Who uses Phosphites?

[ShroomDr]

Grew my best batch ever w/ PF as foliar along with adding it into my feedings. Same conditions, same genetics. Just replaced KoolBloom powder with PF for the PK. Not too dramatic difference compared to past harvests, though. (But still a recognizable difference in density and quality.)

I'm confused now. I hate it when there's a debate between first-hand experience and academic papers. Both are legitimate sources of info, especially from folks with loads of experience (ie. grapeman). So if phosphites foliars are helping to keep plants healthy and contributing to yield/quality, why not continue their use?

But there is no first hand experience. I dont know much about phosphites, but if what spurr has referenced holds true, then you are comparing a K booster to a P and K booster.

If anything, your first hand experience is that a K booster works better than a PK booster.

Again, i dont know anything about phosphites, i havent read his links, i dont use this product, but i do see schools of thought on using lower P levels. If phosphites can not be utilized as P, you are accomplishing this task. (Im sure at great monetary expense.)

 

[TickleMyBalls]

But there is no first hand experience. I dont know much about phosphites, but if what spurr has referenced holds true, then you are comparing a K booster to a P and K booster.

If anything, your first hand experience is that a K booster works better than a PK booster.

Again, i dont know anything about phosphites, i havent read his links, i dont use this product, but i do see schools of thought on using lower P levels. If phosphites can not be utilized as P, you are accomplishing this task. (Im sure at great monetary expense.)

again. all spurr is saying is that it is not a direct source. nor a single source. after your microbes break it down, it becomes highly available P. added to your normal bloom regimen, with a direct P source. it works well. and it's a P/K booster. What BlueberryLovr said is that he just grew his best bactch ever using Pure Flowers as a foliar and systemic suppliment. so how would his first hand results prove that a K booster worked better?

 

[funkymonkey]

I'm just about to start a test of a phosphite booster (Vitalink Buddy) against my usual phosphate booster (homemade 0-9-18 formula using mono potassium phosphate and sulphate of potash, copy of the original AN Hammerhead formulation) on some Mexican cuttings. They are currently at 52 days, have been fed identically upto this point and will be until day 60. Then I will continue to feed them the same regime only one will get the Vitalink Buddy and the other will get the DIY PK Booster. The regime (coco, handwatered) is Ionic Coco Bloom, Dutchmaster MAX Bloom, Seaweed Extract, Molasses and Dutchmaster Liquid Silica, I will start adding the PK boosters at day 60 and continue their use until day 90 then switch to plain water with a bit of molasses for 5 days then plain water for ten days, harvesting at 105 days. With a bit of luck, I might see increased yield on the Vitalink Buddy cuts, but I'm not so sure as the 0-9-18 booster works so well and cannabis needs a 1:2 ratio of P to K, the Buddy is of a similar ratio and is 0-3.6-6.

There is a fairly new product in the UK called 'Uncle Tom's Rose Tonic' that is just mono potassium phosphite in solution, it is intended for spraying on Rose bushes to increase size of flowers and reduce fungal issues. It's been getting rave reviews and I'm thinking I should get some and try it as a foliar spray on my cannabis crops.

I wouldn't listen to Spurr too much, he's a sociopath that has had several online handles (most notably 'Gojo') and has been banned a few times at various sites, he causes trouble wherever he goes and I'm sure has some mental issues, a guy to humour for a short while then ignore.

 

[Madrus Rose]

You too, got benefit from K, not P. I challenge anyone to prove phosphites are a direct source of P nutrition. And by "prove" I mean with scientifically sound proof, not a grow using Pure Flowers because Pure Flowers offers both K and phosphites....

seems that could well be the case with grapes as the fruit levels of K are very high & marked tendency for depletion in the vineyard soils . It is very needed element in grape production , a quick link to grape leaf analysis & high benefits of having ample K....
http://www.honeycreek.us/leaf_chart.php


interesting subject ongoing here , since grapeman does hav interaction with soil microbes with the phosphite in his usage & as u point out he is also deriving the much needed added benefit of the product also supplying good amounts of K. ( or do i now see that he's using a phosphite product without K ? oh well ...)

