water polymers guerilla growers savior? (retaining moisture)

[Dignan]

With all due respect, I've had the opposite anecdotal experience... several people smoking product that came from plants grown using polymer crystals and, because I was wary, I specifically asked them to pay attention to any plastic or otherwise synthetic flavors or smells. Nobody could detect anything of the sort.

I have a feeling there are many different types of crystals on the market with varying physical properties and chemical make-up. I used SoilMoist brand in the past but this year am trying another company's product, so we'll see.

That said, if I didn't need to use them, I wouldn't. But I'm forced to and, fortunately, have had nothing but good experiences with them so far.

Dig

 

[Highlighter]

I use the SOIL MOIST myself, and have never been able to detect any chemical taste like I would w/ hydro grown.
Still, this discussion has me leaning towards trying the Zeba quench and DriWater next yr.
Unless you can run an irrigation system, I think the polymers are the guerilla growers saving grace. Peace from the creeping jungle. HL

 

[Wu-Skunk]

We have some kind of powder that absorb water...the plants can take 2 weeks with no moisure or watering....
The saver of my guerilla...very nice stufff

 

[DimeBag65]

Well elkslayer, i owe you an apology for how i approached that... i misunderstood your signature, and thought that you were another alias of Dusty_Bowls... i had read another thread that you had posted in about your 19 years of experience or whatever was said and thought it was one of dusty's lies to get things started...


I still believe that its not always the case about it taking on taste, especially if mixed into your soil properly, and also that it is better to have living plants than dead ones... but i approached your post wrong.

anyways clearing that all up.. and moving on... everyone who ended up using polymers of one kind or the other it would be great if you let us know how they worked out for you. i know alot of people who they have saved them from losing their entire crop. I personally do not need to use them, but for dry areas where you arent able to water whenever you need it i think they can be a very affective amendment.

Peace

Dime

 

[Ganico]

Zeba Quench seems to wins hands down. It releases and reabsorbs water, so not only is it organic, but they last longer than any of the competition. I think they said they last a year. They also aerate the soil when they release the water in response to the roots sucking up water
And they absorb nutrients too so they all don't just wash out of the soil


Water and feed less, and it's all organic? Can't beat it

 

[BACKCOUNTRY]

I for one will never use them:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyacrylamide

Polyacrylamide was originally advertised as a soil additive by Monsanto. Monsanto are responsible for DDT and rBST, both of which cause severely toxic effects in man. I already avoid acrylamide in my diet (I avoid eating fried potatoes). There's no way in hell I'm going to use these. I'd rather haul extra water than use an extremely toxic waste product.

I do have to point out that Acrylamides and Poly-acrylamides are two different things, so far there is no proof that Poly-acrylamides will break down into (Mono)Acrylamides, and further, there is no proof that plants will uptake Acrylamides.

At worst you are introducing a plastic substance into the soil, which is kinda like throwing garbage out your car window, but hey, its a small price to pay for those of us that grow Guerrilla in the dry country. I do not use them in my Organic vegetable garden, only in the Guerrilla setting.

 

[Ganico]

Okay, some more info on "Quench"


It's active ingredient:

88% Starch-g-poly (2-propenamide-co-2-propenic acid) potassium salt.


So I guess that's pretty high in K? haha

 

[Stone]

I just picked up 2 jars of soil moist, and that link to quench has me seriously interested! Sounds like it is not only organic, but outperforms polyacrimides...
If I do pick up some quench, I believe a side by side test is in order. Any other experimenters?

 

[DimeBag65]

i havnt done too much experimenting but alf is the man if you live in a very dry area and are worried about your plants wilting inbetween waterings i would definately suggest going with one of these, whichever is of your choosing. Live plants sure do beat the hell out of dead ones.

 

[glock23]

I do have to point out that Acrylamides and Poly-acrylamides are two different things, so far there is no proof that Poly-acrylamides will break down into (Mono)Acrylamides, and further, there is no proof that plants will uptake Acrylamides.

At worst you are introducing a plastic substance into the soil, which is kinda like throwing garbage out your car window, but hey, its a small price to pay for those of us that grow Guerrilla in the dry country. I do not use them in my Organic vegetable garden, only in the Guerrilla setting.

Polyacrylamide is not toxic, but unpolymerized acrylamide can be present in the polymerized acrylamide.

Polyacrylamide has been shown to cause cancer.

