InTheShed Grows Inside & Out: Jump In Any Time
- Thread starter
- #24,782
Quibble away Celt...we're here to learn! Your article is a bit over my head, but are you saying that plants have evolved to be able to take up nutrients in an additional way that didn't exist for the first few million years of their existence, but only in the last hundred+ years? Fertilizer doesn't fall from the sky, yet!
Thanks GDB! I haven't but I gave a clone to someone who used Osmocote+, and it turned into a pretty good harvest for a completely untrained neglected plant.
It's actually what a custom soil builder here used to recommend before he started making and selling his own mix.
There was a whole hell of a lot of wisdom packed in those few paragraphs! Thank you for sharing. I am still trying to understand the complete role my AACTs are doing with my plants.
Have you ever considered switching to summer pruning instead? After everything has hardened off? When you thin the branches, are you ensuring that they are pollinated? Are the fruits already developing when you thin?
I use it on most of my bonsai trees and indoor house plants. Awesome stuff! I have never tried it with cannabis though. Hmmm...worth a try.
The Celt
Well-Known Member
OK, no I am not saying plants evolved to uptake salts, the effect of osmosis allows for us to use salts to feed plants. In an organic system, the nutrients just are not in ionic form for osmosis to play a role.When we feed with fertilizers, we are taking advantage of a natural process, to get the nutrients into the plant in a way that doesn’t happen in nature. I guess you could say we have used a natural process to preform in an unnatural way.
Think of it like this:
When you wash dishes with bare hands and your fingers become wrinkly (for those of you young enough not to have natural wrinkles ). Because the water in the dishpan is purer (lower ppm) than the water in your hands, they absorb water and become super saturated. If you were to do this with distilled water, you could actually do damage to the skin because the cells would absorb enough water to burst.
Osmosis is doing what it is intended to do, trying to equalize ppm on either side of the barrier, but that is not the “natural“ way for our cells to obtain water.
Hopefully I am explaining in a way all can follow
if not, I will try again - Thread starter
- #24,786
I appreciate the help Baked, but you're in the present tense, and these peach trees are (as I mentioned) dead and gone! Just to answer your questions though: I pruned in January or February (in Los Angeles), and I would often thin twice - once during flowering and once after fruit set to make sure I had gotten the number down. I never had a problem with the trees producing until the end of their lives.
So the plant isn't taking up ions either way? If it takes up ions from synthetics but not in organic, that sounds like two different methods to me.
Seems like you might have to!
Yeah, and use a different analogy. You've got me scared to wash the dishes!I appreciate the help Baked, but you're in the present tense, and these peach trees are (as I mentioned) dead and gone! Just to answer your questions though: I pruned in January or February (in Los Angeles), and I would often thin twice - once during flowering and once after fruit set to make sure I had gotten the number down. I never had a problem with the trees producing until the end of their lives.
So the plant isn't taking up ions either way? If it takes up ions from synthetics but not in organic, that sounds like two different methods to me.
Seems like you might have to!
You've got me scared to wash the dishes!
Dude...I was just gifted a solid excuse to gain a phobia of washing dishes! I'm off the hook for the rest of my damn life! I owe @The Celt free beer or bud of some sort! Quick question though... could you forge a note that makes it more official? Pretend to be a shrink or something?!
The Celt
Well-Known Member
Ok no worries mate
They uptake ions in a synthetic fertilizer through osmosis yes. In a LOS they do not uptake ions, but rather bacteria and other microbes which are broken down internal to the plant. In the case of LOS, because the microbes are not ionic, osmosis doesn’t play a role.
So yes there are 2 means of getting nutrients into the plants, nature’s way with microbes, or by taking advantage of the osmotic process. This is why I was saying comparing LOS to Synthetics practices was like comparing apples to oranges, which I will come back to in a moment.
Think of it like this: LOS is how plants in nature grow when humans are not involved, much like you sitting down to eat a meal. You get your nutrients from digesting the food you ate.
