Icemud's Far Red LED Journal - Flower Trigger Manipulation - Budmaster LED Lights

[TorturedSoul]

Thanks for sharing your experience, and its good to know the reflector worked for you. I've had horrible success with it so back to my CFL's this weekend. Can't wait any longer lol

Mom just uses the same method that her mom used to when she was still alive - takes a cutting, sticks it in a glass of water, and parks it on the kitchen windowsill. She doesn't clone cannabis - but she used to get cuttings all the time, of all kinds of different plants, sometimes really small cuttings... and I think she managed to root almost all of them.

Err... Eventually .

A few years ago, I stopped doing the "aerated water" thing and just started putting a perlite/vermiculite mix into little foam cups, poking a few drainage holes in them with a finish nail, making a hole, dropping the cutting's stem in it, patting the medium down a little, and watering with Oliva's Cloning Solution (mixed as per directions with water). And putting them under 20 hours (give or take) per day of fairly weak light. Kept the air movement and temperature such that they weren't trying to transpire more moisture than they were capable of uptaking through the "raw stem." Made sure that if the cups started feeling like they were drying out, that I gave more solution. Went back in a week or two and gently tugged on the stems - if there was resistance, there were roots, otherwise I'd wait a few more days.

I sometimes threw my cuttings into the refrigerator for a few hours, lol. They'd wilt, of course. Then I got to see "magic" when I placed them into the cups - and an hour later they were standing up again. IDK what the point was :rolleyes3 - but it showed me right then that the cuttings were in a good environment.

Hmm... I wonder if either of my little runts have any "cutting material" yet, lol? I wonder if that bottle of Olivia's Cloning Solution is still good after having been opened, used from, and then stored in someone's basement for three years? Hmm...

 

[Icemud]

Mom just uses the same method that her mom used to when she was still alive - takes a cutting, sticks it in a glass of water, and parks it on the kitchen windowsill. She doesn't clone cannabis - but she used to get cuttings all the time, of all kinds of different plants, sometimes really small cuttings... and I think she managed to root almost all of them.

Err... Eventually .

A few years ago, I stopped doing the "aerated water" thing and just started putting a perlite/vermiculite mix into little foam cups, poking a few drainage holes in them with a finish nail, making a hole, dropping the cutting's stem in it, patting the medium down a little, and watering with Oliva's Cloning Solution (mixed as per directions with water). And putting them under 20 hours (give or take) per day of fairly weak light. Kept the air movement and temperature such that they weren't trying to transpire more moisture than they were capable of uptaking through the "raw stem." Made sure that if the cups started feeling like they were drying out, that I gave more solution. Went back in a week or two and gently tugged on the stems - if there was resistance, there were roots, otherwise I'd wait a few more days.

I sometimes threw my cuttings into the refrigerator for a few hours, lol. They'd wilt, of course. Then I got to see "magic" when I placed them into the cups - and an hour later they were standing up again. IDK what the point was :rolleyes3 - but it showed me right then that the cuttings were in a good environment.

Hmm... I wonder if either of my little runts have any "cutting material" yet, lol? I wonder if that bottle of Olivia's Cloning Solution is still good after having been opened, used from, and then stored in someone's basement for three years? Hmm...

When I first started growing, and bought my 1st grow tent 2nd hand, they guy I bought it from had a half used bottle of olivia's cloning solution. He told me it was at least 2 years old, and I used it anyways and it worked fine

I don't use it anymore since the root riot plugs have enough nutrients in them for the clones to root and thrive and somewhere I read that olivia's has growth hormones in it... Clonex does too, so I'm just using it till its gone, and then moving to just natural and fresh aloe vera.


I've rooted clones just by putting the fresh cut stem directly into the root riot plug, no solutions/gels or anything else... I've also kept cuttings alive in reverse osmosis water for 3 weeks in a dark closet... with minimal light.

I would love to be able to do tissue culture... but looked into it and it requires quite a few chemical compounds, very very sterile environments and seems to be a much longer process, but litereally a tiny holepunch of a leaf could grow a plant... pretty cool for preservation of genetics with little room needed. maybe in the future :0

 

[TorturedSoul]

I would love to be able to do tissue culture... but looked into it and it requires quite a few chemical compounds, very very sterile environments and seems to be a much longer process, but litereally a tiny holepunch of a leaf could grow a plant... pretty cool for preservation of genetics with little room needed. maybe in the future :0

I've thought about it, too. And I don't think there's all that much involved. Although the need to keep the agar sterile would worry me. The cultures would be so delicate at that stage.

Thinking back about Mom's cloning adventures (lol), I remembered that she used to do African violets. And, oddly, she could grow an entire plant from a single leaf - but those plants never produced flowers. Hmm. IDK...

 

[Icemud]

I've thought about it, too. And I don't think there's all that much involved. Although the need to keep the agar sterile would worry me. The cultures would be so delicate at that stage.

Thinking back about Mom's cloning adventures (lol), I remembered that she used to do African violets. And, oddly, she could grow an entire plant from a single leaf - but those plants never produced flowers. Hmm. IDK...

I have the same worry, as keeping it sterile would really difficult.... very interesting method though, as one could store hundreds of cuttings in a very small area. I actually think I did that with the african violet back in grade school or high school or something, now that you mention it.. its crazy how nature knows how to adapt and thrive...

 

[Icemud]

Well I picked up some worm castings today... its been actually quite a while since I've had them added to my soil, maybe about a year or so. I wanted to make some really good compost teas and the soil even though doing well I wanted to add some new life to it so tonight I prepared a nice compost tea with just molasses, yucca extract and a paint strainer with a couple garden shovels full of worm castings, and 1 shovel full of my premixed soil. Going to bubble this for 2-3 days and should be ready by the time the plants need a new feeding.

I also will hit them with a nice compost tea foliar feeding too

 

[Icemud]

So I decided to take some more photos and while I was in the garden, I wanted to take some brix readings which I haven't done in a while.. I was quite surprised with the readings as they all were over 14, and the highest was brushing 25



Black cherry soda

ogiesel

harlequin

tangie 3

black diamond og

tangie 5

full tent views

 

[Jacobsenji]

It's gonna be a minute before I understand Brix. But until then I can watch and enjoy. Fillin up fast I see.
Great Lookin grow Ice

Phrum the light room.

 

[TorturedSoul]

I was going to ask for a link to a halfwit's guide (FAQ) thread, myself, but figured I'd already pushed the off-topic limits of a scientific type thread. But since you've mentioned it...

 

[Icemud]

It's gonna be a minute before I understand Brix. But until then I can watch and enjoy. Fillin up fast I see.
Great Lookin grow Ice

Phrum the light room.

I was going to ask for a link to a halfwit's guide (FAQ) thread, myself, but figured I'd already pushed the off-topic limits of a scientific type thread. But since you've mentioned it...

Here are a few links and videos that I made, as well as some threads here at 420 that go over high brix. DocBud is the BrixGodfather here and I believe the one that introduced the forum to high brix growing so he would be my suggestion for the best info. I started researching it, went the DIY blind way of approaching high brix and nailed it, but his approach is much more consistent, and more proven.

Here is Docbuds Brix Q and A, very long but tons of very valuable info here.
Doc Bud - High Brix Q&A With Pictures

Here is my 4th grow, which I started to really explore high brix so a lot of good info here too.
Icemud's Grow 4.0 - High Brix Focus with Gas Lamp Routine - V-Scrog

 

[TorturedSoul]

I'll admit it kind of goes against my "just give the roots exactly what they require, in a predigested form that doesn't require the participation of third-party organisms to eat it and crap out... what I'm already giving it" hydroponics grain, lol. But if it has some kind of side benefit like, IDK, producing plants which are absolutely toxic to spider mites (and... FLEAS, <ARGH!>, WtF?), then I'm all for it. Regardless, it'll surely be an interesting read and my thanks for the link (which I will bookmark). I'm not currently using a hydroponic method - not even hand-watered passive hydro (aka "hempy") - so I might be more receptive to such a thing than I was in years past.

