Protekt cloudy?

[EclipseFour20]

No stress I say...life is easier that way.

Reread your post that I quoted and I think my points should be spot on. You did say, "DE contains between 80 and nearly 100% silica depending..." (maybe you meant SiO2??).

But here's how I look at it--if I add 1ml/gallon of Potassium Silicate (7.8% silica) to my "mineral feeding", then in 1 gallon the amount of Si should be 20.6 ppm (1 ml ÷ 3785 x .078 x 1 million)...not very much to be converted to poly then mono silicic acid.

Using the same facts...then the equivalent SiO2 would be about 44 ppm (20.6 ppm ÷ 0.4675).

Now, if I water my plants 32 oz of mineral solution...(1/4 of a gallon) then each plant might receive about 5 ppm of Si (20.6 ÷ 4)---hmmm, very seems like a very tiny amount.

How much Si do plants need? More than that I believe.

 

[Only Ornamental]

SiO2 is silica . Pro-TeKt contains 7.8% silicon, which is American (a butchered form of English) for silicium.
Hence, if you use the same facts (whichever you mean), then you have exactly the same amount of dissolved monosilicic acid (i.e. orthosilicic acid) in solution. According to your calculation this corresponds to 20 ppm silicon/silicium or 43 ppm orthosilicic acid. Dam, sorry dude, I just realised that you said exactly the same... so lets agree to agree

Yes, this is not much if you consider that some plants contain up to 20-30% silica (dry weight) but with a constant input, which is easier to obtain using DE in soil... Besides, saturation of silicic acid (and potassium silicate at physiological pH) is ~120 ppm. This on the other hand is a lot, mostly because plants can't (according to current knowledge, which is mostly lacking regarding silica for life) regulate it. Additionally, silica tends to precipitate with calcium and magnesium rendering both partners way less available; using 100 ppm in hydro might therefore be anything than optimal but I don't know for sure, it's just an educated guess. Most of the silica stuff I've read regarding hydro but also plants in general is very speculative and peppered with assumptions and lacking data ;( .

 

[EclipseFour20]

...How much Si do plants need?....

Plants absorb silicon from the soil solution in the form of monosilicic acid, also called orthosilicic
acid [H4SiO4] (8,9). The largest amounts of silicon are adsorbed by sugarcane (300–700 kg of
Si ha-1), rice (150–300 kg of Si ha-1), and wheat (50–150 kg of Si ha-1) (10). On an average, plants
absorb from 50 to 200 kg of Si ha-1.

http://www.siliforce.com/pdf/7c/Snyder%20Mati%20Les%20effets%20du%20Silicium.pdf[/QUOTE]

Now that would be an interesting calculation--how much FSF & Potassium Silicate (7.8% Si) would be needed to deliver 50-200 kg of Si? See if you guys can follow the bouncing ball--

Each kg of FSF contains 890 grams of SiO2 (1kg x 89%) which is the equivalent to 416 grams of Si (890 X 0.4675). Therefor to provide 200 kg of Si, about 481 kg of FSF would be required (200kg ÷ 416 grams). I paid just under $30 for a 50 pound bag of FSF....50 lbs is equivalent to 22.67 kg....which means FSF is $1.33/kg ($30 ÷ 22.67).

So...to deliver 200 kg of Si per square hector acre--about 481 kg FSF will be needed, at a cost just under $640 (481 X $1.33).

Assume 1 gallon of Potassium Silicate ($30 with 7.8% Si) weighs around 9 lbs (or 4 kg....I know it is heavier than water)...then each gallon should have at least 318 grams of Si (4kg X 0.078). Cost per gram of Si is around $0.094 ($30 ÷ 318 grams)..or $94/kg.

To provide 200 kg of Si via Pro-Tekt you would need nearly 629 gallons (200kg ÷ 318 grams), at a cost of $18,867 ($30 x 629).

Hmmmm....behind door #1 we have a pallet of bags containing 481 kg of FSF ($640 retail)....and behind door #2 we have a tanker with 629 gallons of Potassium Silicate ($18,867 retail); based on retail price that is about 29 times more.

