Protekt cloudy?

[Kygiacomo!!!]

Cant really rule out ph or calcium reaction without knowing ph or hardness and it its a problem. What if his riverwater is like 600 ppm cabonate? Probably not ideal to just pour in protekt... Could cause the cloudyness right? Hot tub test strips would tell you water hardness for 3 bucks for 100, i know i have a thing of them... Anyway im interested in what the problem is and would love to learn. If im off and someone tells me, lucky me i learned somethin new.

He may not be growing hydro, but if you mix hydro nutrients together and make a solution to pour into dirt plants you are still making a hydro solution right? Ive never used hydro food in dirt but you do still ph it right? Forgive me if my understanding is off, im kinda going off how my coco works and it needs a properly phed when using bottles of netrients...

Anyway i would love to let you phds figure this out, cause its way above my head. Its pretty interesting and im just goint to watch from here on out cause this stuffs making my head hurt...

im growing in soil used dolomite on it last year but i did not reamend it so now im gonna add some oyster shell flour. i have never had a Ph problem before using Dry ferts that i was aware of that caused me any issues to take notice,however i will be switching to organic growing for ease and cost effective. i am not worried about Ph though honestly my plants are fine i was just wondering what was causing the protekt to go cloudy

 

[stasis]

Mineral salts in the water are reacting. Even tho you add it first you are not adding it to pure water. Unknown what it is that is in the water. The silica is precipitating out and the plant is not getting that much of it.

 

[Nifty_PoT]

I have found that if you add the potassium silicate last and very slowly ,the reservoir must be full, less or no precipitation will happen.

 

[Only Ornamental]

Cant really rule out ph or calcium reaction without knowing ph or hardness and it its a problem. What if his riverwater is like 600 ppm cabonate? Probably not ideal to just pour in protekt... Could cause the cloudyness right? Hot tub test strips would tell you water hardness for 3 bucks for 100, i know i have a thing of them...

He may not be growing hydro, but if you mix hydro nutrients together and make a solution to pour into dirt plants you are still making a hydro solution right?...

True. Yes, pH may indicate hard water and for sure, he should determine hardness (I also use those dip strips, they're close enough). Not the carbonate one though but total hardness (it's calcium/magnesium which are incompatible, not the carbonate anion) .
Good point regarding his nuts, I haven't realised that he uses those. You're right, hydro nutrients should be prepared like hydro nutrients. May not be the best fertiliser for outdoors...

Sorry if my english is bad, but when did i say that silica n feldspars where the same, i got a master degree in geology so your comment made me smile

4KalSi3O8 + 4H(+) + 18H2O ----> Si4Al4O10 + 4K + 8Si(OH) reaction where feldspar gets hydrolysed to clay with subsequent release of kalium and mono silica acid or PAS

I will stop here since you really dont care and its off topip, but i still stand on my point that feldspar rich rock, volcanic n granites are better to add than diatomite.

No problem with 'bad' English (isn't my mothers tongue either).
You never said it, neither did I . It's just that OP uses potassium silicate, E420 proposes DE (amorphous silica), and you talk about feldspar. It gets all mixed up quickly if we (all of us) don't be more specific about what we talk because the three things are different, that's all. No offense meant, no pissing contest either!!
The formula you posted doesn't add up... maybe a typo?
Which brings me to the second point: I did say I'm not really familiar with feldspar and stuff (though I'm good in chemistry). If you stop being childish but have a dialogue like the educated person you're supposed to be. No offense either.
Feldspar, granite and volcanic rock are good sources for trace element and certainly good to add. If it comes down to silica, then DE (preferably from freshwater diatoms ) wins the race as amorphous silica in water is in equilibrium with orthosilicic acid (it's soluble!) and pH independent (under physiological conditions). Feldspar are crystalline and don't fully dissolve. To remove a part, you need to break the crystal structure (Si-Al bond) which needs energy and isn't favoured.
Again, please, participate and don't pout! All of us, no matter if masters degree or PhD can learn a lot of things from each other.

...appalachian mountains so im guessing they are all sorts of lime....
its all old blue or yellow clay. i just dig holes and replace the empty hole...