I'll take a look at your journal (previous), too.

 

[Icemud]

I'll admit it kind of goes against my "just give the roots exactly what they require, in a predigested form that doesn't require the participation of third-party organisms to eat it and crap out... what I'm already giving it" hydroponics grain, lol. But if it has some kind of side benefit like, IDK, producing plants which are absolutely toxic to spider mites (and... FLEAS, <ARGH!>, WtF?), then I'm all for it. Regardless, it'll surely be an interesting read and my thanks for the link (which I will bookmark). I'm not currently using a hydroponic method - not even hand-watered passive hydro (aka "hempy") - so I might be more receptive to such a thing than I was in years past.

I'll take a look at your journal (previous), too.

Good thread on radioactivity in the soil which I think I may have inspired... I'm going to post the information I wrote here in my journal too... and probably should let everyone know I dont use azomite or soft rock phosphate anymore...

 

[Icemud]

Tortured Soul actually posted a thread about the potential radioactivity in soil amendments and I know I've touched on it before, so I wanted to post my response here as I found quite a bit more info that was mildly alarming....


I've actually reconsidered a lot of the additives that I use because of the same concern back in june and did a little bit of research on it, since then I actually discontinued using soft rock phosphate, and azomite as well. I've recycled my soil for 2 years I'm sure there are still traces of it in the soil. Definitely a concern. I thought about it because I read that after the Chernobyl accident, hemp was planted to help "soak" up the radiation. Then I thought about our plants, and that we ingest them. I started looking into it and found some very interesting things... then was doing research at work about lab testing for commercial bud quality and found some interesting information about plants and heavy metals....

Azomite lab analysis's show some very interesting things...including: Lead, thorium, uranium, iodine, mercury arsenic... now these things are all in the parts per billion and parts per million which is very very tiny amounts so its hard to say whether even in that miniscule amount if they did get into the plant, would it be enough to even influence us at all. ?? I researched it and found mixed information.

Azomite actually sent product out to get sampled for alpha and beta radiation and the levels were around 11units/hr which is about 1/3 of most ambient levels of radiation we naturally get anyways in the air and environment. I noticed though they didn't test for gamma radiation though either...

I didn't find any information on gamma radiation in azomite except for a forum post that someone tested it with their geiger counter and it was upwards of 88 "units" (forgot what kind of units, and couldn't find the article post again) and I guess 100 "units" is kind of the warning threshhold... and if that is true, then thats pretty hot stuff! Now again though, it didn't say what kind of geiger counter he had, whether it was recently calibrated, or what... so definitely not a lab test result... but concerning. But also we have to look at our natural land deposits all around us. My tap water has very small traces of uranium, lead, arsenic too, but in very very low levels that its accepted to not cause harm. Some area's of colorado are natural uranium deposits and the background radiation is about 2-3x that of any other areas around the United States, where some areas the drinking water is even pretty hot. I grew up in a city in Illinois that was laced with huge deposits of Thorium which was leftover waste from the Kerr McGee company, who used to use thorium to make lantern mantles and glow in the dark paints. They destroyed the plant and used the rubble as land fill all over the city, as well as even downtown Chicago had many very "Hot" areas where probably hundreds of thousands of people live and travel daily. I was actually part of a construction project for thorium removal in Chicago back in the early 2000's and the area's were very hot where I had to wear tyvek suits and wash off anytime I was going to drink or eat anything. Supposedly the EPA and testing scientists I worked alongside said that its really only harmful if ingested in large amounts, they referenced eating handfulls of hot soil... so i guess its all about "how much"

I also found information on soft rock phosphate, having some very alarming levels of things such as fairly high levels of lead and polonium in them, and actually here is a long but good read on a few concernables...the research also mentioned there are a few sources of soft rock phosphate and florida stuff is the worst, where others have very little....

The ever popular product Terpenator I have seen articles on it having very high levels of arsenic...

Many commercial nutrient companies are using synthetic PGR's which are also very harmful to us... one of them that is well known was Gravity, but even companies such as Cyco Ive seen claims of paclobutozole.

Potassium itself is radioactive in certain forms, and also plants contain radioactive carbon naturally according to wikipedia:

The major natural source of radioactivity in plant tissue is potassium: 0.0117% of the naturally occurring potassium is the unstable isotope potassium-40 (40K). This isotope decays with a half-life of about 1.25 billion years (4×1016 seconds), and therefore the radioactivity of natural potassium is about 31 Bq/g – meaning that, in one gram of the element, about 31 atoms will decay every second.[3][4] Plants naturally contain radioactive carbon-14 (14C), but in a banana containing 15 grams of carbon this would give off only about 3 to 5 beta rays per second. Since a typical banana contains about half a gram of potassium,[5] it will have an activity of roughly 15 Bq.[6] Although the amount in a single banana is small in environmental and medical terms, the radioactivity from a truckload of bananas is capable of causing a false alarm when passed through a Radiation Portal Monitor used to detect possible smuggling of nuclear material at U.S. ports.[7]
I've also been concerned with the use of guanos and animal manures... I haven't done much research with this but have read that mad cow disease was a concern in using animal bone meals, and bats and some guano's can contain and have shown results of ecoli, and other harmful pathogens. One that is common in guanos of bats and birds is histoplasmosis. From Mayo clinic:

Histoplasmosis is an infection caused by breathing in spores of a fungus often found in bird and bat droppings. Histoplasmosis is most commonly transmitted when these spores become airborne, often during cleanup or demolition projects.

Soil contaminated by bird or bat droppings also can transmit histoplasmosis, so farmers and landscapers are at a higher risk of contracting the disease. In the United States, histoplasmosis commonly occurs in the Mississippi and Ohio river valleys, though it can occur in other areas, too.

Onions and other plants also have been known to actually take up viruses through their roots and transplant it into the actual veggie/fruit and was a major concern of the FDA during outbreaks of harmful virus's to humans...
Comparative Uptake of Enteric Viruses into Spinach and Green Onions

Kirsten A. Hirneisen, Kalmia E. Kniel

Original Paper

First Online:
03 November 2012

DOI: 10.1007/s12560-012-9093-x

Cite this article as:
Hirneisen, K.A. & Kniel, K.E. Food Environ Virol (2013) 5: 24. doi:10.1007/s12560-012-9093-x

7 Citations 283 Views

Abstract

Root uptake of enteric pathogens and subsequent internalization has been a produce safety concern and is being investigated as a potential route of pre-harvest contamination. The objective of this study was to determine the ability of hepatitis A virus (HAV) and the human norovirus surrogate, murine norovirus (MNV), to internalize in spinach and green onions through root uptake in both soil and hydroponic systems. HAV or MNV was inoculated into soil matrices or into two hydroponic systems, floating and nutrient film technique systems. Viruses present within spinach and green onions were detected by RT-qPCR or infectivity assays after inactivating externally present viruses with Virkon®. HAV and MNV were not detected in green onion plants grown up to 20 days and HAV was detected in only 1 of 64 spinach plants grown in contaminated soil substrate systems up to 20 days. Compared to soil systems, a drastic difference in virus internalization was observed in hydroponic systems; HAV or pressure-treated HAV and MNV were internalized up to 4 log RT-qPCR units and internalized MNV was shown to remain infectious. Understanding the interactions of human enteric viruses on produce can aid in the elucidation of the mechanisms of attachment and internalization, and aid in understanding risks associated with contamination events.