* On a side question either u or grapeman could comment ...a friend tested his well & a fellow he knows works with vineyard water quality maintence found what he deemed far too high concentrations of boron . Boron being needed but in small amounts his friend was telling him these concentrations were nearing alarming levels that would not be tolerated by a vine grower . Too high levels of the element would wreak havoc with the flower/fruitset. Wells out in this area running high near 450ppms...g

Don't have the exact results of his test but could get them ...he opted to just have potable water trucked in as a remedy & bought storage tank , with aeration & UV added .

(Think $175 gets u 3000gals here locally, not too high a price to pay)

best regards

mr

 

[grapeman]

So...

Who is gonna call up makers of Nutri-phite (sp?) and Pure Flowers and bitch at them for being idiots by marketing phosphites as a P source that is better than phosphates!?!

If no one wants to, I will do so. I really hate it when companies sell a line of total fuc*ing bull*hit! (I am not claiming Pure Flowers is BS, only their claims about phosphites being the better source of P; the K from Pure Flower helps in pre-flowering)

Spurr - all the above aside, have you considered that phosphites may be a very effective delivery system when used as a foliar? Thus various ag suppliers add K, ca, S, and other minor elements to this product.

I'm pretty sure it is.

Additionally, I have other thoughts as to why I have higher P levels while using less P.

PM me if you care to discuss.

 

[staff11]

interesting read. as an 'old school' gardener, we always learned that K was the main nutrient for flower production and that P was more important for root development. (hence using bonemeal when planting trees/shrubs)

ive always wondered why P was considered the big thing for cannabis flowers.

just remember guys, we are talking about nutes/ferts. dont take it as a personal insult when people say a product isnt up to much, or that the benefit isnt what you think. all part of the discussion. we wouldnt ever learn much if people only told you what you wanted to hear.

VG

This is always what I have been taught or have learned in the past. Cannabis forums and cannabis specific nutrient companies more to blame then anything else by this perpetuated myth.

 

[staff11]

Spurr - all the above aside, have you considered that phosphites may be a very effective delivery system when used as a foliar? Thus various ag suppliers add K, ca, S, and other minor elements to this product.

I'm pretty sure it is.

Additionally, I have other thoughts as to why I have higher P levels while using less P.

PM me if you care to discuss.

Hey grapeman, isn't this product intended as a foilar anyways?

the more experienced growers know about and use it, its kinda a little secret....... its made to be used as a foliar. haven't tried it that way, and have excellent results in my res.

 

[grapeman]

I'm just about to start a test of a phosphite booster (Vitalink Buddy) against my usual phosphate booster (homemade 0-9-18 formula using mono potassium phosphate and sulphate of potash, copy of the original AN Hammerhead formulation) on some Mexican cuttings. They are currently at 52 days, have been fed identically upto this point and will be until day 60.

Starting too late with the phosphites to see any results IMO. But this opinion was free, so it might be worth as much.

 

[down2grow]

Grape,

When using Pure Flowers as a foliar spray. Do you use a spreader or just mix with tap/ro? I was thinking about getting DM saturator, but I think Spurr stated that was no good.

D2G

 

[spurr]

@ all,

I will respond to posts tomorrow, or maybe later tonight. There are some more misconceptions posted since my last post.

There is no disagreement between growers and studies, because the studies are conducted on growing plants. Growers who think phosphites are a good source of P just are simply wrong, and they are misunderstand what is happening, drawing false conclusions from insufficient data.

Here is what phosphites are good for: fungicide, that's it; that is what they were made for, this has been proven time and time again, and has never been disproved.


@ grapeman,

Real quick cuz' I don't have much free time right now: it's generally cations that help other ions enter the leaf via. leaf cuticle layer, they swell the cuticle layer thus allowing greater absorption of other ions. Generally ammonium and calcium and potassium are the best at helping other ions pass into leaf. Anions are not what to use, esp., anions with high "Point Of Deliquescence" (POD) such as phosphates and phosphites.

Also, how did you test for P from petiole? I am thinking your tests can't distinguish between phosphate and phosphites, the former being for P nutrition and the latter not being for P nutrition. Also, like I wrote before, you were probably over-applying phosphates, thus when you backed off on them you didn't see negative effects due to sufficient levels, even at the reduced application rate.