Dkgrower should be able to help you figure out which soil the Appalachian mountains have.
Besides, at least hemp loves clay rich soil! I guess I would mix some of the local soil with the new one or make the holes in a way that the roots will grow into the clay (which is rich in available minerals and trace elements -> less deficiencies and more money).

 

[Dkgrower]

@only - chemisty has newer been my favorite thing so ditten add every number =) =)

http://www.uvm.edu/~dbarring/241/prychid2004.pdf

Check it out its on page 4


i will grant you that your point on the DE are strong, but are you awear that feldspar is chemically unstabe at earth surface so they brake down, so volcanic soils n graintes will beside trace elements also give plenty of PAS

What just puzzel me is in all the plant biology pages i have read pepol talk about feldspars being the natural source for Silica, you have any take on that ?

Back to Kygiacomo, i would add 10% clay to increase the CEC in his soil since he is using a peat base it will give him more K, better water retention and trace elements.

 

[Only Ornamental]

Thanks for the link, nice find!
I simply got misguided by a lower case A . :

I don't know which mineral/s really is/are the main source of Si in plants. It may well be feldspar due its abundance and relative instability even if DE is a way better (faster and near quantitative) source. Additionally, I can imagine that there aren't many plants growing on DE sediments . That's the difference between 'field botany' and urban gardening.

I'm all with you regarding the addition of clay, potassium, and trace elements. If the water retention is better, I don't know (thanks for the teaching!). On the other hand, CEC should only marginally increase because organic matter has an approximately 10 times higher one than clay.

 

[Kygiacomo!!!]

Mineral salts in the water are reacting. Even tho you add it first you are not adding it to pure water. Unknown what it is that is in the water. The silica is precipitating out and the plant is not getting that much of it.

thank u i have decided to switch to only using the protekt as foliar 1x a week with my IPM spray to avoid this.

True. Yes, pH may indicate hard water and for sure, he should determine hardness (I also use those dip strips, they're close enough). Not the carbonate one though but total hardness (it's calcium/magnesium which are incompatible, not the carbonate anion) .
Good point regarding his nuts, I haven't realised that he uses those. You're right, hydro nutrients should be prepared like hydro nutrients. May not be the best fertiliser for outdoors...

No problem with 'bad' English (isn't my mothers tongue either).
You never said it, neither did I . It's just that OP uses potassium silicate, E420 proposes DE (amorphous silica), and you talk about feldspar. It gets all mixed up quickly if we (all of us) don't be more specific about what we talk because the three things are different, that's all. No offense meant, no pissing contest either!!
The formula you posted doesn't add up... maybe a typo?
Which brings me to the second point: I did say I'm not really familiar with feldspar and stuff (though I'm good in chemistry). If you stop being childish but have a dialogue like the educated person you're supposed to be. No offense either.
Feldspar, granite and volcanic rock are good sources for trace element and certainly good to add. If it comes down to silica, then DE (preferably from freshwater diatoms ) wins the race as amorphous silica in water is in equilibrium with orthosilicic acid (it's soluble!) and pH independent (under physiological conditions). Feldspar are crystalline and don't fully dissolve. To remove a part, you need to break the crystal structure (Si-Al bond) which needs energy and isn't favoured.
Again, please, participate and don't pout! All of us, no matter if masters degree or PhD can learn a lot of things from each other.

Dkgrower should be able to help you figure out which soil the Appalachian mountains have.
Besides, at least hemp loves clay rich soil! I guess I would mix some of the local soil with the new one or make the holes in a way that the roots will grow into the clay (which is rich in available minerals and trace elements -> less deficiencies and more money).

thanks O.O for all the great info and advice

@only - chemisty has newer been my favorite thing so ditten add every number =) =)

http://www.uvm.edu/~dbarring/241/prychid2004.pdf

Check it out its on page 4


i will grant you that your point on the DE are strong, but are you awear that feldspar is chemically unstabe at earth surface so they brake down, so volcanic soils n graintes will beside trace elements also give plenty of PAS

What just puzzel me is in all the plant biology pages i have read pepol talk about feldspars being the natural source for Silica, you have any take on that ?