So really it comes down to what amounts of these things are acceptable for humans and which aren't... That information though I haven't found yet, and being that we are smoking cannabis, mostly, sometimes eating it, how can these things hurt us, and what amounts are harmful...

Another very harmful thing, that many people making extracts with petrochemical solvents, is the accumulation of cutical wax in the extract. This stuff if not removed in the process is extremely harmful to the lungs, and currently not tested for anywhere that I am aware of... and believed these lipids will form granuloma's on the lungs from researchers. Now this mainly is a concern of butane extractions as it is much more potent of a solvent than co2 and if it is not winterized then is usually present in the final product.

Speaking of butane extractions... many popular and commercially available extractions have been tested and shown to contain a lot of residual solvents. In the 2015 PNW secret cup 40 extract samples were lab tested that were also entrys in the contest, and only 5 of them had residual solvents less than 50ppm. Extracts have also been known to pull pesticides right out of the plant, heavy metals and even butane itself is dirty 99 times out of 100. There is a thread on another forum that tests all major butane brands, even the ones listed as pharmaceutical grade or industrial grade and listed at 99.9995% pure, and they still have "mystery oil" and sometimes other additives like mercapins, other chemicals... etc...


So guess many things in this industry and probably that we use daily are very harmful for us, and really it comes down to how much is tolerable, how much is concerning, and how much is ok to intake. I mean you can literally die from drinking too much water so its really about the acceptable limits.. as far as most of the information I have read, all of the above mentioned are far below the acceptable levels of concern, but again... who makes those acceptable levels, how old are the studies, etc...I think the rest is just plain out luck.. I mean you hear those stories of those people that make it past 100 years old who smoke, drink, lived life not so health conscious and still live that long, and then you hear of athletes who were very health conscious, ate right.. did everything by the books that all of a sudden are plagued by some illness or cancer or something... and so i guess no matter how prepared or conscious one can be, it all boils down to luck and chance. I still pick and choose my concerns and try to eliminate as many as I can, but then I do stupid things like smoke cigs... lol.. which hopefully will change very soon


I actually have wanted to purchase a gieger counter ever since the fukashima accident as I live about 1 mile from the coastline, and I even remember when the accident at the nuclear plant happened, it rained for like 3 to 4 days after that here in cali, and all I could think about was stay out of the rain... ever since then I've wanted to get one and now with the concerns about soil additives it even more would be a useful purchase... but they are quite pricey for a decent one... maybe in the future though I will do it

 

[Icemud]

Here is an article from Archipelago Bat Guano companies website... generally I don't consider websites that sell something very reputable, but they actually sourced the information with citations so I think it could be considered a good information piece. There were actual analysisis and tables on the original article but they were too long and unformatted when I copy pasted so if interested I'm sure you could google this article... I saved the link if you want to pm me too.

Rock Phosphate and Water Soluble Phosphate

“Rock phosphate” generally refers to phosphate-bearing rocks that were deposited in oceanic sediments millions of years ago. Most of the rock phosphate production in the U.S. is from Florida (about 85% of U.S. production) and Idaho (about 15% of U.S. production). Minor amounts of rock phosphate are mined in North Carolina and Louisiana. Raw rock phosphate is not used much in agriculture because in its raw form, little of the phosphorous is available to plants for uptake, it releases its nutrients very slowly, and it is generally ineffective on crops.

However, when rock phosphate is leached with a strong acid, the phosphate that remains in the acid is concentrated in a form that is much more available to plants. The phosphoric acid that is created by this process is then treated to form products such as superphosphate, triple superphosphate, MAP, DAP, and others. This form of phosphate is commonly referred to as Water Soluble Phosphate (WSP). The vast majority of all phosphate fertilizers sold in the U.S. contain WSP. However, these products are synthetic and therefore not allowed for use in organic farming.

When a petition was made to add one of the superphosphate products commonly known as triple superphsophate to the National List of Allowed Synthetics so that it could be used in organic farming, it was recommended that the petition be denied. Some specific cited concerns with the superphosphate included:

- Heavy metals and radionuclides are present in the superphosphate and these pose potential risks to human health (citing EPA).

-Fluoride is released when the superphosphate breaks down.

-Production of the superphosphate causes major pollution.

These concerns are addressed in more detail below.

Uranium and Radioactive Nuclides [back]

Rock phosphate typically contains a variety of potentially toxic elements. The concentrations of these elements vary from deposit to deposit.

Some rock phosphate deposits contain high concentrations of uranium, thorium and their radioactive daughters. When such rock phosphate is treated to form phosphoric acid, most of the radium-226 is collected in the waste. However, most of the uranium and thorium remain in the final fertilizer product. These elements are not currently removed from the fertilizer because it is too expensive.

Although radium-226 goes preferentially to the waste, the EPA reports that the radium-226 content of phosphate fertilizer averages 5.7 pCi/g (by statute, a radium-226 concentration greater than 5 pCi/g is the health-based-determined lower-limit threshold for toxic waste).

Reportedly, uranium, which preferentially stays in the final fertilizer, is another potential chemical and radioactive toxin commonly found in rock phosphate and WSP. One study found that the uranium contents of superphosphate fertilizers ranged from 97-196 ppm. The uranium contents of the rock phosphate fertilizers ranged from 10-189 ppm (background uranium levels in soil are reportedly 4-5 ppm). Because of these high uranium concentrations in rock phosphate-based fertilizers, one study estimated that between 1910 and 1998, about 260,000 metric tons of uranium had been applied to soils across the U.S. through the use of phosphate fertilizer products.

It is not clear what the final fate of this uranium is. Some studies suggest that it builds up in the soil. Others suggest that there is no buildup in the soil, even after many years of fertilization. Some suggest that the uranium ends up in groundwater. This is a concern because uranium is potentially harmful not only as a radioactive material, but also as a chemical compound. One study provides that it is comparable to arsenic in chemical toxicity.

Advocates of rock phosphate-derived fertilizers generally contend that there is no danger posed by the radioactivity of these fertilizers. There is growing evidence though that in at least one heavily-studied health-related area, this may not be true. Many studies now report that many, if not most, smoking-related cancers are caused by the high radioactivity of tobacco. The element of greatest concern is polonium-210 (the poison used to kill the ex-KGB agent in England in November, 2006). This element is reported to be present in rock phosphate-based fertilizer that is commonly used on tobacco. Reportedly, after the element is introduced by fertilization, tobacco takes this element out of the soil and concentrates it in the leaves. The leaves are then smoked, and the smoker is exposed to the radioactivity. Ultimately, it is reported that about 90% smoking-related cancers may be caused by such radiation.

If you decide to delve further into this issue, be aware that most regulations concerning naturally-occurring radionuclides appear to only be concerned with radium-226. Our understanding is that this radionuclide is of greatest importance because it is the only one that emits radiation that can penetrate skin. All of the others apparently are alpha emitters, and they cannot penetrate skin. However, if ingested, alpha emitters reportedly can do harm to internal organs.

Fluoride [back]

Another potentially harmful material that is strongly associated with rock phosphate and fertilizers derived from rock phosphate is fluoride. Fluoride contents of fertilizer are not regulated and they are therefore not usually reported. One study reported fluoride concentrations in raw rock phosphate to range between 0.19-4.2%. Reported values from other studies generally fall within this range, with the most commonly reported value being about 3-3.5%. Fluoride contents of phosphoric-acid-based fertilizers reportedly are generally less, and may be as low as 0.1%. Reportedly, the fluoride that is captured during the production of phosphoric acid from rock phosphate cannot be released into the atmosphere or waterways because it is hazardous waste. However, the untreated raw byproduct fluoride is reportedly sold directly to municipalities to add to drinking water.

