The myth, of the high P myth?

It's good to hear you like those chart's guys.
It's also possible to compare full schedules (with different NPK-s for every week) with the spreadsheet, there are also graphs for most of the common growshop fertilizers like AN, Canna, GH, FF, etc with all of their feeding schedules dialed in.

For example this is AN's feeding schedule for the Blooming phase using Sensi 2 part, Hobbyist level.
Feeding schedule link
Numbers for Sensi A and B are based on a Lab analysis found here, additives are based on their labels.


Lots of P in there.

YosemiteSam
Could you drop custom hydro a mail to clear that up? It's still possible that I made the mistake, but I don't know where.

spurr
I will be glad to make new charts for you.

Thanks guys.

Tester...I think it was the JRPeters stuff where there is a discrepancy. I will check...perhaps I just copied something wrong, that has been known to happen more than once.

What amazes me is how high the ppms are in ANs feeding schedule. N is like triple what I am using. How in the world can that be a good thing?

Mullray...I see lignosulfates claiming to be chelators of minerals in organic formulations. I figure they must be fairly close chemically to humic/fulvic. I will take a look around and see what I can find.

Is the same thing true as far as molecular weight on the sorbate style surfactants? That is would tween 20 be a better choice than tween 80? I am also guessing (while being to lazy to look) that fulvic probably has a lower molecular weight than humic.

To tell the truth I am quite happy with Therm 70. I mean most of the magic happens because the amino acid chelates make for a balanced charge on the metal you are trying to get to the plant which get them past the negatively charged fatty acids on the leaf surface. Then the amino tricks the plant into recognizing the molecule as a protein instead of, say Ca. My understanding is that because of that the calcium-amino molecule can travel through the phloem instead of depending on tranpiration and traveling through the xylem.

I think the real advantage to using this stuff as a foliar is because once the buds start to form they do not transpire nearly as well as the leaves. So most of the calcium goes to the leaves as opposed to buds. But buds need Ca also and the foliar fed aminos (theoretically at least) allows Ca to get to the buds much more effectively.

At least that is my understanding.

edit...tester...I also find it quite interesting that AN has very similar levels of Ca and Mg to what I am using. That means if you back off on the concentrations of their nutes you are going to end up with deficiencies. So your choice becomes overfeed the fuck out of your plants or buy some of their retarded additives. I gotta say that in my opinion that formula sucks.

Do you have their 3 part at say 5 ml each? I have long suspected your best bet with them may be a formula close to that with some added epsom salts rather than adding their additives.

AN's schedule calls for 4ml/L so that's on the red diagram (4ml grow, 4ml micro, 4ml bloom per liter of water).
Blue diagram is the same amount of the 3 parts, with all the additives following their full schedule ("Grand master grower level for 3 part Bloom").

Since I don't have enough space for all their additives so I only added the ones that has nutes in them (based on their labels).

edit: (The list of those additives along with their nute contents and basically the whole feeding schedule that the chart was based on can be seen here)

geez no wonder fools burn their plants... and their pockets.

You could cut that second chart in half and it wouldn't be that bad. Still, approximately 8ml per gallon each vs somewhere around 5 last time I checked GH.

btw...i am fucking with sensibowl over at GC..feel free to join in tester.

YosemiteSam said:

Mullray...I see lignosulfates claiming to be chelators of minerals in organic formulations. I figure they must be fairly close chemically to humic/fulvic. I will take a look around and see what I can find.

Click to expand...

What do you mean by "close to humic/fulvic chemically"? Humic substances are unlike other substances, humic acid (which is kind of a misnomer because it's not acidic) is one of the most unique substances we can utilize.

Here are two good sources of info for you about humic substances, they both are must reads IMHO:

"All about humates"
Dr. Boris Levinsky
http://www.teravita.com/Humates/HumateIntro.htm
(see the chapter "The Use of Humates With Chemical Fertilizers"


"Humic Substances in Biological Agriculture"
Lawrence Mayhew
ACRES, Jan-Feb 2004, Vol. 34, No. 1-2
https://www.icmag.com/ic/showpost.php?p=4186261&postcount=122

Is the same thing true as far as molecular weight on the sorbate style surfactants? That is would tween 20 be a better choice than tween 80? I am also guessing (while being to lazy to look) that fulvic probably has a lower molecular weight than humic.

Click to expand...

The molecular weight of the surfactant isn't a big factor, the surfactant mainly serves to reduce tension of the water thus increasing absorption of ions and organic substances (as well as making it spread and stick to leaves) and a good product is also a good emulsifier. Tween 20 is used more often as a surfactant than Tween 80, fwiw.