Back to Kygiacomo, i would add 10% clay to increase the CEC in his soil since he is using a peat base it will give him more K, better water retention and trace elements.

i think next year im gonna get some local soil from the forest from up under fallen over trees since it always see to be really black and soft while adding local microorganism's.

Thanks everone so much with all the info. i have learned a great deal from all u guys all with good points to note. this is the types of discussions that i love to have with other growers. no pissing contests and just good info that each person strongly believes is the correct way to get Si to the plants. im gonna be adding some Basalt rock dust,gypsum,oyster shell flour and DE at 1/2 cup per C.F to my mix this year for good measure. i will be reusing the holes so i assume that they will only get better with time.

 

[Kygiacomo!!!]

i did what one u fellas said to do. i been mixing the protekt with water from the house and then pouring it into 1 gallon jug. i then hit the hills to go water and use the water source i have in the mountains and everthing stays clear. i also added some oyster shell flour,gypsum and basalt rock dust to my holes to put extra silica in the soil,since i use these spots year after year i dont mind if they take a long time to break down.. thanks everone

 

[moses wellfleet]

My limited growing knowledge sucks

My limited growing knowledge sucks

Error not meant for this thread!

 

[Only Ornamental]

My limited growing knowledge sucks

Fixed the title of this thread!... Hopefully it dies now!

What a helpful contribution to this thread! It's like sore haemorrhoids in the face of society!
It's neither that you just complain nor that your only post in here is said complaint but rather that you read all the way through a thread which, likely due a personal grudge, you judged unworthy from the beginning and then impersonate a mod to tell someone with a question you can't answer (if it were just a 'won't' then why the hell did you take the time to write an insult instead?) that he's stupid. By doing so, you also insulted all others who took the time and effort to help.

I see the necessity, when extrapolating the intelligence of a certain author based on his post, to explain above statement real simple:
Moses, go play in the sandbox and throw dirt at people your age!

 

[Only Ornamental]

...i also added some oyster shell flour,gypsum and basalt rock dust to my holes to put extra silica in the soil,since i use these spots year after year i dont mind if they take a long time to break down.. thanks everone

You should really get those water test strips and determine the water hardness of your growing area. I suppose that it's quite hard already and adding oyster shells AND gypsum aren't likely necessary. Gypsum is quite neutral but oyster shells increase soil pH. Maybe consider adding dolomite rocks as mixed source for calcium and magnesium instead?
But do your plants really need more calcium? Couldn't you just grow one or two plants without adding fertilisers and see which deficiencies they develop so you clearly know what to add?

Besides: Natural depot fertilisers such as rocks are best added when you mix the soil in winter or early spring so that the roots can get in close contact with the particles and actively take up the needed nutrients. Adding them now means basically a top dressing and that won't really do the trick as the minerals are washed off slowly and passively (faster with acid rain). Such a top dressing might also turn the upper soil layer alkaline and that's not optimal if you fertigate liquid micronutrients.

 

[Kygiacomo!!!]

You should really get those water test strips and determine the water hardness of your growing area. I suppose that it's quite hard already and adding oyster shells AND gypsum aren't likely necessary. Gypsum is quite neutral but oyster shells increase soil pH. Maybe consider adding dolomite rocks as mixed source for calcium and magnesium instead?
But do your plants really need more calcium? Couldn't you just grow one or two plants without adding fertilisers and see which deficiencies they develop so you clearly know what to add?

Besides: Natural depot fertilisers such as rocks are best added when you mix the soil in winter or early spring so that the roots can get in close contact with the particles and actively take up the needed nutrients. Adding them now means basically a top dressing and that won't really do the trick as the minerals are washed off slowly and passively (faster with acid rain). Such a top dressing might also turn the upper soil layer alkaline and that's not optimal if you fertigate liquid micronutrients.

hey bro i am gonna get those strips as soon as i head to town tomorrow so i can figure out exactly whats up. hmm i didnt know it had to be in close contact with the roots.i was thinking that the water had to flow thur the mineral kit i topped dress and it would neutralize the water flowing thur it i used dolomite lime last year at a couple of these spots but im not gonna use anymore of the minerals now and save it till after season and put in there to just sit and soak in so i can see what happens like u said. when i get the test strips is there a certain kind that i need to get to check the hardness or will it tell me on the kit? thanks O.O for all the help ur a genius!