(both of the above quoted from Wikipedia)

 

[Dignan]

Wiki:

Cancer

According to a 2005 review[3], acrylamide reliably produces various types of cancer in experimental mice and rats. However, studies in human populations have failed to produce consistent results, and it remains unclear whether this is due to a reduced risk in a natural setting or the methodological difficulties inherent in such studies. For example, it might be difficult to isolate the effects of acrylamide because it is so ubiquitous in western diets.

In 2002-04-24 the Swedish National Food Administration (Livsmedelsverket) announced that acrylamide can be found in baked and fried starchy foods, such as potato chips, breads and cookies. Concern was raised mainly because of the carcinogenic effects of acrylamide. This was followed by a strong but short-lived interest from the press. On 2005-08-26, California attorney general Bill Lockyer filed a lawsuit against top makers of french fries and potato chips to warn consumers of the potential risk from consuming acrylamide. [2]

PDF of the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for Soil Moist brand acrylic polyacrylamide products:

http://www.biconet.com/soil/infosheets/SoilMoistMSDS.pdf

 

[Browser]

Now I remember why it sounded familiar... Some years ago I read a WHO report on it, and it caused a big controversy, coz some people wanted it banned, studies not being conclusive, etc...

 

[Dignan]

The MSDS is what I find most interesting. But the other things I take away from the above info are:

1. Acrylamides are present in many very common foods and not a result of any synthetic chemical or manufacturing processes or anything spooky like that, but are naturally present in some foods and acrylamide levels are increased in some foods by cooking them.

2. In foods, acrylamides are present at very low levels. Only at high levels of direct ingestion of acrylamides was it shown to cause cancer in mice. In real world settings and at levels present in foods, there has been no link between acrylamides and cancer in humans. Yet.

3. So, if you have a polyacrylamide product (which is NOT toxic) that contains small amounts of acrylamides (which ARE toxic, when ingested at HIGH levels), I guess the questions are:

(a) At what levels are acrylamides present in polymer crystals?

(b) Does a plant's roots uptake acrylamides and deliver them to plant tissues where they are then smoked by the cannabis user?

(c) Does smoking acrylamides have the same toxic effects as eating them?

And that last question is a moot point if the (a) the levels of acrylamides in polymer crystals is low and (b) a plant's roots don't uptake acrylamides anyway.

It's important to note that plants roots don't just absorb any random molecule they come across in soil. Roots are specialized to uptake the molecules and substances that they need to photosynthesize and sustain themselves. In other words, just because someone sprinkles gunpowder into your soil doesn't mean that there is gunpowder in your buds that you are smoking.

So there are a lot of questions to ask before we start sounding the alarm on Soil Moist.

Dignan

 

[BACKCOUNTRY]

Polyacrylamide has been shown to cause cancer.

(both of the above quoted from Wikipedia)

When you look at the Wikpedia page this was quoted from you will notice that they do indicate that this claim does not site a source(citation needed), its just something someone posted there.

If you try punching up "Polyacrylamide" and "Cancer" together in a seach engine like Yahoo or Google, the pages that link seem to only be refering to Acrylamides, it does not seem to be widely accepted that Polyacrylamides give you cancer.

I don't doubt that Polyacrylamides contain some Acrylamides, but so do French fries and Potato chips. And I really don't think Plants uptake these types of chemicals anyways, this is one fear I have seen no basis for as of yet.

I never try to encourage folks to visit Planet ganja, but I did have a discussion about this very subject there earlier this year......

 

[elkslayer]

Well elkslayer, i owe you an apology for how i approached that... i misunderstood your signature, and thought that you were another alias of Dusty_Bowls... i had read another thread that you had posted in about your 19 years of experience or whatever was said and thought it was one of dusty's lies to get things started...


I still believe that its not always the case about it taking on taste, especially if mixed into your soil properly, and also that it is better to have living plants than dead ones... but i approached your post wrong.

anyways clearing that all up.. and moving on... everyone who ended up using polymers of one kind or the other it would be great if you let us know how they worked out for you. i know alot of people who they have saved them from losing their entire crop. I personally do not need to use them, but for dry areas where you arent able to water whenever you need it i think they can be a very affective amendment.

Peace

Dime

NP Dimebag

Like I said we used polymers quite a moon ago. I am certain we probably used way too much. It sounds like folks are using all the newer polymers and hell I think I read someone will do a side by side. Thats what these sites are all about, sharing experiences and knowlege. Believe me if I had to choose between dying plants and something inorganic with some backage, I would choose the latter.

Anywho, good luck to everyone who are playing out in Ma Nature.

Here's some cheese for all you cheeseheads.