AgSil isn't much better at $6+ per pound--FSF is the only one under a buck/pound ($0.67 actually)....and, lol FSF is organic/OMRI; not a synthetic or a wanna be "organic" (many ROLS people wrongly believe AgSil/Potassium Silicate is an approved organic nutrient for plant and/or soil feeding...lol).

 

[Only Ornamental]

Nice calculation but to see if one or the other costs more you don't have to go over ha . What intrigues me is an estimate on how much silica that would make for a pot. In other words, calculate from the 200 kg per ha down to something which fits into a grow room or even down to one single plant.
Rice and other monocots are, together with horsetail, the plants with the highest silica content. Strange thing is, silica from horsetail has a better bioavailability than the one from monocots (grasses)... but that's just what I found on google, maybe not the most reliable source. Nettles for unknown reasons follow behind with about half the silica content. Cannabis is likely amongst most other dicots with a silica content again half of the one of nettles (estimated 5% dry weight, if memory serves me right... and we both know the current state of my brain ).

 

[EclipseFour20]

Assuming 5000 cannabis plants per acre...1 acre is equal to 0.404686 ha, divide and conquer and I get 2023 plants per ha. Lets round down to an even 2000.

OK--easy math for a tired head...lol, 200kg of Si ÷ 2000 plants equals 100 grams of Si per plant. Please check my math....it is easy to be off a decimal or two.

For 10k plants per acre (instead of 5k), the amount of Si per plant would be half that...50 grams of Si per plant.

So the range might be 50-100 grams of Si per plant....at the 200 kg/ha rate.

 

[EclipseFour20]

BTW...Only, research bamboo cane ash. I doubt it would be much help in hydro situations, but then again you never know...maybe a liquid extract or a tea of sorts might work for hydro, as there is an upper limit as to the amount Potassium Silicate a plant can take. Too much and poor results is what you get....it seems as if one would have been better to do nothing, as opposed of overdosing it.

I am planning to grow one of my "garden inputs" that has multiple functions: a soil liming agent (ash increases pH), a natural source for amorphous Si grown in Si rich soil (bamboo cane ash), and a biochar component (nutrient accumulator plus plus...). I see nothing wrong with having a little bamboo patch in the corner in my backyard! First I got to fortify the area--as bamboo has a way of generating shoots in the most inconvenient locations....especially inside crevices. A little work in the front end will save me hours/days at the back end!

 

[Avenger]

The way I understand it is Protekt contains 7.8% SiO2(3.65% Si) and 3% K2O. Which makes it a 2.6 SiO2/K2O weight ratio potassium silicate solution. I have presumed it to be a diluted AgSil 25(SilMatrix) product, but I could be wrong about that. AgSil 25 is a 2.5 weight ratio potassium silicate solution with 20.8% SiO2 and 8.3% K2O content by weight.

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

If you are wanting to make a solution equivalent to 7.8% SiO2 with food grade diatomaceous earth, you can not. It is no where near water soluble enough to do so.

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?

I think that is the wrong question to ask when considering which silicon fertilizer to use. In my opinion it would be better to ask which product provides plant available silicon (mono silicic acid) in the time frame that you need it too and at the price you feel the situation warrants.

While diatomaceaous earth may be 80% total SiO2 content how much is plant available in the root zone?

According to Agripowers own sell sheet, page 29, only 0.06% to 0.1% is PAS. (0.01M CaCL2 extraction method)

In this .pdf describing the newly AAFPCO approved method for determining PAS for fertilizer labeling, they show that Agsil 25 has 9.7% total Si(20.8% SiO2) and 7.6% PAS. (5-Day Na2CO3-NH4NO3 extraction method)

So we have to differentiate between total silicon content and plant available silicon content.

 

[EclipseFour20]

...So we have to differentiate between total silicon content and plant available silicon content.

Exactly! Plant Available Silica (PAS) has been my primary point in most of the Si discussions. It is one thing to have Si in the grow medium--but is it PAS? and is it sufficient amount to benefit the plant?