Lastly, for now, phosphites have been shown to induce SAR in plants, which is why they can increase content of anthocyanin, increase growth, etc.; that is not the same thing as providing P nutrition for the plant. Once phosphites are inside plants they do not provide more than nil P to the plant, they stay mostly as phosphites. These are facts of plant biology; there is no refuting it.

And using phosphites as a SAR inducer is a poor choice, there are much better method to induce SAR, ex. methylated jasmonic acid.

If phosphites are oxidized into phosphates by microbes in the phyllosphere or rhizosphere, it happens before they enter the plant, otherwise phosphites stay as phosphites if the plant absorbs them as phosphites.

The reason using phosphites (Phi) as a P source is not worthwhile, nor a good idea, is they need to be converted (oxidized) into phosphates before they enter the plant to offer P nutrition, thus, it's much more efficient and effective to simply skip the process of oxidization of Phi > Pi, and just use phosphates (Pi).

Also, phosphites are phytotoxic in low amounts when plants are low in P; this is why they can induce SAR: because they can damage plants. Phosphites are not a good source of P nutrition, in fact, they are a very poor source of P nutrition. If you want to reduce phosphoric acid in fertigation water than use it as a foliar spray instead, along with calcium-nitrate (POD = ~53% RH), and a good non-ionic surfactant (i.e. none from a hydro store are good choices). That will greatly increase absorption of the anions and other ions and dissolved organic substances. There is no reason to apply phosphites as a source of P in foliar spray when you can spray with phosphates and get better results for P nutrition, and faster.

I have studied foliar application of spays and leaf biology very extensively, I can post more info on the best way to get most of the spay into the leaf, but not right now, it's time for dinner.

 

[spurr]

Grape,

When using Pure Flowers as a foliar spray. Do you use a spreader or just mix with tap/ro? I was thinking about getting DM saturator, but I think Spurr stated that was no good.

D2G

Yes, Saturator sucks monkey balls, the "Point Of Deliquescence” (POD) is > 93% RH! A much better, and simpler, and less expensive method is using CalMag+ (~1-2.5 ml/gal), humic acid and a good non-ionic surfactant. I could explain why each is used, but not right now. For now: CalMag+ is used for calcium-nitrate (POD ~53% RH), which is much better than the potassium-nitrate (POD = > 93% RH) in DM Saturator, or the mono-ammonium-phosphate in DM Penetrator (POD = > 93% RH).

 

[funkymonkey]

Starting too late with the phosphites to see any results IMO. But this opinion was free, so it might be worth as much.

You may well be right. I've just put four cuttings of another strain into flower, I'm going to do the same experiment with them but will be feeding them the Buddy as soon as I start to introduce higher levels of P and K after the stretch has stopped. I got a 250ml free sample of Buddy and just want to see if it offers any benefits.

 

[spurr]

You may well be right. I've just put four cuttings of another strain into flower, I'm going to do the same experiment with them but will be feeding them the Buddy as soon as I start to introduce higher levels of P and K after the stretch has stopped.

<face palm> You won't be proving worthwile P if you are tying to do so with phosphites...did you not read what I wrote!?! lolz.

I'd like to point out that spurr/gojo was thrown off another forum recently because he acted like a little child when some far more experienced growers called him on some of the bad points he made, you're wasting your time debating with him because he will never admit when he's wrong, which is quite often.

So, what is your nic from TCC?

That is not why I was banned from The_Canna_Cabana, and there are like 10 ICmag members (at least) that can back me up on that, those who also are mebmers at TCC. Stop telling lies. I was banned because I show how many beliefs of cannabis growers are flat out wrong, just like I am doing in this thread, and in the 24/7 light thread, and in a myriad of other threads. I was also banned from C-W2 for the same reason: those in charge, and others, don't like to learn they are wrong. It's that simple.

And I have been growing for 20 years, that means not a whole lot of people have been growing long than I. Also, experience doesn't equal correctness

If people didn't attach their ego to their beliefs we would not have drama, such as in this thread when I am called an idiot for stating the truth and facts that goes counter to common (incorrect) beliefs.

What often happens to me, is people and those in power "shoot the messenger". That is how it happens to me quite often, many people simply don't like to learn they are wrong.