Cheers

ES

 

[ShroomDr]

Bump, cause its a good thread, I just purchaces some soil moist, and this is the best thread on IC about these type of products.

 

[Dignan]

http://www.puyallup.wsu.edu/~Linda%20Chalker-Scott/Horticultural%20Myths_files/Myths/

http://www.puyallup.wsu.edu/~Linda%20Chalker-Scott/Horticultural%20Myths_files/Myths/

Super-absorbent water crystals – are they really so “super?”
What are hydrogels?
While gardeners may not be familiar with the term “hydrogel,” nearly everyone who
has worried about watering their plants has heard about “watering crystals” or “water
retention granules.” The ability of these synthetic polymers to absorb water and
selectively bind to other substances has led to their use as soil stabilizers, water
purifiers, juice clarifiers, animal feed thickeners, and in the processing of oil, pulp
and paper, and fruits and vegetables. Moreover, they are widely used in cosmetics
and other personal products, and have medical application in tissue augmentation
(see sidebar 1). Although our main interest is in the effectiveness of garden-variety
hydrogels, it is important to realize how widely these compounds are used in other
contexts and to understand their positive – and negative – impacts.
There are two broad classes of polyacrylamide (PAM) hydrogels: soluble (linear) and
insoluble (cross-linked). Linear PAM dissolves in water and has been successfully used
in reducing irrigation-induced erosion in agricultural fields (see sidebar 2). Crosslinked
PAM does not dissolve, but forms a gel when water is added and is often used
in garden, landscape, and nursery situations as a way of retaining moisture. Insoluble
PAM products are marketed as “superabsorbent gels” or “hydrating crystals.” Instead
of dissolving, these gels absorb water, swelling to many times their original size. As
they dry, water is slowly released to the soil. Popular with the nursery industry and
homeowners alike, these latter compounds are the focus of this article.
How do hydrogels work?
In addition to their solubility, hydrogels are also defined by their overall chemical
charge: they may be characterized by a negative (anionic), positive (cationic) or
neutral charge. These charge classes are found in both linear and cross-linked PAM;
the charge determines how they will react with soils and solutes. Briefly, clay
components of soils have a negative charge; heavy metals have a positive charge, and
other commonly found minerals in soils and water may possess either a positive or a
negative charge, depending on the compound in question. Therefore, cationic PAMs
(+) generally bind to clay components (-) and act as flocculants (congealers); anionic
PAMs (-) cannot directly bind to clay (-) and may act as dispersants. However, anionic
PAMs can bind to clay and other negatively charged particles in the presence of ionic
bridges, such as calcium (Ca+2) (Wallace and Wallace, 1996).
How polyacrylamide gels will act in any given situation can be hard to predict, as the
chemical interactions between the gels, soil components, and dissolved substances
are complex and occur simultaneously. Electrical charges, hydration levels, van der
Waals forces, and hydrogen bonding all modify the affinity of the gel for other
compounds. The polyacrylamide polymer contains a complex array of positively
charged, negatively charged, and neutral chain segments, all with varying affinities
for other molecules. The stronger the attraction between the gel and surrounding
solutes and soil particles, the greater the ability of the gel to absorb water, create
aggregates, and stabilize soil structure.
Unfortunately, on-the-ground conditions can prevent PAM hydrogels from functioning
optimally. Fertilizers and other dissolved substances can interfere with hydrogel
water-holding capacity. Hot, dry weather conditions can lead to increased
degradation and decreased effectiveness of PAM hydrogels. And for every success
story, one can find a situation where hydrogels have failed to function.
Hydrogel effects on plants:
The documented impacts of cross-linked PAM hydrogels on plant survival and
establishment are variable. Some researchers report enhanced growth of crop and
tree species. Presumably this enhancement is due to improved soil water conditions,
though in some cases salt tolerance is also reported. This latter ability may be due to
the ability of cross-linked gels to enhance calcium ion availability, reducing the
amount of sodium uptake.
According to other researchers, however, PAM did not improve plant survival
compared to control or other treatments, especially if performance was evaluated
over time. In several cases, PAM-treated plants performed worse than the untreated
controls. Moreover, excessive use of PAM can lead to nutrient deficiencies; phosphate
and silicon were reduced in tomato and wheat, and this latter plant also suffered
manganese and boron deficiencies when grown in under high PAM concentrations.
Why is there such high variability among research results? I believe the cause is both
environmental and temporal. Many of the positive results are drawn from studies that