The concentration of fluorides in typical soils is reportedly between 200 and 300 ppm. Repeated application of phosphate fertilizer reportedly results in buildup of fluoride in the soil. Fluoride does not break down in the environment, and once it is in the soil, plants can uptake the fluoride and it may end up in the human food chain. Many foods reportedly contain abundant fluoride.

So what’s the problem? Fluoride is harmless, isn’t it? Well, probably not. There is great debate though over just how harmful it is. Most of this debate concerns health problems related to long-term exposure at low doses. Some suggest that this contributes to various cancers, reproductive system problems, low IQ, Alzheimer’s, increased incidence of hip fractures in the elderly, and various other maladies. Others claim there are essentially no serious long-term effects. The answer is likely somewhere in the middle.

There is little debate though as to the acute toxic effects of exposure to a high dose of fluoride - sudden death. Essentially all sources agree that death from fluoride poisoning has occurred at a dose as low as 5 mg/kg body weight and that 32 mg/kg of body weight is the certain lethal dose. Death usually occurs within hours of exposure (one study found that where a 3-year-old boy ingested a single dose of 16 mg fluoride/kg body weight, death occurred 7 hours after ingestion).

Thus, because of the reportedly high fluoride content of raw rock phosphate, some have questioned the safety of this product in homes that have small children. For instance, the Organic Consumer’s Association reported that with a rock phosphate containing 5% fluoride, ingestion of one ounce of rock phosphate, the amount recommended to fertilize a single tomato plant, could kill a small child. This is a serious statement, so we did our own literature search to see if the literature supports the statement. With a slight qualification, because 5% is, based on other sources, too high for raw rock phosphate, it appears that the statement may be substantiated by the literature. (All of the members of ABG are scientists or engineers but none of us are medical doctors. The information here, or anywhere in the website, is not a medical opinion whatsoever, it is just a review of the literature that we were able to find on the subject. You should consult a medical doctor for an opinion.)

Our analysis of the literature follows. Five percent of one ounce is 1,417 mg. Thus, with a 5 weight % fluoride concentration, an ounce of rock phosphate would contain 1,417 mg of fluoride. Further, a widely cited study reported that when rock phosphate is ingested by farm animals, 26-28% of the fluoride is retained in the body (see Fluorine in Animal Nutrition, C. Kick et al., 1935, Bulletin 588, Ohio Agriculture Experiment Station. And twenty six percent of 1,417 mg is 368 mg. Further, the reported certain lethal dose of fluoride is 32 mg/kg of body weight, and 368 mg / 32 mg/kg is 11.5 kg. If Kick’s results can be used for people, and we have interpreted his results correctly, then this is the body weight that would receive a certain lethal dose of 32 mg/kg fluoride from ingestion of rock phosphate containing 5% fluoride (11.5 kg is about 25 pounds). Further, most victims of fluoride poisoning are between 2-3 years of age (see www.fluoride-journal.com/). And at 2 years, about 26% of healthy girls weigh 25 pounds or less. Of course though, if 3-4% fluoride were used as a more likely concentration for rock phosphate, the potential toxicity would obviously be lowered by 20-40%. However, because death has reportedly occurred at concentrations as low as 5 mg/kg body weight (many sources consider 5 mg/kg to be the lethal dose), which is 6 times lower than the certain lethal dose used above, this difference appears to be mitigated. Thus, in our non-medical opinion, the literature appears to support that the statement by the Organic Consumer’s Association may be within the realm of possibility.

Heavy Metals [back]

Heavy metal concentrations in rock phosphate and fertilizers derived from rock phosphate are another potential concern. Unlike fluoride, uranium, and other radioactive nuclides, some heavy metals commonly found in fertilizers have recently become regulated by a few states. Washington is the leader in this endeavor. As a public service, Washington provides a regularly-updated comprehensive report on metal concentrations found in fertilizer sampled by WSDA.

Of the three states that comprehensively regulate heavy metals in fertilizer, California regulates arsenic, cadmium and lead; Oregon regulates arsenic, cadmium, lead, mercury, and nickel; and Washington regulates arsenic, cadmium, lead, mercury, nickel, cobalt, molybdenum, selenium, and zinc. Washington is unique in that it does not regulate the metal content of fertilizer per se. Instead, it regulates the amount of metal that would be added to the soil by application of a fertilizer. Thus, a fertilizer that does not meet the standards may lower its suggested application rate without otherwise altering the product, and thus be within the limits. The other states regulate the metal contents in the fertilizer product itself.

It appears that cadmium is the heavy metal of greatest concern in fertilizer. In a Washington State Department of Agriculture study that considered the plant uptake of arsenic, lead, and cadmium (coincidently, the only three metals that California regulates), cadmium was found to be of the greatest concern because cadmium builds up in the soil and plants can take it up. Some plants, such as lettuce, were found to contain more cadmium in the plant when more was available in the soil. In one study area, there was a clear linear relationship between cadmium in soil and cadmium in plants. Arsenic and lead were not taken up by plants in the same way as cadmium.

Part of the problem with cadmium is that although the human body has no use for it (U.S. Department of Health and Human Resources reports that “there are no known good effects from taking in cadmium.”), it is readily taken into the body because it closely mimics calcium. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services also reports that “cadmium stays in the body a very long time and can build up from many years of exposure to low levels.” Ultimately, cadmium exposure may damage the lungs, can cause kidney disease, and may irritate the digestive tract.

Limiting cadmium in your diet could probably help. Reportedly, the general population is exposed to cadmium from breathing cigarette smoke or eating cadmium contaminated foods. It is further reported that phosphate fertilizer alone is responsible for 41% of the human exposure to cadmium, and that application of phosphate fertilizer is one of the principle sources of cadmium releases to soil. Reportedly, cadmium concentrations of phosphate fertilizers range from 0.05 to 170 ppm. One study found that continuous fertilization with a high rate of triple superphosphate fertilizer for a period of 23 years resulted in a 14-fold increase in cadmium content of surface soils. Ultimately, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Resources reports that people “who ingest grains or vegetables grown in soils treated with municipal sludge or phosphate fertilizer all may have increased (cadmium) exposure.”

Environmental Concerns at Rock Phosphate Mines and Fertilizer Plants [back]

The waste that is left behind at rock phosphate processing plants poses yet another environmental problem. The EPA reported that, if 5pCi/g is used as the criteria for defining potentially hazardous waste, of the 755 million metric tons of potentially hazardous waste produced annually from asbestos, copper, gold, lead, silver, uranium, and zinc mining combined, the U.S. phosphate mining sector contributes 352 million metric tons. This is 46% of the total. Also, as of 1985, all U.S. mine waste (potentially hazardous and non hazardous combined) that existed on site at the various operations within all of these mining sectors, totaled 39,584 million metric tons. U.S. phosphate mining operations alone contained 16,599 million metric tons of waste, or almost 42% of all the existing mine waste from these mining sectors.

It is reported that of the 23 phosphate mines in Idaho, all but one is a Superfund site. The Idaho Department of Environmental Quality reported that groundwater beneath phosphate processing sites in the Soda Springs area "is contaminated with cadmium, selenium, vanadium, fluoride, molybdenum, tributyl phosphate, and manganese." Furthermore, "ground water studies conducted down-gradient of the phosphorous plants northwest of Pocatello have shown that levels of arsenic, lead, and cadmium in the ground water exceed the federal Drinking Water Standards. Off-site soil contaminants include radium-226, zinc, cadmium, fluoride, and total phosphorous. On-site soil contamination includes cadmium, chromium, copper, vanadium, radium-226, lead, and nickel." However, it appears that the element of greatest concern in Idaho is Selenium. It is reported that since 1996, 547 sheep have died from selenium poisoning in the vicinity of the phosphate mines. Selenium poisoning in that area may also have led to the deaths of horses and salamanders. Water foul and fish are also reportedly affected.