Synthetics takes advantage of a chemical process to feed the plant in an “unnatural” way, much like we can keep coma patients alive for years through chemicals means of feeding them.
The plants didn’t evolve to use salts when man started using synthetics, chemistry knowledge allowed us to take advantage of the osmotic process and we learned we could use salts. Until recently, we didn’t know salts were not the natural process.
Back to comparing LOS to synthetics and why they have to be treated very differently. I have grown LOS ever since I started 6+ years ago and I have had issues by times, but trying to treat them like a synthetic grower would never seemed to help. What I learned was that if I ignored the problem, it would usually disappear in a few days, but always within a week. I could never figure out why what worked for synthetic growers, to correct issues, wouldn’t work in my grows.
I knew something had to be different but had no idea what it could be. I was still under the same understanding that plants fed off ionic nutrients in the soil, regardless of the food source. Studying more on soils, microbe activity and then that article above made what I was experiencing with my grows all click. Thinking back on my issues, and having read that research on how plants fed in an organic situation, it all fell into place and my issues all linked back to 2 causes, which have the same result.
If you are using a true LOS soil, most of your issues should you have any, will most likely be due to over watering, or using too much carbohydrates/sugars. Both of these 2 things will cause microbe population explosions during which time the rob the plant of some nutrients creating deficiencies. Trying to correct these deficiencies by “normal” methods, often leads to further issues when the microbe population rebalances. If left alone, the issues will correct themselves in a few days.
Now, for those reading, this is not intended to say one method is better than the other, both have their pros & cons. I grow in LOS because I started with the intent of a water-only-start-to-finish because of the nature of my work that could keep me away for weeks at a time. I did not have the time to tend plants daily or even weekly. That is what lead me down the LOS path and it works well for my situation
They uptake ions in a synthetic fertilizer through osmosis yes. In a LOS they do not uptake ions, but rather bacteria and other microbes which are broken down internal to the plant. In the case of LOS, because the microbes are not ionic, osmosis doesn’t play a role.
So yes there are 2 means of getting nutrients into the plants, nature’s way with microbes, or by taking advantage of the osmotic process. This is why I was saying comparing LOS to Synthetics practices was like comparing apples to oranges, which I will come back to in a moment.
Think of it like this: LOS is how plants in nature grow when humans are not involved, much like you sitting down to eat a meal. You get your nutrients from digesting the food you ate.
Synthetics takes advantage of a chemical process to feed the plant in an “unnatural” way, much like we can keep coma patients alive for years through chemicals means of feeding them.
The plants didn’t evolve to use salts when man started using synthetics, chemistry knowledge allowed us to take advantage of the osmotic process and we learned we could use salts. Until recently, we didn’t know salts were not the natural process.
Back to comparing LOS to synthetics and why they have to be treated very differently. I have grown LOS ever since I started 6+ years ago and I have had issues by times, but trying to treat them like a synthetic grower would never seemed to help. What I learned was that if I ignored the problem, it would usually disappear in a few days, but always within a week. I could never figure out why what worked for synthetic growers, to correct issues, wouldn’t work in my grows.
I knew something had to be different but had no idea what it could be. I was still under the same understanding that plants fed off ionic nutrients in the soil, regardless of the food source. Studying more on soils, microbe activity and then that article above made what I was experiencing with my grows all click. Thinking back on my issues, and having read that research on how plants fed in an organic situation, it all fell into place and my issues all linked back to 2 causes, which have the same result.
If you are using a true LOS soil, most of your issues should you have any, will most likely be due to over watering, or using too much carbohydrates/sugars. Both of these 2 things will cause microbe population explosions during which time the rob the plant of some nutrients creating deficiencies. Trying to correct these deficiencies by “normal” methods, often leads to further issues when the microbe population rebalances. If left alone, the issues will correct themselves in a few days.