are short-term and/or performed under controlled conditions; for instance, one study
reports on tree survival only a few months after installation. As we already know,
PAM gels lose their water-holding effectiveness over time, especially when exposed to
high levels of UV, salts, and freeze-thaw cycles. Positive results in the short term
may be perfectly valid for nursery plant production, where environmental conditions
can be more tightly controlled, but they are not as applicable to landscapes. Indeed,
it is under such conditions (e.g. revegetation of quarries and mines) over the long
term that PAM gels perform most poorly.
Long-term effectiveness:
Although synthetically produced, polyacrylamides are organic chemicals that can be
degraded by both living and non-living environmental factors. Exposure to ultraviolet
radiation, chemical oxidizers, fertilizer salts, mechanical abrasion, and freeze-thaw
events will degrade the polymer, breaking it up into smaller fragments. These
smaller fragments do not have the same properties as the larger polymers, and thus
the hydrogel’s water-retaining capacity and other functions are reduced and
ultimately lost. Gels that are applied to soil surfaces experience these environmental
stresses most frequently and will degrade most rapidly, especially in soils with high
levels of solar UV.
Even if gels are protected from environmental exposure they will still be broken down
by decomposition. A number of naturally occurring soil microbes have been identified
as active decomposers of both soluble and cross-linked polyacrylamide gels.
Decomposers include bacterial species (Bacillus sphaericus and Acinetobacter spp.)
and white rot fungi (Dichomitus squalens, Phanerochaete chrysosporium, and
Pleurotus ostreatus). The fungal species solubilize the polymer, which is then
susceptible to further degradation by many other soil microbes.
It’s not surprising that polyacrylamide is rapidly broken down by decomposers; one
study found the average size of the polymer to be less than 25% of the original in only
14 days of microbial action. These gels contain a significant amount of nitrogen,
which is often a limiting nutrient in both aerobic and anaerobic environments.
In most outdoor applications, therefore, the functional life of polyacrylamides is
short; this is borne out by a number of studies that have noted decreased efficacy of
field-applied polyacrylamide gels over time. If gel activity is destroyed in as little as
18 months, there should be serious reservations about its use in long-term landscape
applications.
Gel contamination and degradation:
As the name suggests, polyacrylamides consist of many linked acrylamide units
(monomers). Acrylamide is a known neurotoxin in humans and is suspected to be
carcinogenic as well. During the manufacture of PAM gels, residual acrylamide is
present as a contaminant and strictly regulated in the United States to levels no more
than 0.05% or 500 ppm for agricultural use. However, an international study
recommended that polyacrylamide gels used in cosmetics contain a residual monomer
level of only 0.1 to 0.5 ppm. Therefore, the PAM hydrogels manufactured for
agricultural and garden use can contain much greater concentrations of toxic
acrylamide than that found in personal products.
While new PAM hydrogels contain a higher initial level of acrylamide than older gels,
there is bitter debate over whether the degradation of polyacrylamide gels provides a
constant, significant source of environmental acrylamide. On one hand there are the
researchers who claim that microbes quickly metabolize the nitrogen from the
polymer, eliminating the possibility of acrylamide production (acrylamide contains
nitrogen). Yet others have argued that degrading gels do produce measurable levels
of acrylamide, especially when exposed to elevated temperatures or high levels of
solar radiation. In any case, there is no question that PAM hydrogel degradation
produces uncharacterized, variable polyacrylate units whose environmental and
human impacts are unknown.
Hydrogels and human health:
There are two separate, but related, human health issues relevant to PAM hydrogels:
risk of polyacrylamide exposure and risk of acrylamide exposure. The dangers from
acrylamide exposure were briefly mentioned earlier and tend to be greatest for
workers in occupations that routinely use polyacrylamide-based products such as
grouts and wastewater flocculants. It is unlikely that the infrequent user of garden
hydrogels will experience any significant exposure to acrylamide from this source.
The other health issue is that presented by exposure to the more or less intact
polyacrylamide gel. Though PAM gels are much less toxic than acrylamide, chronic
exposure can cause minor problems such as skin irritation and mucus membrane
inflammation. More worrisome are recent reports of toxic effects of PAM both at the
cellular and whole organism levels. An earlier article from 1992 reported on the
accidental aspiration of polyacrylamide by a patient who subsequently died from lung
injuries.
Finally, there is the issue of exposure to degrading PAM hydrogels, whose risks are