In Florida, the greatest environmental concern appears to be the storage of radioactive waste in areas where the radioactive elements may inadvertently migrate to the groundwater or the ocean. Radium-226 is reported to be one of the most potentially hazardous radionuclides present in rock phosphate waste. The EPA reports that “mining and current methods for processing phosphate ore for fertilizer generate large piles or “stacks” of phosphogypsum, in which naturally occurring radium is concentrated.” U.S. Fish and Wildlife reports that “radium-226 in sediments from phosphate settling basins in central Florida averaged 23.8 pCi/g.” They further add that 5 pCi/g radium-226 is the concentration which is the criterion for identifying toxic waste. It is reported that the piles of radioactive waste left behind at one phosphate fertilizer plant alone is “one of the biggest environmental threats in Florida history.”

However, some suggest there is no problem here. The Florida Institute of Phosphate Research, an affiliate of the University of South Florida, reports that “it is not known at what levels radiation becomes harmful to human health. In fact, there are some experts who believe that radiation at low levels could be beneficial. Radiation at high levels, like that emitted in Japan after atom bombs exploded, is harmful to human health. It is uncertain how much radiation becomes dangerous.” Thus, because exposure to radioactivity from rock phosphate products is possibly beneficial, and at worst, it is less harmful than atomic bombs, you should assess the risk of using them. The paper suggests that comparative risks include eating 100 charcoal broiled steaks, spending 2 days in New York City, driving 40 miles in a car, flying 2,500 miles, or canoeing for 6 minutes. Also, the article warns to be aware of reports of “toxic” materials in phosphate fertilizers because the word is used loosely and you might mistake harmless materials with dangerous sounding names as materials that are actually dangerous. The report provides that “dihydrogen monoxide, for instance, could sound dangerous if you did not know it was a chemical name for water.”

Bone Meal [back]

Bone meal is a phosphate product that is derived from the bodies of animals such as cows and fish. Unless stated otherwise, the product is usually made from cow carcasses. Bone meal is commonly used by organic farmers and home gardeners because it is relatively abundant and inexpensive. Also, compared to raw rock phosphate, it contains much more available phosphate and it is generally more effective on plants.

However, because bone meal is derived from recently deceased animals, vegetarian organizations recommend against its use. Another widely reported problem is that dogs and other carnivorous animals that may be attracted to the smell of bone meal will dig up gardens where this material is applied. Some articles suggest that bone meal should not be used if such animals are present.

A much more controversial issue concerns the possible relationship of bone meal, Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE or Mad Cow disease), Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD), Alzheimer’s, and variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJD) (the human form of Mad Cow).

Most sources agree that BSE is most likely spread through the consumption of BSE-infected meat and bone meal. Most sources also generally agree that the prion that is the suspected transmission agent for BSE is very difficult to destroy. Because of this, the U.S. and Britain no longer allow cattle bone meal to be fed to cows. Briton does not allow the use of bone meal in agriculture either.

The controversial aspect really begins with the purported link of BSE to vCJD. The similarity of time and space of outbreaks of BSE in cattle and infections of vCJD in humans in England is reportedly a strong empirical relationship. There are also reportedly strong similarities in the suspected prion and symptoms in both diseases. Although most researchers appear to agree there is a link, some hold that the connection has not yet been proven. Even more controversial is the possible link of BSE to CJD and Alzheimer’s. Some suggest that a reported 9,000% increase in Alzheimer’s cases and reported misdiagnosis of CDJ as Alzheimer’s may indicate that BSE is already infecting people in this country. We have provided links to some informational web pages below so that you can begin to read about this and decide for yourself if humans can be infected with BSE, and to what extent.

But if humans can be infected, the next question is whether there is a mechanism for infection. If, as many claim, there is essentially no chance of cattle in the U.S. being BSE-infected, and all bone meal comes from U.S. cattle, then the answer clearly is that there is no risk. However, whether the U.S. is actually BSE-free is controversial. We have supplied links below for more information so that you can begin research to find the answer that you believe most. If you find that you believe the answer is that there is potential that BSE-infected cattle parts may be incorporated into bone meal, the answer as to whether vCJD infection could result from use of BSE-infected bone meal as a fertilizer is not known for certain.

A number of sources state there is concern for gardeners using BSE-infected bone meal. Some suggest that even though they believe the risk is extremely low, gardeners who are concerned should wear a mask and avoid bone meal exposure to open cuts. On the Dateline program, two doctors suggested there was a possible link to vCJD infections and the use of bone meal as a fertilizer in the home gardens of victims. They had no proof of the connection, but nevertheless suggested that it should not be used. So most of the available information suggests that there is a possible concern, but these concerns appear just antidotal. No studies are cited and no proof is given.

And although we found no studies regarding the risk of using BSE-infected bone meal as fertilizer, we did find one published paper that addresses the safety of fertilizer that is derived from acid treatment of bone meal. A report that was released through the European Union’s Health Consumer Protection Directorate-General specifically addressed the safety of dicalcium phosphate and tricalcium phosphate made from bovine bones and used as a fertilizer. These products are apparently made much as WSP is made from rock phosphate – by passing strong acid through bone meal to leach the phosphate from it. The resulting phosphate-rich acid is then used as a fertilizer. So the study concerns this end product, and not bone meal per se.

The report concluded that it is probably safe to use these bone-meal-derived phosphate fertilizers. However, at page 3, the report makes an interesting qualification. There, it states that “because of the longevity of the TSE agent protein (BSE protein) in soils, the risk of accumulation in the environment of possible residual risk is not completely excluded if applied in large quantities or repeatedly on a same area.” We are not exactly sure what that means, but it appears to say it is safe as long as you do not use it. Make of that what you will.
Fresh Guano and Manure

Fresh guano and manure products may contain relatively small quantities of phosphate. Typically, they also contain significant quantities of nitrogen, beneficial bacteria, and organic carbon. The problem that most people perceive with these fertilizers is that they may smell bad and harmful bacteria such as e-coli and salmonella may be present.

The smell may be lessened if the material is composted before usage. The dangers of harmful bacteria are mitigated in organic farming by a generally-observed requirement that edible portions of plants cannot be harvested for 90 or 120 days following application of fresh manure or guano. The time limit is 120 days if the edible part of the plant touches the ground and 90 days if it does not touch the ground.

ABG Phosphate [back]

We believe that most of the concern in buying and using fertilizer comes from the unknowns. Fertilizer companies generally do not report a lot of information about their products and only a few states regulate them closely. Consumer education and activism is gradually changing this.

So here is what we know about ABG phosphate. It is 100% natural and organic and it is OMRI listed for use in production of organic food and fiber. It is bat guano that was deposited in caves hundreds of thousands of years ago. As time passed, the nitrogen and moisture mostly volatized away, leaving a fossilized material concentrated in phosphate, calcium, and all the other non-volatile nutrients that were present in the original guano.

At some time, thousands of years ago, the bat caves collapsed. Thus, there are no bats or other cave creatures present. Mining is conducted by local residents and it is done by pick, shovel, and small automated equipment. Locally, there is stripping of the overlying rock and this material is piled on the surface. The only processing that is done is that it is ground to a fine grain-size and then blended by hand on large tarps to get an even blend. There are no processing by-products. We pay the locals very well, and through our Indonesian partners, we support the local community the best we can.

ABG Phosphate is more like a rock than fresh manure or guano because it lacks organic carbon, nitrogen and potentially harmful pathogens that are commonly associated with fresh guano or manure. Because of this, OMRI lists ABG Phosphate as a “mined material” instead of as “guano.” State fertilizer regulators will generally allow us to call it “fossilized guano,” but most people appear to see only “guano,” and immediately fear pathogens. This has been a problem for us. We thought hard about calling it rock phosphate instead to avoid this misperception, but we believe that the relative negative aspects of fresh guano are less than the negative aspects of rock phosphate. So we decided to continue to call the material “fossilized guano,” and fight the pathogen misperception.