What happens to mono & poly silicic acid after the application of amorphous Si? Validimir Matichenkov has forgotten more than I will ever know about PAS, and concluded the following (starting with the words, "Russian workers...")

Source: The Savant paper--http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Lawrence_Datnoff/publication/251449083_Silicon_Management_and_Sustainable_Rice_Production/links/53d01e7d0cf2fd75bc5d175f.pdf?disableCoverPage=true

Hmmm, (Phase A) after amorphous Si is applied there is an increase in monosilicic acid (PAS)--and very little change to polysilicic acid. Then (Phase B) new polysilicic acids form with a decrease in monosilicic acid. Then (Phase C) with additional applications of amorphous Si, both poly and mono silicic acid increase.

The mystery is--why during Phase B there is a decrease in monosilicic acid and an increase in polysilicic acid? (It has nothing to do with hydrolysis...but it is part of the mystery process I called "siliconization"--why does one increase and not the other?)

All the studies I have read have concluded the same thing: after application of amorphous Si (usually DE) there is an increase in monosilicic acid (PAS) and little to no change in polysilicic acid.

Now with Potassium Silicate, the story is quite different--during Phase A, there is always an increase in polysilicic acid with no change to monosilicic acid...exact opposite of what amorphous Si. That is why it takes weeks for the Si sourced from Potassium Silicate to become PAS--the process to convert poly to mono is not overnight.

 

[Avenger]

EclipseFour20 you continue to sound as though you belive every time a research paper talks of "amorphous SiO2" that they are referring to diatomaceous earth. This is not correct.

As I have tried to inform you before, soluble potassium and sodium silicates are also amorphous SiO2.

Now with Potassium Silicate, the story is quite different--during Phase A, there is always an increase in polysilicic acid with no change to monosilicic acid...exact opposite of what amorphous Si. That is why it takes weeks for the Si sourced from Potassium Silicate to become PAS--the process to convert poly to mono is not overnight.

Here I think you are making stuff up again, but I could be wrong. Please inform us all.

 

[Kygiacomo!!!]

Wow guys all this great info in this thread. i have learned so much from u guys so far. i really appreciate everthing that has been posted on this matter and for u guys keeping it professional when agreeing and disagreeing with one another. this is what makes Icmag so great for me. i can learn things to help me become a better grower. Just for the record i have added DE to all my plants via mixing it up in the the top 2-3 inches of the soil. i am also still applying protekt via folair with my IPM. i think there will always be a place for both products in my growing bc i use potassium silica to mix up the neem oil. i think alot of my plots will get alot better over time bc i also use basalt rock dust and/or greensand/azomite which has nice amounts of silica that will get broke down by the microbes. im not 100% organic right now, so i take what i feel is best from chemical growing and organic growing. please keep dropping the knowledge here fellas its very rewarding for a dummy like me:yay:

 

[EclipseFour20]

EclipseFour20 you continue to sound as though you belive every time a research paper talks of "amorphous SiO2" that they are referring to diatomaceous earth. This is not correct.

As I have tried to inform you before, soluble potassium and sodium silicates are also amorphous SiO2....

Avenger, never said all amorphous Si is DE. Nor should we jump to conclusions and suggest that any DE research refers to FSF. Don't know what gave you that impression--as that certainly would be foolish if I thought: "Amorphous Si" = Diatomaceous Earth! If that were true--please take me out behind the woodshed and shoot me! LOL.

As to your alternative "amorphous Si" sources, you are more than welcome to discuss their attributes, but I do not find their percentage of available Si exciting. First, those salts are not an approved "organic" nutrient for plants or soil use. Secondly, additional sodium and potassium is something I prefer not to have (why buy something I don't want?).

My style of research is rather simple and deliberate--I try to prove the opposite of my real hypothesis. If my hypothesis is, "FSF is an efficient, reliable and affordable source for PAS" (which I believe to be true)--then I attempt try to prove the opposite or for it to be false, so my research hypothesis will now be: "FSF is not good source for PAS". So let's start here....IMHO, it is harder to prove a "negative" and the research results are more thorough. Seems that many of the weaknesses, "exceptions to the rule", alternatives, and crazy things come to surface...things I normally would not discovered had I limited my research to just "prove it true". Things can be true and still be false--a broken clock is correct twice a day.