Now, for those reading, this is not intended to say one method is better than the other, both have their pros & cons. I grow in LOS because I started with the intent of a water-only-start-to-finish because of the nature of my work that could keep me away for weeks at a time. I did not have the time to tend plants daily or even weekly. That is what lead me down the LOS path and it works well for my situation
The Celt
Well-Known Member
Hey mate, if it helps get a task off you Honey Do list, by all means blame me
- Thread starter
- #24,791
Celt! I have to say I'm still a bit confused, as it seems that plants have two ways of getting nutrients from the soil, one of which it never needed until the mid 1800s.I don't understand that evolutionarily.
- Thread starter
- #24,792
While you're all absorbing all of the nutrient info (but not distilled water I hope), here is a picture of my Candidas this morning, a little over two weeks after the root pruning and thinning:
For comparison, this was them three days after pruning:
They're fuller but not much taller, and growing without missing a beat (or their roots!). As I like to say, a plant knows how many fans it needs.
On to another topic to make this an actual update, I heard back from my contact at Premier Tech, the maker of ProMix as well as their own brand of mycorrhizae. I asked him about the two articles I've posted here, and I'll quote the key parts of his response to both issues below.
Regarding the issue of high levels of phosphorus causing the mycorrhizae to go dormant, he said:
"If a high rate of phosphorus is applied, it is the amount of elemental ‘P’ can cause endomycorrhizae to become dormant. Therefore, elemental phosphorus ‘P’ should be applied at a concentration or rate of 25 ppm phosphorus or less. (not sure who said 10 ppm…but this is not correct). One application above 25 ppms does not cause mycorrhizae to become dormant. You would need repeated applications at a high rate.
"Remember that the plant is also picking up some of the nutrients that are applied.
"Research has shown that plants do not require high phosphorus for root development, so the old 20-20-20 type fertilizers have been replaced with low phosphorus formulations. (20-2-20 for example) In fact, fertilizers formulated with high phosphorus and ammonium nitrogen cause elongation in plants (stretch) above the soil line."
So it’s the residual PPM of phosphorus in the soil over time rather than the PPM of the P going in with the fertilizer that will cause dormancy in the mycorrhizae. As such it probably wouldn’t cause a problem, particularly with regular runoff clearing old accumulations from the medium.
That said, I can certainly see the high levels of P that are included in some cannabis nutrient lines having a negative effect on mycorrhizae populations in a grow.
Regarding the Chinese vs Canadian peat question I can't really quote all of what he said, but his response was basically this:
The research quoted is old and based on the inclusion of the mycorrhizae that the company purchased (rather than developing their own). Additionally, it was tested with a different type of mycorrhizae. It is most effective to use live, viable spores.
In summary, I will go back to adding mycorrhizae to my medium on transplant, and since @DYNOMYCO uses mycorrhizae tailored to cannabis, I'll make sure to include it going forward (and keep an eye on my phosphorus PPM).
for listening!
For comparison, this was them three days after pruning:
They're fuller but not much taller, and growing without missing a beat (or their roots!). As I like to say, a plant knows how many fans it needs.
On to another topic to make this an actual update, I heard back from my contact at Premier Tech, the maker of ProMix as well as their own brand of mycorrhizae. I asked him about the two articles I've posted here, and I'll quote the key parts of his response to both issues below.
Regarding the issue of high levels of phosphorus causing the mycorrhizae to go dormant, he said:
"If a high rate of phosphorus is applied, it is the amount of elemental ‘P’ can cause endomycorrhizae to become dormant. Therefore, elemental phosphorus ‘P’ should be applied at a concentration or rate of 25 ppm phosphorus or less. (not sure who said 10 ppm…but this is not correct). One application above 25 ppms does not cause mycorrhizae to become dormant. You would need repeated applications at a high rate.
"Remember that the plant is also picking up some of the nutrients that are applied.