* The essential lack of organic carbon is a strong indication that this material is not alive. Organic carbon contents of fresh manure or guano, that would be more likely to carry potentially harmful pathogens, would typically be much higher. In fact, manure is applied to fields mostly for its organic carbon content.

A representative sample of ABG Phosphate was recently examined for mineralogical composition by an independent geologist using x-ray diffraction techniques. His findings were that most of the material could be weakly crystalline carbonate-apatite –Ca5(PO4,CO3) 3(OH) with minor crandallite – Ca2Al7(PO4) 3(OH) 16.3H2O. The uncertainty occurs because of the weakly crystalline nature of this material. Accessory minerals included up to 10% calcite and minor quartz. Much of the calcite and iron oxide present appears to be mostly associated with small fragments of volcanic ash, pumice and siltstone fragments that occurred in the sample. These materials probably washed into the caves while the guano was being deposited.

At the elemental scale, the fossilized guano contains substantial amounts of many elements, some of which are essential for plant life, and some of which are not. The essential elements that are in greatest concentration are phosphate (20% total and 7% available) and calcium (17%). Other essential elements that are present in quantities that are high enough so that ABG phosphate claims itself as a significant source include iron, zinc, manganese and sodium (we claim the sodium mostly to show that, unlike seabird guano that may contain up to 6% sodium, ABG Phosphate is very low in sodium). Other essential elements that are present in quantities that are almost high enough for ABG Phosphate to claim as a significant source include copper and molybdenum. ABG Phosphate is not a significant source of boron, sulfur, magnesium, nitrogen, or potassium. Thus, of the 13 essential elements that are taken up through the soil, ABG phosphate is a significant source of 6, and it contains at least trace amounts of 7 more. Chlorine, the one essential element that is not accounted for here, has never been analyzed for in ABG phosphate. We will do this in the near future and report the results.

*Based on average assay value, not guaranteed minimums.

**Based on suggested application rate as a 0-12-0 fertilizer

***To get the suggested 175 pounds/acre/year of phosphorous from a fertilizer that releases 12% phosphate over the course of the year, 1,458 pounds of fertilizer would need to be applied. If this amount of ABG Phosphate was applied, 100% of the suggested phosphate demand would be met. Similarly, at that same application rate, 299% of the recommended iron, 153% of the recommended calcium, 131% of the recommended manganese, 44% of the recommended zinc needs, and 32% of the recommended copper needs would be met. The other essential elemental needs would not be substantially affected by application of ABG Phosphate. It is important to note that the elements that are most strongly associated with high heavy metal concentrations are phosphate, iron, zinc, and manganese. ABG Phosphate fills much of the demand for these elements.

Currently, only Washington, California, and Oregon have implemented comprehensive regulations over heavy metals in fertilizers. Generally, these states require that the source of nutrients be identified and that the amount of heavy metals cannot exceed State standards. The specifics of each State’s regulations are quite varied though. California and Oregon regulate the metal contents of fertilizer products regardless of application rate. Washington, instead, limits the amount of metals that would be applied to soil by using a fertilizer at the suggested maximum application rate. None of the three states regulate all of the same elements. Also, the limits on the regulated elements are different in each state.

Other regulatory agencies include the EPA and the Association of American Plant Food Control Officials (AAPFCO). The EPA only regulates zinc micronutrient fertilizer that is derived from waste products. This is done because zinc fertilizers are the ones that are most likely to be waste-derived. The AFFPFCO regulations are wider. This agency generally regulates all of the metals that are regulated by the individual states. However, the AAPFCO regulations are relatively lax and they allow for more heavy metals than the individual states.

Thus, to determine if ABG phosphate meets the various heavy metal standards, both assay values and application rates are needed. Our current packaging uses an application rate that is a default rate suggested by the state of Washington, with the assumption that 7% phosphate would be available to the plants over the course of a year. We recently had an independent laboratory calculate an application rate specific to our product. The results of this testing indicated that ABG phosphate should be considered a 0-12-0 fertilizer for application purposes (0-7-0 for labeling purposes because this is the amount of immediately available phosphate under the AOAC testing method, 0-12-0 for application rate because this is the amount of available phosphate over the course of a year).

Nevertheless, based on assay values and application rates, as determined by independent laboratories, ABG phosphate meets all of the State’s heavy metal standards.

* AAPFCO = Association of American Plant Food Control Officials; CDFA = California; OSDA = Oregon; WSDA = Washington.

** NR = Not Regulated

*** Because lead and selenium were not detected in ABG Phosphate, their detection limits were used as the values for ABG Phosphate. The actual values are necessarily lower.

So in summary, ABG phosphate does contain heavy metals, but the heavy metal concentrations are well below all regulatory limits. The important thing to note is that ABG phosphate has these highly acceptable metal concentrations while supplying at least 100% of the suggested amounts of phosphate, iron and manganese, and 44% of the suggested amount of zinc. Most sources agree that these are the elements that are the hardest to obtain without addition of harmful non-nutrients. This is the real beauty of ABG phosphate: the nutrients without all the baggage.

As for fluoride, a single assay indicated that ABG Phosphate contains 0.2%. This is about the same as that reported for bone meal. It is much lower than the values of 3-3.5% that are typically reported for rock phosphate and 1-3% reported for rock phosphate-derived phosphoric acid fertilizers. This makes sense because rock phosphate is composed of fluoroapatite, which typically contains 3-5% fluorine, and ABG Phosphate is composed mostly of carbonate apatite, which does not contain much fluorine. Using the same assumptions that were used in the literature review for rock phosphate (26% retention and a certain lethal dose of 32 mg/kg), a person would need to eat 1/16 of their body weight to receive the certain lethal dose of fluoride from ABG Phosphate (a person weighing 16 pounds would need to eat 1 pound of ABG Phosphate to receive the certain lethal dose). If the retention were 100% instead (we have no indication of what the value really would be), a 16 pound person would have to eat a quarter pound of ABG Phosphate to receive the certain lethal dose of 32 mg/kg. The worst possible case scenario apparently would be 100% retention and death at 5 mg/kg. In this case, death would occur in a 25 pound person if they ate 1 ounce. We doubt that is likely, but we really do not know. So in summary, you should take care to keep this and all other fertilizer products out of the reach of children and take care not to eat ABG phosphate. Call poison control immediately if you do.

Finally, we want to address the radioactivity of ABG Phosphate. As stated earlier, uranium and phosphate have a natural affinity and the two are expected to be found together in nature. Rock phosphates generally formed in shallow seas. There, uranium was in great supply because it is present in low concentrations in ocean water. Thus, there can be a lot of uranium present with the phosphate. Conversely, ABG Phosphate was formed in a terrestrial cave with no apparent source for uranium other than the plants and insects that the bats fed upon. Nevertheless, as a phosphate material, some radioactivity is expected. We thus had a sample of ABG Phosphate analyzed for radioactivity.

Radium-226, the radionuclide that is most widely reported, had a concentration of 1.38 pCi/g +/-0.45. The department of Energy reports that approximately 1 pCi/g is typical for soil. Other radionuclides were present and they all derived from the uranium and thorium series. We really do not what to make of the results except that as compared to values reported for the same radionuclides in phosphate wastes, they are low. That comparison is presented below. We would have compared the WSP fertilizer product instead, but we could not find a comprehensive analysis for it. All that we know about the rock phosphate-derived WSP fertilizer itself is that the EPA reports that the radium-226 content of it averages 5.7 pCi/g, and there are qualitative reports of polonium-210, uranium, and thorium being present.