The first thing I do is focus on "what is applicable" and set aside what is not (get to this pile later). In this particular instance, any and all discussions regarding PAS and "amorphous Si" would be "applicable" while those discussing "crystalline" Si are set aside (never discarded).

Now within the "amorphous Si" subset of research, I have discovered much is written about DE--probably more than any other "amorphous Si" source. So when I cite "amorphous Si" research--it means "crystalline Si" research is not applicable, but "amorphous Si" research is...and it certainly does not mean DE is the only "amorphous Si" source.

I would love to incorporate Wollastonite (a natural calcium silicate and an EXCELLENT source of amorphous Si) into my routine...but unable to find a source here in So Cali. So the next best source of amorphous Si is DE, and of the many grades of DE available, FSF happens to be the best and purest from of DE. So there you have it.

Is it a coincidence that the attributes of Wollastonite and FSF are similar? I think not...why? When comparing Si% from both soil and plant tissues--why do certain amorphous Si sources seem to continuously report similar numbers? I think that would be a "correlation"...not a "coincidence". So yeah, sometimes I can suggest if something it is true here...then it also might be true there; there is a basis or foundation for that claim.

Sorry...if I seem like a know it all, but what I do know...I know very well.

All one has to do is "prove me wrong"--and two things will happen: First I will congratulate you for knowing more than me. Second, your intellect will now be part of my knowledge (which I promise to exploit to its fullest...lol). I have learned more from people that know more than I do...than from people that know the same shit I know.

 

[EclipseFour20]

For those that want a good understanding of "polymerization of silica" may I suggest wrapping yourself around this chapter--particularly regarding the discussion how poly is converted to mono...it ain't instant.
http://www.cntq.gob.ve/cdb/documentos/quimica/224/3.pdf

 

[Avenger]

Sorry...if I seem like a know it all, but what I do know...I know very well.

Wow.

You certainly talk a lot, frequently quote studies that you don't comprehend and use words that you can't define.

But you seldom make salient points that can be confirmed.


Is diatomaceous earth already polymerized silicic acid?

Will you perform your cost analysis calculations comparison with the AAFPCO approved PAS percentages instead of the total silica percentages?

 

[EclipseFour20]

Aveng...let's get with the program.

I stated my opinions and brought in the science to support them. You stated your opinions (which I respect) and you brought in zero science to support them.

If you want to quibble and nit pick over minutia, please go for it; but I find that type of discourse rather boring and not conducive to sharing freely ideas, information and knowledge.

Rather than try to stir shit up, why don't you contribute something positive? I am not your research assistant and if you can not find any science that contradict or trumps my opinions, then please go troll in another thread. The dialog thus far has been professional, civil and with respect--so please don't ruin it.

Your very first post in this thread was a cute attempt to call me a dumbass...right?

Please grow up or go away.

 

[Only Ornamental]

...
My style of research is rather simple and deliberate--I try to prove the opposite of my real hypothesis. If my hypothesis is, "FSF is an efficient, reliable and affordable source for PAS" (which I believe to be true)--then I attempt try to prove the opposite or for it to be false, so my research hypothesis will now be: "FSF is not good source for PAS". So let's start here....IMHO, it is harder to prove a "negative" and the research results are more thorough. Seems that many of the weaknesses, "exceptions to the rule", alternatives, and crazy things come to surface...things I normally would not discovered had I limited my research to just "prove it true". Things can be true and still be false--a broken clock is correct twice a day...

That's the best way to proof something (obviously, you'd still have to show that it does what your hypothesis says, only refuting the opposite doesn't suffice).

Regarding amorphous and crystalline silica: As a rule of thumbs, all silica from living organisms (which includes DE) is amorphous. Mineral sources of silica may be either of both, quartz and quartz inclusions (e.g. granite) are the main form of crystalline silica.
And then, there's a whole bunch of silicates which are not silica (i.e. not 'theoretically' pure SiO2, such as mica, bentonite, or talcum).