FA has lower molecular weight than HA, and in terms of being absorbed into leaves, FA is more efficient and has been found to increase Chl levels (not sure if it's Chl A or Chl B). But as I wrote before, HA is good to add to foliar spray to increase evaporation time, it's makes leaves stay wetter for longer.

HA is evidenced to be more biologically active than FA, but not by much. It's a myth that HA is not good in hydro, or in soilless, for increasing ion uptake, chelation and complexing. HA has very high efficacy and efficiency in hydro, soilless and soil; see the links above to sound scientific info (I have many more legit references too).

Below is the source for (probably) the best FA; not all FA sources and production methods are equal. And the HA (Humisolve) is also very good, their source for humic substances is very high quality, as is their 'dry to dry' processing method. The HA is on par with, or better than, HA from TeraVita: http://www.bioag.com/allotherstates.html

To tell the truth I am quite happy with Therm 70. I mean most of the magic happens because the amino acid chelates make for a balanced charge on the metal you are trying to get to the plant which get them past the negatively charged fatty acids on the leaf surface.

Click to expand...

One of the 'best' type of surfactants to use with salts is alkyl polyglucoside. If you want a natural sourced surfactant that is very effective, look to alkyl polyglucoside (as cited in the many works of J.Schonherr); I am going to look into, and maybe try, Agnique pg 8150. Agnique pg is alkyl polyglucosides and is sourced from coconut oil and corn dextrose.

Ca moves just fine through the cuticle layer, as does N03 and phosphates, etc.; granted IIRC, cations do tend to pass through the cuticle layer with lower efficiency than anions. It's a good idea to use calcium in folair spray as a means to swell the cuticle layer, thus increasing absorption of other ions.

A potential problem with using organic calcium salts (which might be the case with amino acid chelate from albion) is the POD is very high. Thus once the leaf is dry, if the RH is not above the POD, the Ca stops being absorbed.

Many people think salts and chelated-salts from folair sprays are absorbed very quickly and only when the leaf is wet, yet that is not correct. The half time of penetration for many salts and chelates alike, is greater than a day. I am calling Albion tomorrow to get some technical questions answered, but, if the POD of their Ca chelate is high the efficacy would be limited in lower RH. See the papers I uploaded from J.Schonherr; esp. the one about calcium salts (it has info about organic calcium too).

Did you read the studies by J.Schonherr I uploaded?

Then the amino tricks the plant into recognizing the molecule as a protein instead of, say Ca. My understanding is that because of that the calcium-amino molecule can travel through the phloem instead of depending on tranpiration and traveling through the xylem.

Click to expand...

Can you please reference that info? I just downloaded and photocopied over a dozen studies about cuticular penetration of ions, amino acids and organic substances (like NAA, etc.); re RH, temp, surfactants, POD, etc., etc. I will be writing a very in depth article on the science foliar spraying this week, I will make a thread about it in the science section so we can keep this thread on its' topic: the P myth.

I would like to read your references so I can include relevant info, esp. info you have about amino acids you wrote above.

I think the real advantage to using this stuff as a foliar is because once the buds start to form they do not transpire nearly as well as the leaves. So most of the calcium goes to the leaves as opposed to buds. But buds need Ca also and the foliar fed aminos (theoretically at least) allows Ca to get to the buds much more effectively.

Click to expand...

Ca moves in xylem, IIRC, which would mean Ca (ex. from roots) would make it the buds and bud leafs. Granted, I agree spraying with Ca can be a good idea due to its very low mobility from tissue.

I would really like to read any of your references if you have them handy. What I wrote above could be a bit incorrect, it's all from memory; that is why I downloaded a bunch of studies and I plan to re-read my older notes. When I write the article for the thread I will make I want to have access to as much relevant and legit academic info as possible (not info from manufacturers because it's normally pretty biased).

both learn to get along because you both bring a level of knowledge and willingness to do research that few others on this site will or could.

soooo lets get along.

aside from the pissing matches this thread is sick; lots of good info in here

Im not sure they classify as Assholes^^ given how much they contribute. I rather see it as a disturbing lack of self reflection.

For anyone having problems with their Ego, i would advise on doing Martial Arts or at least watch the Movie Revolver a few times lol^^

On topic of Humics, is this stuff http://www.humintech.com/001/agriculture/products/powhumus.html worth it for Soilless(Coco)? It has little Fulvic but its cheap at around 30$ for 2lb, at only like 1 gr per 10 Litre this will last me for years. Supposed to have < 100 micron particle. How does it compare to other Humic/Fulvic Products?