Remember when reading the following chart that raw rock phosphate is the source for both the WSP fertilizer (the values for that are not reported here) and the phosphygypsum waste. Also, when fertilizer is produced from rock phosphate, most of the thorium and uranium reportedly go with the fertilizer and not the waste. The radium, however, mostly reports to the waste. Nevertheless, the concentrations of uranium and thorium are higher in phosphate waste than in ABG Phosphate and the radium-226 is about 23 times higher in phosphate waste than in ABG Phosphate. Also, the total reported radioactivity of phosphate waste was 113 pCi/g, compared to 7 pCi/g for ABG Phosphate.

Supporting documents and further information can be found at the following web sites:

General

1. Use of Phosphate Rocks for Sustainable Agriculture, F. Zapta and R. Roy, Food and Agriculture Organization of The United Nations (2004)

2. Field Demonstrations of Permeable Reactive Barriers to Remove Dissolved Uranium from Groundwater, Fry Canyon, Utah, U.S. EPA, 2000 (Natural phosphate materials (rock phosphate and bone meal) were tested for their ability to remove dissolved uranium from groundwater. The mineralogy of rock phosphate samples from various U.S. sites was fluoroapatite and carbonated fluoroapatite. Bone meal was composed of predominantly hydroxyapatite.)

3. Structural Characteristics of Apatite-Like Substances and Composition of Phosphate Rock and Bone as Determined from Microscopical and X-Ray Diffraction Examinations, S. Hendricks et al., Industrial and Engineering Chemistry, Dec. 1931 (American continental phosphate rock consists essentially of submicrocrystalline fluorapatite, Ca10F2(PO4)6, which contains some excess fluorine and a small amount of sodium.” Bone is either carbonate apatite (Ca10CO3(PO4)6), hydroxyapatite (Ca10(OH)2(PO4)6) and calcium carbonate, or tricalcium phosphate and calcium carbonate.)

4. Organic Resource Manual, Washington State Department of Agriculture, 1996. (at p.8: OMRI is the central clearinghouse for determining what products and brand names are acceptable in organic farming)

Effectiveness of Rock Phosphate

1. Understanding Phosphorous Fertilizers, University of Minnesota Extension Service, Rehm, G., et al, 1998 (Part of the reason rock phosphate is not used is “small crop responses.”)

2. Some Facts on Phosphate, 1992, Published by the Potash and Phosphate Institute, (Phosphate in raw rock phosphate “is slowly released and seldom benefits crops during the first two or three years after application.”)

3. Nutrient Management in high pH Soils, T. Fullerton, 2003, Green-up News, University of Florida IFAS Extension (Rock phosphate “does not release its nutrients under high pH (basic) conditions.”)

4. Increasing Sustainable Production and Soil Fertility on Broad-Acre Organic Farms, Evans, J. and McDonald, L, 2005, Completed Project, Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation (Without the addition of elemental sulfur, rock phosphate had little effect on plant-available soil phosphate, even in strongly acid soils.)

5. Heavy Metals in Commercial Fertilizers, Tindall, T., Manager of Agronomy, J.R. Simplot Co., 2001, (In a controlled study on potato and wheat grain, rock phosphate “surprisingly decreased grain yield in the first year of the study. Unless raw rock phosphate is treated with sulfuric acid and processed into 0-45-0 it is difficult for crop phosphate demands to be met.”)

6. Production of Mangnesium Phosphate from Apatite and Carnallite, P. Bar-On and I. Pelley, J. Agric. Food Chem., v. 27 n. 1, 1979 (“Apatites containing fluorine are only slightly soluble in water and in organic acids, so that the phosphate is not readily available to plants. In the fertilizer industry the apatite is destroyed (there are several methods) to create more soluble compounds.”)

Environmental and Health Concerns of Rock Phosphate and Phosphoric Acid Production

 

[TorturedSoul]

Doggone it, I figured before I proceeded with my errand, I'd just quickly read new posts in your FRL journal, attend to things, and then put on my thinking cap. But you got me, lol. Still reading/thinking, though.

Histoplasmosis is an infection caused by breathing in spores of a fungus often found in bird and bat droppings. Histoplasmosis is most commonly transmitted when these spores become airborne, often during cleanup or demolition projects.

As I found as a teenager, caves can also be sources of it (no, that's not why I'm so claustrophobic now - the bat sh!t was just a little bonus).

I think a lot of additives are potentially more harm than help. IF we're lucky, stuff gets tested and the results compared against what's allowable. And then you've got to figure out whether you need to worry about cumulative dosages. And THEN... And then you (meaning all of us) really ought to consider that each and every substance that we encounter/use/breathe/drink/eat... is not the only substance in the universe. I mean... Say something is found to be not "seriously" harmful in and of itself, because the nasties that it contains are below a certain threshold. Okay, but then add one from column A, two from column B, a couple more from... We get "not enough to be seriously harmful" doses of stuff in our plants, the things we pour on them, in our FOOD, the water we drink, the air we breathe, the off-gassing/contact transference between ourselves and all the "made from artificial ingredients" furniture, wall/floor/ceiling coverings, homes, car upholstery, the fumes we suck down whilst sitting at busy intersections, et cetera... and is it any wonder that many, many more people die of cancer now than even 100 years ago (even taking into account things like the larger population and better diagnosing techniques)? Cancer is, for the majority of events, very much a man-made ill, methinks. So are many - perhaps most - other ills.

Err... [/RANT]

 

[Icemud]

Doggone it, I figured before I proceeded with my errand, I'd just quickly read new posts in your FRL journal, attend to things, and then put on my thinking cap. But you got me, lol. Still reading/thinking, though.



As I found as a teenager, caves can also be sources of it (no, that's not why I'm so claustrophobic now - the bat sh!t was just a little bonus).

I think a lot of additives are potentially more harm than help. IF we're lucky, stuff gets tested and the results compared against what's allowable. And then you've got to figure out whether you need to worry about cumulative dosages. And THEN... And then you (meaning all of us) really ought to consider that each and every substance that we encounter/use/breathe/drink/eat... is not the only substance in the universe. I mean... Say something is found to be not "seriously" harmful in and of itself, because the nasties that it contains are below a certain threshold. Okay, but then add one from column A, two from column B, a couple more from... We get "not enough to be seriously harmful" doses of stuff in our plants, the things we pour on them, in our FOOD, the water we drink, the air we breathe, the off-gassing/contact transference between ourselves and all the "made from artificial ingredients" furniture, wall/floor/ceiling coverings, homes, car upholstery, the fumes we suck down whilst sitting at busy intersections, et cetera... and is it any wonder that many, many more people die of cancer now than even 100 years ago (even taking into account things like the larger population and better diagnosing techniques)? Cancer is, for the majority of events, very much a man-made ill, methinks. So are many - perhaps most - other ills.

Err... [/RANT]

Yea man, Its like I want to be very educated on all of these things, but the more I research and find out, the less I want to know... I guess those old cliche's like "your dammed if you do, and dammed if you don't" apply more than ever today... its like my tap water... we have 3 sources of our water supply here... an underground aquifer, reclimated water, and the colorado river. Reclimated water is basically all the waste water which is treated, filtered and then pumped down into the aquifer. Well I was reading about this and because the water was basically somewhat acidic and very low ppm, the water being pumped into our aquifer was stripping the aresenic from the natural deposits and they were finding high levels of this in the drinking water, so then they had to add chemicals to prevent this, on top of the "blue color" they add to the water to take away its natural brown hue, then they add chlorine and chloramines to it and its delivered to us at 400ppm, 8.4ph and considered safe... huh...lol but what concerns me even more is all the pills people dump down toilets, all the chemical cleaners, all the petroleum products... all of the waste... how much still remains afterwords?