Regarding your citation: I've read a good part of the whole book, not just that single chapter, a while back. It's a bit dated but not outdated and a good starting point. Although, one has to understand quite a bit of chemistry and principles such as the 'Ostwald ripening'.
Many of the questions posted and discussed herein are answered in that book. Others, such as bizarre findings like those phases described by the Russians you mentioned, might also be explicable when understanding basic principles of silica chemistry/physics.

Nonetheless, I do not really understand how that PAS determination should work. The way I understand it, it's just a predictive tool wherein the measured PAS correlates with plant growth and plant silica content. But it does not really determine the amount of silica extracted by plants/animals from the sample.
Theory says that DE and ANY kind of amorphous silica is fully soluble given enough time and water; DE should also do so in a reasonable time frame (minutes to days). Maybe one should put some DE into a cartridge with a fine enough filter and place that at the outlet of an RO unit and see if it does so? Sure, sub-colloidal particles, small oligomers, will pass through the filter as well but these ARE soluble and WILL become available if they don't re-polymerise or nucleate again.

Got to go, it's late... maybe more tomorrow or so?

 

[EclipseFour20]

Only, backwards research is very time consuming and generates more data. If someone is just trying to prove the "negative", the facts to support the "positive" are obvious. I prefer to have two reports/studies/research that conflict each other...than have two documents that mirror each other.

Now...regarding Si properties of diatoms, I believe it is the uniqueness of diatoms which makes DE the "odd fella" in the room...so odd, that nanotechnology even copies the DE diatom structure. Perhaps, this 2006 research might help shed some light--

A large portion of nanoscience and nanomaterial engineering is about trying to copy what has evolved in Nature. Take diatoms; a major group of hard-shelled algae and one of the most common types of phytoplankton. A characteristic feature of diatom cells is that they are encased within a unique cell wall made of silica. Silicate materials are very important in nature and they are closely related to the evolution of living organisms. Diatom walls show a wide diversity in form, some quite beautiful and ornate, but usually consist of two symmetrical sides with a split between them, hence the group name. Diatomaceous earth consists of fossilized remains of diatoms and, as an environmentally friendly material, finds wide use especially in filter applications. It is also used as a mild abrasive, as a mechanical insecticide, as an absorbent for liquids, as an activator in blood clotting studies, and as a component of dynamite. As it is also heat-resistant, it can be used as a thermal insulator. Artificial synthesis of hollow cell walls of diatoms, as generally re-creating the silicate chemistry of Nature by chemical methods, is a key target of nanomaterial science. Researchers in Japan have now reported a method to produce artificial diatomaceous earth-like materials.

Diatoms synthesize their cell walls (also known as frustules or valves) from silicic acid (specifically orthosilicic acid, H4SiO4). The acid is polymerized intra-cellularly, then the wall is extruded to protect the cell. Significantly, relative to the organic cell walls produced by other groups, silica frustules require less energy to synthesize (approximately 8%), potentially a major saving on the overall cell energy budget.

Frustules are intricate species-specific siliceous microstructures and share certain characteristics such as macro-holes ("stria") often arranged regularly (as "areola"). Artificial fabrications of diatom-like silica and analogous materials are a challenging field of material science. For the preparations of artificial diatom-like materials, biological and biomimetic silicification processes have been applied.

Source: http://www.nanowerk.com/spotlight/spotid=1125.php

When DE is mixed in an aqueous solution, why is there a boost in monosilicic acid (not poly)? Perhaps the fact that diatoms (amorphous Si) synthesize their unique cell walls from silicic acid (specifically orthosilicic acid, H4SiO4....aka monosilicic acid ) might have something to do with it. Hmmmm interesting mystery for sure!

 

[Only Ornamental]

...
When DE is mixed in an aqueous solution, why is there a boost in monosilicic acid (not poly)? Perhaps the fact that diatoms (amorphous Si) synthesize their unique cell walls from silicic acid (specifically orthosilicic acid, H4SiO4) might have something to do with it. Hmmmm.