"Research has shown that plants do not require high phosphorus for root development, so the old 20-20-20 type fertilizers have been replaced with low phosphorus formulations. (20-2-20 for example) In fact, fertilizers formulated with high phosphorus and ammonium nitrogen cause elongation in plants (stretch) above the soil line."
So it’s the residual PPM of phosphorus in the soil over time rather than the PPM of the P going in with the fertilizer that will cause dormancy in the mycorrhizae. As such it probably wouldn’t cause a problem, particularly with regular runoff clearing old accumulations from the medium.
That said, I can certainly see the high levels of P that are included in some cannabis nutrient lines having a negative effect on mycorrhizae populations in a grow.
Regarding the Chinese vs Canadian peat question I can't really quote all of what he said, but his response was basically this:
The research quoted is old and based on the inclusion of the mycorrhizae that the company purchased (rather than developing their own). Additionally, it was tested with a different type of mycorrhizae. It is most effective to use live, viable spores.
In summary, I will go back to adding mycorrhizae to my medium on transplant, and since @DYNOMYCO uses mycorrhizae tailored to cannabis, I'll make sure to include it going forward (and keep an eye on my phosphorus PPM).
for listening!
The Celt
Well-Known Member
Let me see if I can explain differently maybe, I don’t know, maybe I need to smoke more
Until about 2 years ago, everybody, the science community, the agricultural community, any of us who had studied any biology, accepted that osmosis and ions were how plants fed. We (as a whole) understood osmosis, it was a chemical and biological process we could see and have known about for centuries, and it made sense this would be how plants fed.
When that research was published, it changed how we have to treat organic processes because ions are not involved. It turned out, we were inadvertently exploiting a chemical process to feed plants, but is not how they feed in an untainted natural environment.
Until about 2 years ago, everybody, the science community, the agricultural community, any of us who had studied any biology, accepted that osmosis and ions were how plants fed. We (as a whole) understood osmosis, it was a chemical and biological process we could see and have known about for centuries, and it made sense this would be how plants fed.
When that research was published, it changed how we have to treat organic processes because ions are not involved. It turned out, we were inadvertently exploiting a chemical process to feed plants, but is not how they feed in an untainted natural environment.
- Thread starter
- #24,794
So they eat that way in spite of themselves? Like they just can't help it, even though it has nothing to do with how they have been eating for millions of years?
My first though was my bathing habits. Think of the damage caused downstairs. I don't know about you, but it explains a lot for me.
The last couple of pages were full of gold nuggets for growers to feast on. Thanks for all that info guys!
The Celt
Well-Known Member
For all intents and purposes She’d, that is correct. That research, and the many others that have followed since have shown that what was accepted as fact, that plants fed by osmosis and ions regardless of source (natural or synthetic) was actually wrong.
Osmosis, water trying equalize on either side of a membrane, works to feed plants, but it not how they gain nutrients in the wild.
Osmosis, water trying equalize on either side of a membrane, works to feed plants, but it not how they gain nutrients in the wild.
- Thread starter
- #24,798
Well that was an accident that has enabled society as we know it today! Imagine if plants couldn't take up synthetic fertilizer that way...
It won't change how I grow, but I guess I will have to stop saying an ion is an ion. And this guy, where I first read it, was still defending it as recently as last year. Go bring him up to speed Celt!
It won't change how I grow, but I guess I will have to stop saying an ion is an ion.
And this guy, where I first read it, was still defending it as recently as last year. Go bring him up to speed Celt!
Reave
Well-Known Member
Thanks for the explanation. After listening to all of the KiS podcast. Well not all of them but a bunch this makes perfect sense. The guy that wrote the book teaming with microbes wrote three editions you can see the science change through the three books. They though the world was flat then found out it wasn’t.
Edit: it’s episode 2 and the guys name is Jeff Lowenfels
Edit 2: another dude Nelson Lindsey , poetry of plants, uses a hybrid method of organics and ionic nutrients.
Thanks for sharing?
Similar threads