 

[Only Ornamental]

...when i get the test strips is there a certain kind that i need to get to check the hardness or will it tell me on the kit?...

The kits I know are all idiot proof and explain how to use them (usually it's dip, drip, wait, read). You need one for total hardness and pH. The carbonate hardness, which comes either alone or as part of combo strips, is less helpful. Depending on where you get the test (aquarium v.s. swimming pool v.s. dunno), there might be other values on it as well. Some won't be very helpful (e.g. nitrite), others might be nice to know regarding your tap water at home (e.g. chloride), or probably come in handy when growing in hydro (e.g. nitrate).

The rock stuff also works without root contact or near proximity but there you'd need microorganisms to break it down or it will dissolve only very slowly. Roots secrete acids and enzymes, especially when they're short in certain nutrients, which diffuse a bit into the soil and dissolve rocks and mineral particles but works best at very close range.

 

[Avenger]

I'll bet that the stream water is softer with a lower pH than his tap water. Atleast that is what my experiences through life to this point would lead me to assume.

Certainly interested in your testing results.

 

[Only Ornamental]

That's true for several places I lived in. The river/lake water comes from more alpine regions with soft water but it's ehhh... not exactly polluted, they say, but more difficult to purify and hence, tap water is ground water from limestone rich layers. Therefore, we have such hard water that we have to be extra careful when taking a shower cause we might get stabbed by stalactites .

 

[Kygiacomo!!!]

The kits I know are all idiot proof and explain how to use them (usually it's dip, drip, wait, read). You need one for total hardness and pH. The carbonate hardness, which comes either alone or as part of combo strips, is less helpful. Depending on where you get the test (aquarium v.s. swimming pool v.s. dunno), there might be other values on it as well. Some won't be very helpful (e.g. nitrite), others might be nice to know regarding your tap water at home (e.g. chloride), or probably come in handy when growing in hydro (e.g. nitrate).

The rock stuff also works without root contact or near proximity but there you'd need microorganisms to break it down or it will dissolve only very slowly. Roots secrete acids and enzymes, especially when they're short in certain nutrients, which diffuse a bit into the soil and dissolve rocks and mineral particles but works best at very close range.

ah ok well i'm going to walmart in the morning and i will look for the idiot proof test strips and see whats up. i figured it will take a while to break down which is ok bc i will be using this plot again next year so it should be even better. i have been growing at this spot since 2008 or 2009 and have never added anything to it other then just a few hand fulls of potting mix and lime about 1 month before i plant in it,so i was thinking it may help with getting a bit more silica into the plant. in about 10 days i will be hitting them with some worm power liquid extract and then 10 days later i will be hitting them with some bu's brew compost tea so the little microbes can get to work lol. i already got a bunch of live earthworms in there eating and breaking things down. i pulled back the mulch today to check and they was crawling all over..check the pics out. thanks O.O

I'll bet that the stream water is softer with a lower pH than his tap water. Atleast that is what my experiences through life to this point would lead me to assume.

Certainly interested in your testing results.

Hey avenger i will let u guys know next time i go back to stream to test things out so we all can decide which is the best route to take. i have some Bioag humix & silica powder that i plan on using ever 14 days as well.

 

[Foreverfamily]

Or maybe there is something to adding Si sourced from Diatomaceous Earth. Here are two of my posts from a different thread--with a link to another research--that should make you say "hmmmm" as you stroke your chin.





So...Si sourced from Fossil Shell Flour (foodgrade DE) is "plant available silica" (amorphous) and bested "chemically pure" SiO2 (which is not "plant available"). Hmmmm...stroke, stroke...puff, puff.....29 pounds vs 34 pounds...hmmm.

What's the solution rate to match pro-tekt when using Fossil Shell Flour (foodgrade DE)??

 

[Only Ornamental]

Pro-TeKt (by Dyna-Gro) contains 7.8% silicon. This translates to 25.6% SiO2 aka silica. DE contains between 80 and nearly 100% silica depending on origin, quality, and processing.