I for one love to learn when I am wrong, so I can then become right, there are a few ICmagers who will back me up on that; those that have corrected me. But that's not a common trait amongst cannabis growers who attach ego to belief.

Also, I would like to point out you are using the logical fallacies called "Ad Hominem" (i.e. "against the man") (link) and "Ad Hominem Abusive" (i.e. personal attack) (link) and "Red Herring" (link). They are logical fallacies because they have nothing to due with the topic at hand, you are using them to try and refute what I am writing instead of refuting what I am writing by staying on topic, and providing proof. This is a very common tactic of slimy, weak willed and weak minded politicians..."character assassination".


@ all,

Once again, PLEASE READ UP on logical fallacies, and then DO NOT use them in a debate, they only make people look ignorant and childish.

Here is a great list and logical fallacies and their descriptions, learn them, and DO NOT use them! http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

 

[Guest 18340]

Let's not let this thread get off topic...
You two please take that up somewhere else, thank you

 

[spurr]

thank you, I agree 101%, my bad for responding to his/her last post...sorry about that, won't happen again

 

[TickleMyBalls]

still no response to the fact that most cannabis grower have the microbes in their medium to break down the phosphites BEFORE they are taken up into the roots to make it highly available P? you're explaining what needs to happen to make phosphites into an available P source, I'm telling you that those conditions exist in most mediums used to grow marijuana, and you ignore it. what about the fact that the studies you referenced aren't cannabis based tests. yeah, roots are roots, plants are plants, but theres a difference between scotts/miracle grow and organic soil or coco inoculated with beneficials.

i love how you talk about everyone's egos and their methods being mixed, but then when someone says they're gonna try something on their own to see if it works your response is oh don't waste your time with that! didn't you read what I wrote?

 

[spurr]

still no response to the fact that most cannabis grower have the microbes in their medium to break down the phosphites BEFORE they are taken up into the roots to make it highly available P? you're explaining what needs to happen to make phosphites into an available P source, I'm telling you that those conditions exist in most mediums used to grow marijuana, and you ignore it.

I answered that a few times already, but thank you for accepting I am correct about phosphites not being a direct, efficient and effective source of P. Phosphites can not replace phosphates, and phosphites are very poor at increasing P nutrition when co-applied with phosphates (ex. phosphoric acid).

To answer you again:
Why provide phosphites just to allow microbes to (slowly) break them down (oxidize) to phosphates? Why not just provide phosphates and skip the slow and inefficient process of oxidization? Using phosphites for P is like a conventional hydro grower pouring bat guano in their rez for N instead of using ions for N, such as nitrates and ammonium...

I have written this a few times already...not sure why you are ignoring what I am writing:

The reason using phosphites (Phi) as a P source is not worthwhile, nor a good idea, is they need to be converted (oxidized) into phosphates before they enter the plant to offer P nutrition, thus, it's much more efficient and effective to simply skip the process of oxidization of Phi > Pi, and just use phosphates (Pi).

what about the fact that the studies you referenced aren't cannabis based tests. yeah, roots are roots, plants are plants, but theres a difference between scotts/miracle grow and organic soil or coco inoculated with beneficials.

Cannabis isn't special by any means, it's C3 plant like other C3 plants, and in my references I cited a study using the best "model organism" in plant science: "Arabidopsis thaliana". That plant is to plant scientists what a mouse (i.e. "model organism") is to Homo sapien scientists (ex. during human drug trials).

i love how you talk about everyone's egos and their methods being mixed, but then when someone says they're gonna try something on their own to see if it works your response is oh don't waste your time with that! didn't you read what I wrote?

There is no reason to repeat in a non-scientific and non-analytical fashion what has been proven for a long time by dozens and dozens of studies. Many people here have tested phosphites, those who used only phosphites for P found severely P deficient cannabis plants in a short time.

I am not here to toot my own horn, I am trying to help you gals/guys. I take a lot of time, and care, in my posts, and I come back time and time again to help re-explain things...I am not doing this for my health.