So after knowing all this I buy a Reverse osmosis system for me and my plants.. .well that brings my water to 7ph and 0ppm from the above... well filtered so its less harmful right? well then I read other articles that say drinking r/o and distilled water is bad because water is a powerful solvent and pulls the minerals and stuff out of your bones and muscles....

Welll sh!T! .... damned if I do, damned if I don't...

Its scary how many things we don't know about, which then are released to the public, only to find out decades later that its a huge cause of some epidemic.... i guess overall we have to just be cautious, but within reason, because if we stopped using everyting that was toxic... we pretty much wouldn't eat, bathe, wear clothes, clean, breathe, drink...or anything.. as pretty much everything around us is out to get us in one way or another... It makes me think back to the cold war era (I wasn't alive then) but how many bald men today were children back then... many of us aren't aware that the superpower nations tested thousands of nuclear devices over a 4-5 decade period... i mean literally thousands... well how come there were so many men now in there 50s, 60s and 70s that are bald, and how come it doesn't seem to be as common with generations after the late 70's and 80's when the nuclear testing went to a slow trickle and a stop.... I wonder if fallout had anything to do with that... or the levels of cancer we see now. There are actual studies and links to these nuclear tests and huge issues with thyroid cancer and problems throughout the upper midwest due to the nuclear fallout of those tests, as typically the jet stream spread it from nevada to michigan and beyond...

Now we have companies like monsanto, using us as lab rats feeding us frankenfoods that are using DNA from other species that are unrelated causing plants to produce neurotoxins, with this new GMO trend that is being banned everywhere, except for here in the US... I only can wonder what this is going to do to us in the future? And now they want to get into the cannabis industry by having bought out general hydroponics, gavita, botanicare, and now Bayer, who is marketing partners with GW pharmaceuticals just bought out monsanto for 66 billion dollars...

Its pretty frightening what is going on in our world today, from all angles... I guess we all die in the end so we might as well be concious, but not scared to live life either...

You know what really makes me paranoid is these cases of flesh eating bacterias and brain eating amoeba's found in freshwater... now that is some scary ish.... and some of these things are also very common to soil too...

 

[Icemud]

OK... so I went to the electronics store today and pulled the trigger on the LED striplight for my humidity dome. It has no brand, don't know what kind of LED's are in it but its 6500k color temp and I think it may be about 10w... but I don't know, so I will plug it into my kill a watt later to see. The bar is slightly longer than my humidity dome, but definitely lights it up as good if not better than the 26w cool blue cfl which is great to know It also gives a much more uniform light over the dome where the bulb barely hit the edges...


We will see if it works but I have a feeling we should be golden. I may have to clone my plants 1 more time though as some of them are looking pretty unhappy...

So the striplight was $20 and the cord/switch was $10... its made fore desks and cabinets and such... probably not the best quality but hey, if it works, saves me money in electric then I'm all for it

 

[TorturedSoul]

I sort of assumed those things were more to be seen than to see by, if you know what I mean. I wonder how much light they're capable of sending to your clones? I realize that isn't a high-light application, but still, lol.

The picture looks good, though. Oh, shoot, that reminds me that I'm supposed to post a picture of my second plant in an actual pot (as opposed to the cup it was confined in previously).

 

[Icemud]

I sort of assumed those things were more to be seen than to see by, if you know what I mean. I wonder how much light they're capable of sending to your clones? I realize that isn't a high-light application, but still, lol.

The picture looks good, though. Oh, shoot, that reminds me that I'm supposed to post a picture of my second plant in an actual pot (as opposed to the cup it was confined in previously).

Yeah I have never come across information on how much light clones need but I am assuming it is very little. I think that a lot of plants start photosynthesis around 50 PPFD so probably don't need more than 50-150 max... I know since they don't have roots to really supply water you don't want to overdrive them, which may have been the case with my failed luck under the reflector and clones, but did so well with just 1 26w cool white cfl... I will use my par meter later too to see at clone top, what PPFD they are getting (thru the plastic dome) and I might as well measure what my cfl was putting out too... gives me some more data and its fun too lol

I'm actually quite surprised how bright this thing is... F' IT... I'm going to plug it in now and check it... lol

 

[Icemud]

So I decided to why wait and test the strip light for actual draw, and PAR..

OK... so its 9w and 0.11A not bad at all!

I checked the PAR too since I was at it... and with the plastic, at leaf height, which is about 3-5" away from the light and plastic dome, I was getting around 56-82 Umol/m2/s-1 and without the plastic dome and just under the light at the same height is was at about 85-110 umol/m2/s-1 which is not bad at all for 9w!!! haha... so I think that should be enough to get these babies rooted

I did notice that a black cherry soda and harlequin were rooted, so I put them into soil and on a 24/0 schedule for now until the roots grab hold.

Still no roots on the other 4 though... I'm going to give them a few more days and if nothing then I will reclone them, and flip the other tent to flowering


So just out of curiosity, I tested the PAR on the 26W cool blue CFL that I was using... which was housed in one of those old aluminum round cheap reflectors. The CFL at the same distance about 3-5" away was at dead center about 140umol/m2/s-1 of PAR but at the outer rim of the reflector it was only reaching around 30 umol of PAR, and at the edges of the humidity dome it was only about 10 PAR...

So overall the new LED strip uses about 3x less energy, and provides a nice even 50-80 par across the whole dome, where the CFL reall only reached the middle half... not bad! I'm impressed and they aren't even good LEDs or a good driver

 

[Icemud]

So I was poking around and doing a little more looking into cannabis uptake of heavy metals and came across this little gem. Basically they took the same strain and planted it in 15 different locations with different soil makeup and analyzed the soil and the cannabinoids, and found that the soil type does effect the cannabinoid profile, but also mentions due to the practice of each farmer in harvesting, the results may not be conclusive either...

Cannabinoid Profile and Elemental Uptake of Cannabis sativa L. as Influenced by Soil Characteristics1

C. B. Coffman and W. A. Gentner2

Abstract

The consumption of Cannabis products (marihuana) derived from domestic and foreign sources persists in the United States despite its illegality and health hazards. The objectives of this investigation were: 1) to evaluate relationships between soil and plant elements, cannabinoids, and growth of Cannabis sativa L., and 2) to evaluate the practicality of using chemical analysis of Cannabis products to determine their geographic origin. Knowledge of geographic origin is useful to governmental agencies investigating illicit narcotic traffic.

Cannabis sativa L. was grown on 11 different soils for 45 days in the greenhouse. Soils differed significantly in 15 measured elements and pH. Plants were grown from seed of Afghan origin. The following cannabinoids were extracted and measured from leaf tissue: cannabicyclol (CCC), cannabidiol (CBD), Δ9-Tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ9THC), and cannabinol (CBN). Fifteen elements measured in leaf tissue and correlated with soil and cannabinoid measurements. Soil pH was negatively correlated with leaf concentrations of Mn, Fe, Zn, and S. Extractable soil Mg was negatively correlated with N, Δ9THC and CBD concentrations in leaf tissue (p < 0.05). Plant height was negatively correlated with Δ9THC concentration, suggesting enhancement of the narcotic principle of marihuana when grown under stress. Extractable soil P2O5 was negatively correlated with CBD concentration while extractable soil Zn was positively correlated with CCC concentration. Several correlations between soil and plant characteristics having potential value for determination of geographic origin of marihuana were elucidated. However, environmental, harvesting, and analytical procedures used by different workers which do not conform to one another could result in changes in the soil-plant correlations reported herein. Thus, additional studies are required before determination of the geographic origin of Cannabis products by foliar analysis becomes feasible.
Please view the pdf by using the Full Text (PDF) link under 'View' to the left.