entirely unknown. People most likely to be exposed to degradation products would
be those involved in agricultural or nursery production where gels are commonly used
and where environmental degradation would be most likely to occur. Compost piles
containing potting mixes with hydrogels would also be a source of exposure.
Should you be concerned about your exposure to PAM hydrogels? This is where the big
picture regarding hydrogel usage becomes important. Because these compounds are
so ubiquitous, it’s likely that most of us are exposed to a number of PAM gel sources
every day. Studies that estimate lifetime risks of developing cancer usually focus on
only one source of exposure, such as that from usage of personal care products that
contain polyacrylamide. While these individual estimates are almost always very low,
there have not been analyses to determine additive risks associated with exposure to
multiple sources of polyacrylamide. The lack of scientific data makes it difficult to
predict risks associated with exposure to polyacrylamide gels.
Hydrogels and environmental health:
As a neurotoxin and carcinogen, acrylamide is dangerous not only to humans but to
other organisms as well; the evidence does not need to be repeated here. Of more
concern for gardeners and landscapers is the impact of PAM hydrogels on other
organisms in the environment.
Microbes do not appear to be negatively affected by PAM gels; indeed, we already
know that gels are colonized and degraded by a number of naturally occurring
bacteria and fungi. Toxicity information on terrestrial organisms (other than humans)
exposed to PAM gels is nearly non-existent and therefore can’t be addressed. Some
inhabitants of aquatic systems, however, have been studied in relation to PAM gel
toxicities and the news is not good.
There are few indications that anionic PAM gels, used appropriately, pose a significant
health threat to aquatic organisms. Cationic and neutral PAMs, however, have
greater toxicities and should not be used. The charged nature of cationic PAM
hydrogel is attracted to hemoglobin in fish gills, where the gel binds and suffocates
the fish. In addition to fish, a variety of algal and invertebrate species are also
injured or killed when exposed to low levels of cationic PAMs. Since cationic PAMs
may also contain higher levels of acrylamide monomer, many researchers recommend
against any environmental use of cationic PAM hydrogels and in fact use of these
compounds is illegal in a number of municipalities where aquatic contamination is
likely.
Alternative products and strategies:
The recognized hazards associated with cationic PAM gels, as well as those associated
with residual acrylamide, have spurred many researchers to develop alternatives for
agricultural and landscape usage. These alternatives include resins, paper-making byproducts,
and a number of polysaccharides such as gums, starches, and gels. These
alternatives are more environmentally sound, and in many cases are reportedly
cheaper to use and functionally superior to polyacrylamide gels.
The best news for those of us managing a home garden or landscape is that simple
changes in management practices are often superior to using polyacrylamide
hydrogels. In several cases, alternative water management strategies had higher
success rates than usage of PAM. These strategies were as simple as adding 2 liters of
water when planting Pinus patula seedings, or providing wind protection to reduce
water stress in musk melon. More commonly, mulches (especially organic) were rated
superior to hydrogels in terms of erosion control, enhancing water infiltration and
conservation, plant growth and establishment, and nutrient value.
Summary and recommendations:
Many of the products labeled “water gel crystals” and “poly-clear” are cationic PAM
gels. Not only are they are more toxic to aquatic organisms and generally less
effective than anionic gels in landscape situations, they can also contain higher levels
of residual acrylamide. Even though these cationic gels are banned for many
applications, they are still manufactured and sold in the United States, China, and
other countries. Cationic PAM hydrogels should not be used in gardens and
landscapes.
It is difficult to predict short-term effectiveness of anionic PAM hydrogels on plant
survival and establishment, since the ability to absorb water is reduced by several
environmental factors, especially salt, temperature extremes, ultraviolet radiation,
and microbial activity. The functional lifespan of cross-linked PAM hydrogels used
outdoors can be as short as 18 months and at best only a few years; they cannot be
regarded as long-term solutions to landscape water needs.
As PAM gels degrade, they give rise to smaller, less functional polymers whose risk to
people and ecosystems is unknown; they also produce some level of acrylamide, a
known neurotoxin. Lack of documented information on the nature and toxicity of
degraded PAM hydrogels makes it impossible to assess human or environmental health
effects. People need to be aware of their total exposure to polyacrylamides from all