I spend many hours a day studying these topics, and then I try to disseminate what I have learned to help others. I am not some fly-by-night hack. I believe in giving back and trying to help those who are not aware. Esp. in terms of phosphites which are a scam by how they are marketed as a great P source, better than phosphates; that claim just makes me shake my head and get upset at companies trying to take advantage of growers.

 

[epicseeds]

@ Spurr .... nice plagraizing from a user on the shroomery anyways, here is the whole post with all studies sourced. i have bolded what i feel is the most important information.

I wrote this after I heard a buddy uses Pure Flowers (phosphite) as a phosphorus (P) fertilizer for pre-flowering because of claims by Pure Flower company. This is in no way meant to be an insult or upset anyone who uses phosphite as a P fertilizer, I just hope to help explain and sort out truth from fiction from claims made by sellers/makers of phosphite fertilizers. This is not meant to be conclusive, it's only my take on what I have learned.

Phosphites (Phi) are formed using phosphorous acid (H3PO3) that is neutralized to form salts and becomes phosphonate ions (H2PO3), also called phosphite. Often Phi is sold in the form of potassium phosphite (K2H2PO3). Normally P is supplied with fertilizers containing phosphoricacid (H3PO4), which is a form of phosphate (Pi) available to plants.


What does phosphite do for plants?

It is a systemic fungicide active against a few soil fungal pathogens and a few foliar fungal pathogens when used as a foliar spray additive (ex., PM). Phosphites are sold as fungicides by most of the AG companies yet some companies are being unethical when they label Phi as a P fertilizer.

Foliar application of Phi has been shown to act as an 'inducer' for SAR (Systemic Acquired Resistance). SAR is a natural red-alarm mode for plants which can make grow bigger, faster and can increase yields and resistance to biotic attacks and environmental stress. Other products at the hydro store such as chitosan (as Chi), harpin protein (as Messenger and now Employ), salicylic acid (as Scorpion Juice) also activate the salicylic pathway acting as inducers for SAR.

Even from just a single foliar application of Phi it has been shown that in many plants and trees “...it increases floral intensity, yield, fruit size, total soluble solids, and anthocyanin concentrations [ex., a source of color for purple buds], usually in response to a single application.” (Lovatt and Mikkelsen; 2006). Those responses could be due in part to induction of SAR by Phi.

Phi has been found to supply P to P-deficient plants when Phi is applied as a foliar spray. Once taken in by the plant the mode of action is a bit surprising and not very well understood. Phi can't be used as a P source by the plant directly, even though Phi was absorbed into the leaf. There is some disengagement in the academic world whether or not plants can convert Phi into Pi; one side thinks it is possible but they can not prove it because they can not identify a potential enzyme or reaction for the conversion. The other side thinks it is not possible because no one can show what enzyme or reaction could convert Phi into Pi. The latter group makes the point that Phi, even after a single application, has been found to remain in plant tissue for over a year. The latter group claims plant usage of Phi once it is absorbed is low which is why Phi can become phytoxotoxic in concentration. That point is sound because Phi is systemic and stable once in the plant tissue.

Microbes in the media (ex., rhizosphere) and the and on leafs (phyllosphere) can convert Phi into Pi and then the plant can use the Pi as a P source, this is how Phi is thought to benefit plants in terms of P; however that conversion is a slow process. Most microbes do better consuming Pi for energy than Phi.

Plants given only Phi as a P source (in hydro or soilless) will become P-deficient in a short time. What this means is that Phi is not an adequate source for P. Phosphite can not replace Pi as a plant nutrient source for P; the P attained by plants from application of Phi to P-sufficient plants is very low.

What does phosphite not do for plants?

Phi is not a replacement for Pi as a source of P in bloom boosters, that means products like Pure Flowers, if only using phosphite as the P source, will not preform as well as bloom booster with phosphoric acid or other Pi source for boosting P. Applying Phi during pre-flowering when the plant can use extra P (and N, K, Ca, Mg, etc) is probably the best time because plants can tolerate and can benefit from higher levels of P and K (more of the latter than the former).

Phi can not replace Pi to provide P to plants even though the Phi and phosphorous acid contain higher levels of P (~39%) than Pi and phosphoric acid (~32% P). Phi is more water soluble than Pi and is absorbed faster into the respiration tissue (roots) or photosynthesis tissue (leafs). However, once inside the plant Phi does not provide P for the plant in sufficient quantity and can inhibit growth and health of the plant if overused.