Hmmm... what exactly does the first part (the ... ) of your post have to do with anything? I mean, it's interesting and all but I don't see any useful link to plants.
Regarding the second part (the cited one): I read the corresponding article you posted earlier. First, it was in soil, second just an oral communication (no possibility to counter-check, concentrations and methods are unknown). To me it looks like normal behaviour when adding something with low solubility which interacts (precipitates on or aggregates with other minerals to form an equilibrium) with its surrounding. Just take into consideration that DE due its micro-structure, tends to result first in supersaturated solutions which take time to nucleate on surrounding particles. This in turn may lead to a lower apparent solubility.
In any case, such insufficient data on a field we do not fully understand is pretty useless and confusing at best. Better stick to what is known or at least what has been found to be beneficial even if not understood.

 

[EclipseFour20]

Only,
That post has to do with the peculiar abilities of DE and it's source of Si--nothing to do with plants.

Hopefully it will enlighten some to see that all sources of Si are not equal, and when it comes to PAS--we have an odd ball in the room that seems to be exempt from the some of the normal Si rules and characteristics.

BTW, DE is HIGHLY SOLUBLE not low, so please correct that misconception....and since DE can be used in both SOIL and SOIL-LESS grow mediums--why discount a "soil only" study? I believe the Savant paper rated water solubility of amorphous Si and it concluded (as have dozens of other guys wearing white lab coats with pocket protectors) DE is one of the most soluble form of amorphous Si. If you have other information, please share it!

Only, I have linked to DE research that covers dozens of years--in your opinion, how many more years should a prudent person wait before using DE as a source of Si?

 

[Avenger]

http://www.silicon-nutrition.info/Proceedings2011.pdf

Data in Table 1 clearly show the silicon content of products was not an indicator of the release of mono-silicic acid at 48 hours or at 8 weeks. In fact there was no detectable release of soluble silicon from silica gel, diatomaceous earth (DE), crushed rock and amorphous silicon products at the 48 hour sampling.

The field experiment that included diatomaceous earth, non-milled GGBFS, CalSil and Cement (Figure 1) clearly demonstrated the non-availability of silicon in diatomaceous earth and that coarser particles in the GGBFS did not have a significant effect on leaf silicon status until the third crop (second ratoon).

Again my position is Diatomaceous earth, specifically food grade fossil shell flour from fresh water deposits, can be a great slow release source of plant available silicon.

Or maybe better said; diatomaceaous earth, specifically food grade fossil shell flour from fresh water deposits, is a great soil amendment to increase soil reserves of plant available silicon.

However I do not believe diatomaceous earth is a replacement for soluble potassium silicates when what you are after is a water soluble silica. For hydroponics, fertigation and foliar applications the obvious choice is soluble potassium silicate such as AgSil and Protekt.

 

[Only Ornamental]

...
BTW, DE is HIGHLY SOLUBLE not low, so please correct that misconception....and since DE can be used in both SOIL and SOIL-LESS grow mediums--why discount a "soil only" study? I believe the Savant paper rated water solubility of amorphous Si and it concluded (as have dozens of other guys wearing white lab coats with pocket protectors) DE is one of the most soluble form of amorphous Si. If you have other information, please share it!

Only, I have linked to DE research that covers dozens of years--in your opinion, how many more years should a prudent person wait before using DE as a source of Si?

LoL! 120 ppm at ambient temperature is barely soluble! Table salt is highly soluble .
Sure, compared with quartz... but I'm not talking relative but absolute solubility and 0.01 something % is by definition very low soluble, short before practically insoluble.
These 120 ppm have nothing to do with DE but solubility of orthosilicic acid. DE on the other hand is a good source for orthosilicic acid (well, I've got to read Avengers link first, seems as if he hasn't read the same literature than me ).
Why should we wait using it? I've never said that, quite the opposite! Worst case, it'll do nothing but if we look at what folks here on IC use which really doesn't do shit but costs more than gold... DE at least has some additional effects beyond that as source for silica and is rather cheap and eco-friendly.