Food grade DE usually contains large sized particles which sometimes have been heated/sintered to reduce dangerous needles and edges. This makes them safer for consumption but greatly reduces the speed of dissolution in water and hence reduces not only bioavailability but also its efficacy against pests (mostly feeding insects). Anyway, assuming you wanted to replace Pro-TeKt with plant available DE you'd have to take about 4 times more (by weight!) of the latter. Fossil Shell Flour being ~84% silica makes it 5 times more.

 

[EclipseFour20]

Pro-TeKt (by Dyna-Gro) contains 7.8% silicon. This translates to 25.6% SiO2 aka silica. DE contains between 80 and nearly 100% silica depending on origin, quality, and processing.

Food grade DE usually contains large sized particles which sometimes have been heated/sintered to reduce dangerous needles and edges. This makes them safer for consumption but greatly reduces the speed of dissolution in water and hence reduces not only bioavailability but also its efficacy against pests (mostly feeding insects). Anyway, assuming you wanted to replace Pro-TeKt with plant available DE you'd have to take about 4 times more (by weight!) of the latter. Fossil Shell Flour being ~84% silica makes it 5 times more.

I have been off the grid for a few weeks--great to be back in the land of "round door knobs"! I can attest this: Central Europe was hotter than Palm Springs!!!! Yep a hot one it was! Soo...while across the pond, I see some smart people dropped some misinformation on this thread...no surprise.

First, Only--I know you are a smart guy, but I think you swapped your "smart hat" for the "dunce cap" on this one...lol. So let's go through the facts.

SiO2 is 46.75% Si and 53.25% Oxygen. To convert SiO2 to Si you mulitiply SiO2 by 0.4675...and to convert Si to SiO2 you divide Si by 0.4675. Agree? Therefor---
If SiO2 is 89% (DE), then the equivalent Si would be 41.6% (89% x 0.4675)....not nearly 100% as you mistakenly claimed.
lf Si is 7.8% (ProTekt), then the equivalent SiO2 would be 16.68% (7.8% ÷ 0.4675)...not 25.6% as you mistakenly calculated.
​

Now, what is your rationale for this conclusion? "Anyway, assuming you wanted to replace Pro-TeKt with plant available DE you'd have to take about 4 times more (by weight!)" I think you have it backwards...you will need a bit over 5 times the amount of ProTekt to equate to the SiO2 provided by DE (89% ÷ 16.68% = 5.336). Double check your math...maybe you divided instead of multiplying.

And what about cost? With Fossil Shell Flour, a pound of SiO2 is less than a buck.....how much is a pound of SiO2 from ProTekt?

Second, your description for DE is correct for the type used for filters...but is 100% inaccurate when describing Fossil Shell Flour (no chunks and no "crystalline dust"). FSF is milled to a talcum powder-like consistency and IS NOT NOT heat treated. Did you know that heat treating DE will convert the amorphous silica (its natural state) to crystalline silica? From their website--http://www.perma-guard.com/fossil-shell-flour

Why fresh water vs. salt water Diatomaceous Earth?

Fresh water deposits like ours have a consistent diatom presence. Their fossilized shells have maintained their tubular shape. This shape and strength of the fossil shell is critical to its effectiveness. Our deposit has 89 - 95 percent amorphous silica content. This deposit is also more consistent in its purity of other elements that have settled in it. A fresh water deposit is confined to the run off water of its surrounding environment. A fresh water deposit in the mountains, such as ours, formed when snow was pure and its run off provided the water source these diatoms lived in. Salt water deposits contain a mix of types of diatoms of different shapes. Their fossilized shells are fragile and break easily. This renders them ineffective for our purposes. The salt water deposits are less predictable in their sediments.

What's the difference between amorphous and crystalline silica?

Amorphous silica is silica in its natural occurring state. It is a trace mineral every mammal on the planet needs to live. It becomes crystalline when it is exposed to extreme heat through volcanic activity or commercial manufacturing means. The type of Diatomaceous Earth used in swimming pool, and other, filtration systems is crystalline silica. Crystalline silica is extremely dangerous when inhaled or ingested. It is not biodegradable. Perma-Guard Diatomaceous Earth contains less than one half of 1% of crystalline silica and is considered GRAS (generally regarded as safe).