Phi is not a broad range system fungicide with a wide range of fungi it will inhibit. I for one am interested in using it as a pre-flowering bloom booster as foliar spray which might also help prevent occurrence of PM.

Phi has been found to inhibit Pi uptake, probably because both Phi and Pi taken up by plants using Pi transports. Considering Phi is absorbed faster than Pi, it is possible Phi effects the Pi transporters ability to uptake Pi.

Phi interferes and can inhibit with Pi starvation responses in plants, such as increased roots growth and increased root to shoot ratio, etc.

How can phosphite hurt plants?

Phi can cause phytotoxic conditions in plants when used in high concentration or used often. Using levels (ppm) of Phi that are the same as commonly used levels of Pi is suggested as the max concentration to prevent phytotoxicity, and not to apply often. However, applying Phi at rates (ppm) lower than Pi, especially as a foliar spray, seems the safest route. I think this is why usage rates for Pure Flowers and other Phi products is so low, excess Phi will cause phytotoxicity and sufficient Phi will not boost P like bloom booster with Pi.

Plants can self-regulate uptake of some ions such as nitrate nitrogen, P, Ca, Mg, etc. It is thought at least in the case of nitrate N and P that the level of certain amino acids in the xylem trigger the plant to stop or greatly reduce uptake of specific ions. This means the plant controls the uptake of some ions from the rhizosphere. I think this is good because a plant's nutritional needs changes over time and it would be hard (or impossible) to try and give a plant a “perfect” hydro fertilizer in terms of ppm of ions at all stages of growth each day. Letting the plant take care of it takes the work out it for us. However, if the ionic solution (fert water) is too rich I believe osmotic factors can bypass plant self-regulated uptake and cause phytotoxicity.

An example of one cation which plants can not self-regulated uptake is ammonicial nitrogen (often sold as ammonium). Because plants can not limit up take of ammonicial nitrogen and because ammonicial nitrogen is taken into roots efficiently ammonicial nitrogen can cause phytotoxic conditions in the roots if the plant can't move enough sugars into the roots to keep up with conversion of ammonicial N for plant usage. It's possible that Phi acts in a similar fashion to ammonicial nitrogen bypassing the plants ability to limit P uptake, and because Phi isn't converted within the plant and has low usage rate by the plant it can become too concentrated and then cause phytotoxicity.

Use of Phi could injure beneficial fungi in the media and phyllosphere. However, it was found Phi does not have a strong fungicidal effect on a broad array of fungi species in soil.

How should phosphite probably be used?

Phi should be used as a foliar spray in my opinion, only during pre-flowering. Spraying at most two times using weak solution at week 2 and then week 3 (before buds start forming), or spraying once at week 2 or 3 with a stronger solution might be the best option.

Phi is readily absorbed though the cuticle layer into leafs, but use of a good non-ionic surfactant and 2.5-5 ml of CalMag+ per gallon of water will assist in cuticle hydration and swelling which increases absorption of other ions and organic substances into the leaf. Adding humic acid in folair spray is good because it prolongs the time the water droplets survive on the leaf (humic acid reduces rate of evaporation) and humic acid benefits the leaf in other ways too.

If using Phi as a root drench (soilless, hydro, etc) including Pi will help mitigate some antagonistic effects of Phi upon Pi and Pi transport.

How should phosphite probably not be used?

Phi should not be used to replace Pi as the sole source of P in bloom boosters. Phi will not provide the level of P that Pi provides in terms of the P available to the plant. This is why plants given only Phi as the sole P source will become P-deficient and grow poorly. It is odd to me that Phi can simultaneously create P-deficient plants and plants suffering from phytoxicity. I believe if people see increased yield when using Pure Flowers it's probably from the K and not the Phi which offers little useful P to the plant. From what I have read in some forums (like here at Icmag) most people do not think Pure Flowers gives more yield than other good bloom boosters, YMMV. I for one will not be using Phi (like Pure Flowers) as a bloom booster replacement; I think I may use the potassium phosphite and potassium silicate product Green Speed Si (0% N- 2% P – 5% K - 5% Si) as a folair spray during per-flowering.

