward. Requires close attention.
Worm Composting (Vermicomposting)	Easy. Little or no odor. Can be done indoors or outdoors. Rich product. Excellent way to compost food waste.	Requires careful attention to food materials added. Must provide suitable location and temperature for worms; may attract fruit flies.
Sheet Composting	No turning required. Boosts earthworm population.	Requires timing and patience. Requires some initial labor. May not be ready for planting when anticipated.
Trench Composting	Easy. Boosts number of earthworms. Doesn’t attract flies.	Requires planning, persistence, and regular trips to the garden.

When is compost ready to use and how can I use it in my yard?​

• When the material is even in color and texture and has an earthy smell with no "off" odors.
• When the temperature of the pile is at the outdoor temperature.
• When a small amount placed in a plastic bag and sealed causes no condensation of moisture inside the bag.
• Incorporate it into the soil as a soil amendment. Add to established beds or when creating beds.
• Use two inches of compost as mulch around landscape plants to keep the soil cooler, retain moisture, and add nutrients to the plants over the course of the growing season.
• Grow vegetable and flower transplants and container plants in screened compost. Try a mixture of 50% compost and 50% commercial soilless growing media.
• Use it to make compost tea, which has multiple benefits to plants and soil. Applying it to the soil around plants or spraying it on foliage applies beneficial microbes that could suppress the colonization of disease-causing fungi. Compost tea also contains small amounts of organic nutrients necessary to the health of plants. It encourages earthworm activity and will enhance the population of soil microbes.

How to make compost tea​

Compost tea is made by "steeping" compost in a bucket of water (5 parts water to 1 part compost by volume) for 1-3 days, then straining and applying the liquid to plants. Make compost tea using composted yard waste (leaves, grass clippings, etc.) or vermicompost (worm compost). Do not use farm animal manure compost. It is low in a wide range of nutrients and good for fertilizing seedlings and transplants.
Based on HG 35 Backyard Composting, author former HGIC Consultant Lew Shell. Reviewed by Jon Traunfeld, Director HGIC, Extension Specialist, Fruits and Vegetables.
Rev. 9/2020