sources, including occupational use, garden products and cosmetics.
There are a number of products and management practices that can reduce
unnecessary usage of and exposure to polyacrylamide. In particular, cultural
practices that conserve soil moisture are simple, inexpensive, safe, effective, and
natural alternatives to PAM hydrogels.
Linda Chalker-Scott, PhD
Associate Professor and Extension Urban Horticulturist
WSU Puyallup Research and Extension Center
7612 Pioneer Way E
Puyallup, WA 98371
Email: lindacs@wsu.edu
URL: http://www.theinformedgardener.com
Sidebar 1: Polyacrylamides up close and very personal
People are exposed to polyacrylamides every day: over 100 formulations are used in
cosmetics such as sunscreen, shampoo, soap, lotion, and shaving cream. They are
used in such personal products as denture adhesives, contact lenses, diapers, and
wound dressings. Now injectable polyacrylamide gels are becoming increasingly
popular for use in plastic and reconstructive surgery, especially for facial and breast
augmentation. Proponents of this application claim that the gels are non-toxic and
stable. More recently, PAM hydrogels have been injected directly into the urethral
wall to treat stress incontinence in women. The researchers state that
polyacrylamide gel “seems to be a promising new bulking agent” in treating
incontinence, despite the fact that 16 of the 17 patients in the study had negative
health events (such as urinary tract infection) associated with the treatment.
Alarmingly, there have been dozens of studies reporting of hundreds of patients with
complications resulting from polyacrylamide injection, including pain, hematoma,
nodule formation, gel migration resulting in tissue asymmetry or deformation,
inflammation, and even cancer. The recommended treatment for complications
arising from injectable polyacrylamide gels is full removal of the gel and replacement
with silicon.
Even the most fervent advocates of PAM gels for tissue augmentation acknowledge
the existence of these adverse reactions, though they place blame on human error
(i.e. contaminated gel, improper technique, poor hygiene) as the underlying cause.
Other researchers blame the gel itself. Several researchers have noted that it may
take several months to a few years for complications to arise; thus, the impact of
injectable PAM gels must be studied over time. In fact, enough negative evidence
now exists that usage of PAM hydrogels in tissue augmentation surgery is forbidden in
Russia and Bulgaria, where they had been used since the early 1990’s. Regardless of
arguments regarding culpability, researchers are increasingly recommending against
its use for facial tissue augmentation or tissues that have not been previously
operated upon. Still others call for prohibiting its use in plastic surgery and searching
for safer alternatives.
Sidebar 2: Hydrogel use for erosion control
Soluble polyacrylamide gels have been used for over a decade in reducing erosion and
enhancing water infiltration of fine-textured agricultural soils. Unlike “water
crystals” that retain their shape as they absorb water, soluble PAM dissolves in water,
forming a thin slimy film that coats the soil surface. In irrigation furrows and other
bare soils where irrigation can exacerbate erosion, this film protects the soil from
washing away with irrigation flow and hydrates the surface so that irrigation water
can more easily permeate.
Many studies have been conducted on a variety of soils in different environments
show that agricultural PAMs are a viable (though short-term) solution to soil loss and
degradation. Often their effectiveness can be enhanced by the addition of gypsum – a
calcium source - especially in saline soils. Anionic soluble PAMs have generally been
found to be more effective than cationic formulations in reducing soil erosion, which
is fortunate considering the environmental toxicity of cationic gels.
Certain soils and environmental conditions are antagonistic to soluble PAM gel
effectiveness. In general, soluble PAM gels do not work well on sandy soils, and can
actually reduce infiltration, possibly due to pore blockage by the viscous gel. They
may not work well on clay soils. Sodic soils decrease soluble PAM gel effectiveness
since sodium prevents ion bridging and prevents soil aggregation. Neither do they
perform well on slopes, often increasing runoff, and requiring either higher
applications of gel or additional mulching materials to maintain effectiveness.
Usage of soluble PAM is acknowledged to be a short-term solution to erosion; for this
reason its usage should not be extended to garden and landscape use. Mulches are
demonstrably better in reducing erosion than bare soil and PAM hydrogel and provide
other, additional benefits. Moreover, the soluble PAM hydrogels have no documented
benefit to plant growth. Like many other agricultural production practices, soluble
PAM usage does not translate well to home gardens and landscapes.
Soil scientists R.E. Sojka and R.D. Lentz have provided a concise and informative
review of linear PAM applications in agriculture; it can be found at
http://polymersinc.com/polymers/pam2.htm