Phi should probably not be used on a regular basis at concentrations equaling that used for Pi; application once every few weeks if used as a fungicide or as a SAR inducer; or one (max twice) during pre-flowing if using as a bloom booster. This in only my opinion after never using Phi (yet), so YMMV.


References:

Phosphite Fertilizers: What Are They? Can You Use Them? What Can They Do?
C.J. Lovatt and R.L. Mikkelsen
Better Crops/Vol. 90 (2006, No. 4)




Phosphorous and phosphoric acid: When all P sources are not equal
Asha M. Brunings, Lawrence E. Datnoff and Eric H. Simonne
Horticultural Sciences Department, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida; doc document is HS1010, April 2005




Attenuation of Phosphate Starvation Responses by Phosphite in Arabidopsis
Carla A. Ticconi, Carla A. Delatorre, and Steffen Abel
Plant Physiol, November 2001, Vol. 127, pp. 963-972




Phosphite, an Analog of Phosphate, Suppresses the Coordinated Expression of Genes under Phosphate Starvation1
Deepa K. Varadarajan, Athikkattuvalasu S. Karthikeyan, Paino Durzo Matilda, and Kashchandra G. Raghothama
Plant Physiol, July 2002, Vol. 129, pp. 1232-1240




Effect of phosphite fertilization on growth, yield and fruit composition of strawberries
Ulvi Moor, Priit Põldmaa, Tõnu Tõnutarea, Kadri Karpa, Marge Starasta and Ele Vool
Scientia Horticulturae Volume 119, Issue 3, 3 February 2009, Pages 264-269




Transport and compartmentation of phosphite in higher plant cells--kinetic and P nuclear magnetic resonance studies.
Danova, Dijkema C, DE Waard P, Köck M
Plant Cell Environ. 2008 Oct;31(10):1510-21. Epub 2008 Jul 24.




Phosphite Treatment: Treating Your Plants with Phosphite
Dieback Working Group




Bleeding Trees
Annette Stark
Ventura County Reporter




Phosphites and Phosphates:When Distributors and Growers alike could get confused!
New AG Internatlation, September 2007
(indudsty publsion)




A brief note about potassium phosphite on phytophthora
Dr. Ilangovan Ramasamy
Chief Scientist, Arborjet
(written by a coorpate sitcints but good info regless with refences to boot)



Benefits of Tru-Foliar™ Fertilizers Containing Phosphite (HPO3-)
Grigg Bothers Foliar Fortilzers
(written with good info and some reces but ti's a brodcouhre for their prouct but has good pics of Phi vs Pi vs control as a fertlizer)


A critical assessment of the suitability of phosphite as a source of phosphorus
Arne M. Ratjen1, Jóska Gerendás
Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science, Volume 172, Issue 6, pages 821–828, December, 2009


Effect of phosphite phosphorus on alfalfa growth
K. L. Wellsa, J. E. Dollarhidea, R. E. Mundell Jr.
Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, Volume 31, Issue 15 & 16 September 2000 , pages 2707 - 2715


Phosphate foliar fertlization as a source of phosphite residues
L. Tosi, M. Malusà
ISHS Acta Horticulturae 594: International Symposium on Foliar Nutrition of Perennial Fruit Plants

 

[TickleMyBalls]

will one of you phosphite haters please point to a single post in this thread where any pure flowers user on here claimed to use Phi as the only source of P? no one here did. it has always been used as a booster. it is an additive. the direct fast source of P to the roots is whatever normal nutrients you use. as Spurr constantly points out, Phi must be broken down by the microbes in the soil, even if they do so slowly, prolonged use of Phosphites would obviously benefit the plant, because even though the P isn't availble immediately at feeding time, there's still the rest of the time when the microbes are still working to convert the phosphites.

maybe your crusade should be against using phosphites in aeroponics.

 

[vonforne]

I would like to quote my good friend B.C. from a post to a member a few months back.

Hey xxxxx xxx, what happend to the speech about poeple having way to thin skin and bruise-able egos? and it not being about egos? LOL! jus kidding....

Regardless of who you are, or what you know, it never hurts to be polite and show some respect to other members. The truth will still be the truth. Take care... BC