Thirdly, you suggested FSF has a reduced "speed of dissolution in water" with a reduction in "bioavailability". Sorry, 100% wrong. All the research and studies I have read have concluded that water solubility of DE/FSF is quite responsive and very efficient--hence DE is also used as a chemical absorbent for cleanup.

Let's not confuse the terms: dissolution and solubility. "Dissolution" is a kinetic process by which a solid compound becomes "solutes" (dissolved forming a solution in the original solvent) and is usually quantified by its rate (ie 70% vs 90% isopropyl alcohol). The ability of one compound to dissolve in another compound is called "solubility" and is usually dependent on the solution's temperature, pressure and pH. Similar...but technically not the same.

FSF does NOT "dissolve" in water--rather it becomes "water soluble", or in technical terms--FSF becomes a solution of the "solute" in the solvent...not the "solute".

Finally...crystalline silica is not Plant Available Silica and must go through a process (I called siliconization) requiring silicic acid to go from poly to mono from...which takes weeks not days. FSF does not go through the same process--and takes a short cut route that takes days.

Of course you can always cite a study/research that demonstrates the superiority of Potassium Silicate over FSF and we can call it a day....unfortunately, no such study exists.

 

[Only Ornamental]

Hi EF20,
Are you gloating? ROFL

You're correct, I made a complete mess during my calculations...
It's always good to have people around who use their brains as well. Being smart does not make you/me/us perfect nor prevents you/me/us from making mistakes now and then, if you get what I mean .
Must have been the aftermath of the heat wave and too much work .
First, I did not claim (BTW I don't have a patent on being always correct) that it's 100% but said between 80 and 100. Second, I did give the calculation (obviously wrong again as it's been based on an error) for 84% (a value I found when searching for Fossil Shell Flour).
Now that I re-calculate, I get a factor of 7 (6 for pure silica), WTF! EDIT: As EF20 said, it's a factor of 5. I'm confused LoL.

Then again, there is NO NEED to bash on my mistakes or inaccuracies because I am a human and I don't get paid for posting here. Hence, I am, like everyone else, allowed to be mistakenly and involuntarily incorrect from time to time. It's certainly a good thing you correct me but you're overdoing it. It's not like you'd just beat Kasparow and Deep Blue at the same time.
I did not state that FSF was heat treated because I simply don't know (BTW you wrote NOT NOT which would mean it IS... *being nitpicking again*). I said that food grade silica often is . Milling might dull edges too but without a good picture I won't 'claim' anything . The same goes for bioavailability: I did not mention anything like that with regard to FSF but with regard to heat treated silica! I left it up to the reader to go check if FSF is heated or not! If you sinter DE without turning it crystalline, it's speed of dissolution (not its solubility!) will decrease. Yes, silica does dissolve in water (it does not dissolve water) because this is the process called during 'becoming soluble'; it's like salt dissolving in water, forming a solution called brine. Anyway, heated silica is still available but needs more time (yes, kinetics changes!). To be really nitpicking: it's not directly dissolved but hydrolysed first LoL. Maybe I'll post a link to a study wherein you can see that crystalline silica does practically not dissolve and that there is no process which makes it amorphous within reasonable time (quartz needs years to thousands of years to degrade). Right now I don't have the time for it (check my post on the logical gardener). Regarding superiority: I never said anything like that, neither in one nor the other direction .
BTW this has nothing to do with 'chemical absorbent'; silica is used as adsorbent and hopefully does not dissolve in that case (as this would liberate the adsorbed chemicals).
Silica is NOT NEEDED by mammals. It might increase life quality or health but no deficiency will occur in the absence of silica. Some plants do need it for example to become rigid enough but this isn't directly necessarily in life either.
The natural form of silica is neither amorphous nor crystalline, both exist. But silica found in animals/plants/microbes is always amorphous (science doesn't know why).

PS sorry for writing a bit non-linear, I'm a bit stressed (maybe that's why I made the wrong calculation in the first place?).