 

[DimeBag65]

^^

 

[Big Foot]

What are polymers and what are water-absorbent polymers?

A polymer is a string of repeating molecules that forms a long chain. DNA is a polymer, as are starches, proteins, etc. For example, casein - the protein that makes cow's milk - is a polymer. About 30 years ago the plastics industry was looking to change the negative image people have of the word plastics, and pick up on a friendly sounding name to confound the public so they started calling a wide-range of their plastic products 'polymers'.

Water-absorbent polymers (also known as hydro-gel, water crystals, super absorbent polymers, etc) - are simply a type of plastic that possesses some unique water absorbing qualities.

What makes this polymer water absorbent is the presence of sodium or potassium molecules that form bridges between the long hydrocarbon chains. These bridges - known as cross-linking - enable the polymer to form into a huge single super-molecule (desirable for a number of reasons), including its ability to degrade in the environment and break-down into simpler molecules, and hold significant amounts of water. The polymer crystals that you purchase, whether the size is small, medium, or large, will always be a single molecule (making it very difficult for you to chop up large crystals into smaller crystals - try it in a coffee grinder sometime.)

All water-absorbent polymers are cross-linked, and cannot work if they are not cross-linked. It is often written on labels to make it sound like a "feature" - don't be tricked into paying more for polymers that are labeled as being "cross-linked".

How are they used?

Water absorbent polymers (hereafter referred to as just polymers) can be used for two purposes: to store and hold water to add an extra few days between watering; or alternatively, to protect your plants from over-watering - especially if they are planted in an area that tends to pool water.

Are there different types of super-absorbent polymers?

There are about 800 to 1000 different recipes for these polymers - but they are divided into two big categories: polyarcylamide and polyacrylate.

Polyacrylate (called in the industry PAC) are used in disposable diapers, sanitary napkins, etc. and are capable of holding a huge amount of water - between 600 and 800 times its weight (purity of the water determines this range - the more dissolved solids in the water, the less liquid the polymers can hold).

Polyacrylates are usually made with sodium and are more environmentally friendly, breaking down first into ammonia salts and then nitrogen and CO2 in about 4 to 6 months. They are often sold with an environmentally friendly green label and retail for around $10 to $12 per pound.

In contrast, polyacrylamides (often known as PAM) absorb only about 300 - 400 times its own weight in water, use a variety of potassium molecules for cross-linking, and take between 5 and 7 years to completely breakdown. Because of the lower absorbency and longer time to breakdown, polyacrylamides usually sell for around $6 to $8 per pound.


Do polymers affect the taste?

Do water absorbing polymers affect the taste of finished marijuana?
I experimented with the use of polymers on my canola farm over a period of years, and have grown cannabis in extreme drought conditions using these crystals.

Growers have reported that these polymers adversely affect the taste of the finished product. Many others have reported no impact on the taste of the quality of the smoke. This debate and the difference of opinion is due to the type of polymer used.

Polyacrylates will negatively impact the taste of cannabis. As noted, polyacrylates take approximately 4 to 6 months to completely break down - with intermediary chemicals including ammonia salts, nitrogen (nitrites), and CO2. This breakdown usually happens when most growers are flushing their plants - and it is the plant absorbing this residue that negatively impacts the taste, including a variety of sodium by-products.

In contrast users of polyacrylamides - which take 5 to 7 years to break down - will not be introducing intermediary residual chemicals to their plants, and will not notice any impact on taste or quality of the smoke.

Given a choice between the two - it is strongly recommended that growers use the less absorbent polyacrylamide.

How do I tell if the polymer is polyacrylate or polyacrylamide? (if there is no label)

If you cannot buy from a recommended online supplier, and are buying locally, look for these four clues to distinguish products: absorbency, price, "environmental friendly", and a "safe for food crops" label.

Polyacrylates (the one you want to avoid), report absorbency of 600 to 800 times its weight, cost around $12 Cdn per pound, and almost always have on the label "Environmentally friendly".

In contrast, polyacrylamides are labeled as absorbing 300 - 400 times its own weight, are priced at $6 - $8 Cdn per pound, and may have a note on its label that reads "Safe for Agriculture and Food Crops". Only certain polyacrylamides (and very few polyacrylates) can be labeled as safe for food crops.

Can you recommend a reliable source for polyacrylamides?

The web site is : Watersorb

This is a non-profit - native American run business. Their customer service is absolutely great. This is a statement taken from their web page: "WaterSorb.com is an American Indian owned and operated corporation dedicated to restoring and improving the environment through technology, and meets all qualifications as a SBA 8 (a) minority owned corporation."

Their prices are the best you will find too - $12 for 2 pounds; $26 for 5 lbs - delivered anywhere in the USA. They are very good people to deal with and understand your needs.

An international package - 4 lbs delivered to Canada or anywhere in the world is available for $24.50 US from the same website - in the international section.

{Edit - changed international price to reflect recent shipping price increase. The FAQ author has purchased from this company for several years and service is excellent. They also have a very informative web site that will provide additional information on polymers.}

What size do I buy?

Avoid the powder, it is difficult to mix thoroughly. Likewise, the large size is also difficult to work with and to mix thoroughly with the soil. Both tend to cause the roots to clump up and bind around the polymers rather than grow outwards and search for water in the natural soil environment. Improper use of either of these sizes actually diminishes performance characteristics.

If you are growing indoor with a soil mix (perlite, etc), in fine sandy soil, or where water pooling is a problem, use the small grade as an amendment.

If you are growing in heavy soil or in drought conditions use the medium size. Why? In sandy light or fast draining soils you are most likely using the polymer to slow the rate of water drainage and you want to maximize the probability of water contacting the polymer and being absorbed.

In heavier soils and in drought conditions the medium grade is better for several reasons. One characteristic immediately noticeable when growing in drought affected areas is that the soil tends to harden and compact. There are several reasons for this - earthworms and other insects are not living in the top couple feet of soil and do not work and loosen the soil; plants can't live naturally in drought, and the absence of a good root system causes the soil to compact; and finally, the heat itself causes the soil to expand slightly and fill the gaps that might have once existed.

Because the medium size polymers expand rapidly when they absorb water and contract when they release the water to the plant or environment - this expansion and contraction helps work and loosen the soil and promotes good root growth in what would otherwise be a very difficult environment.

How much do I use?

Consider that one cup of dried polymers (250 ml) will absorb 100 liters of water (about 24 US gallons). This would likely launch your plant out of its hole in a matter of minutes!

That said, an appropriate amount will be significantly less - between a teaspoon and a quarter cup of crystals. It all depends on your environmental conditions. In drought situations (no rain for more than 28-days), you want a lot of polymer crystals to absorb any water they come in contact with - and it is unlikely that any single polymer will absorb its maximum potential. A couple tablespoons to 1/4 cup of polymers is recommended for this sort of environment. In more "normal" meteorological conditions - a rainfall every seven to ten days - your objective is likely to minimize stress between rainfalls - and one to two teaspoons would be the more than enough.

How do I use them?

The optimum use involves some experimentation for your soil and growing conditions. As a general rule of thumb, this method worked well for the FAQ author in extreme drought conditions (no rain for 60-days). First - make a deep hole - at least 3 feet (80 cm). An 8-inch posthole auger is very good for this as it completely eliminates the back-breaking work of shoveling - and if you are lucky enough to use a power auger - it will be very fast too.

Back fill about 6-inches (15 cm) into the hole and sprinkle a tablespoon of medium-grade polymers over the soil. Continue backfilling another 6-12 inches and gently work the polymers into the soil. Make the soil wet with a couple liters of water and wait a few minutes. This will allow the polymers to absorb the water and expand.

In the next 12 inches (30 cm) add any amendments plus another tablespoon of polymers - pack the soil hard and when finished add another couple liters of water. With the final soil - add your soil mixes and at most a third application of polymers - about a half teaspoon maximum, moisten with a liter or two of water, and insert your plant. Do not fill your hole to ground level with the soil - you will need to leave at least a couple inches (5 cm) for expansion and heaving. The slight depression also acts as a natural pooling for water in the environment - which is important in drought environments.

As an added drought protection measure, use a brown grocery store paper bag as a liner for the hole (and mix the third half teaspoon of polymers in the soil in the paper bag). The paper bag slows the drainage rate significantly - and takes about a month or two to dissolve, in time to let the roots reach the deeper levels of polymers.

How many days will I be able to go between watering if I use polymers?

There is no real answer to this question because it depends on the environment and the plants themselves. In hot dry environments, the plants will transpire and loose moisture rapidly as compared to more humid dry environments. Dry wind also has an impact on the rate that plants transpire. Evening and night temperatures also impact the length of time that the polymers can hold water.

It is best to experiment and observe your plants, but as a general rule of thumb, if used correctly, the polymers should buy an extra three to five days between when you would normally water.

I once went 21 days between heavy watering in a severe drought situation. The plants with polymers, while definitely heat stressed, did not die; whereas plants without polymers did not survive this 21-day period of neglect.

 

[SCARHOLE]

I use Miracal grows moistrue controll soil, it just has coco husks in it to hold the water.
An i use ZEBAs QUENCH for water crystals (starch based) , both are organic an work awsome. Mid summer outdoors its 100-110' here, i water em once a week, when they are small its cooler they get watered every 2 weeks. But I believe the plastic screen mulch holds the water in the soil better than either of those .