Going to read those Links (thanks Spurr). Maybe i can answer my own Question afterwards^^

I am not sure why I would be an "asshole", I have not responded to mullray and will not, aside from my last and final message to him on page 7. I couldn't care less about him, and I am not trying to not get along, I just don't care either way. I am happy to share, and to learn, I am not here to prove anything to anyone.

sorry asshole might be rough.

maybe you guys should just put each other on ignore that way we don't have you both clogging up what should be awesome threads of actual scientific knowledge with useless banter.

you guys both have valid points and experience just cant get along.

not trying to step on toes...

PointofNoReturn said:

On topic of Humics, is this stuff http://www.humintech.com/001/agriculture/products/powhumus.html worth it for Soilless(Coco)? It has little Fulvic but its cheap at around 30$ for 2lb, at only like 1 gr per 10 Litre this will last me for years. Supposed to have < 100 micron particle. How does it compare to other Humic/Fulvic Products?

Going to read those Links (thanks Spurr). Maybe i can answer my own Question afterwards^^

Click to expand...

Many of the benefits from FA are also found in HA, except for the smaller molecule wight, better chelation from FA, etc.

I just looked at that product and you should not use it, the pH is 9-10.5 which means they did not properly neutralize the HA. When HA is extracted from OM (i.e., humic matter like coal, Leonardite, oxidized lignite and fossilized peat; the latter is preferred) a strong alkali is used. Then the alkali is neutralized, so HA is either basic, neutral or weakly acidic. If the pH is > 9 then there will be too much alkali left, which is not desirable. The pH of HA should be 8 or less, for 'good' products.

For (probably) the best HA use BioAg, I have used TeraVita HA but I think TeraVita might use coal for their humic substance (which is the least ideal). Both companies make HA from the work of two internationally respected colloidal/humic scientists. Dr. Boris Levinsky is a Russian colloidal/humic scientist and he was flown to the US by TeraVita (aka Organic Approach, LLC) so he could teach them his methods. IIRC, Dr. Levinsky worked with the main scientist and owner of BioAg, Dr. Robert Faust who is also a highly respected humic scientist. I have used HA from TeraVita for some time. I have been testing HumiSolve from BioAg with great results; I plan to only use BioAg HA and FA from now on...

I think BioAg is better than TeraVita due to the source of humic substances (fresh water fossilized peat) used by BioAg.

For soilless culture I always suggest using HA, FA and also unrefined humic substances mixed into media. For hydro I always suggest using HA and FA; HA is very worth while in hydro. And for foliar I also use HA and FA; the HA is used to increase evaporation time of water form leaves.

Read both of those humic links I provided, they should give you lots of knowledge and insight. The second link is a better intro into the world and science of humic substances.

For (probably) the best FA use Ful-Power from BioAg, it's made via cold microbial processing (fermentation). Read the BioAg site for info about how FA products are (mis)labeled (i.e., % FA), as well as HA. Sadly, there is not sufficient standardization for testing and reporting HA and FA content. FA in some US states cannot sold as FA, it must be sold as HA due to issues about testing and reporting.

The best HA is from BioAg; they sell HA as dry. BioAg uses a neat method called "dry to dry" that uses low heat thus altering and denaturing the HA as little as possible. Other dry HA products, (I assume) like the one from Humintech, use heat in the drying process that will negatively effect on the HA.

Spending money on very high quality HA and FA products is well worth the cost, and it's not overly expensive. BioAg does very well in listing sufficient usage rates for their FA and HA. Shipping dry HA product is lest costly, so that is one reason many people like dry HA products, also AFAIK dry products have longer shelf life than liquid.

So to answer your question, no, I would not use Humintech if you can use a HA product with lower pH and from oxdized lignite or better yet, fossilized peat; not Leonardite or coal (Humintech uses Leonardite). Also, it's likely Humintech uses high heat to dry the HA; call them up and ask. If they do use heat then do not use their product.

Of note, the titles HA and FA have been under dispute for sometime. The second link I provided ("Humic Substances in Biological Agriculture") explains that issue pretty well.

P.S. AFAIK BioAg only uses fossilized peat from fresh water deposits.

Oh yea,

1. If you use a HA product, it will have varying amounts of FA already in it; FA is extracted from HA. HumiSolve (from fossilized peat) has 57% Humic Acid and 12% Fulvic Acid.


2. The leading research group on humic substances is the "International Humic Substances Society" (link); they sell the best and most accepted standards for testing HA and FA. They also conduct testing and experiments and work on standardization of methods and terms and reporting for humic substances.


3. For good unrefined humic substances (i.e., oxidized lignite) from New Mexico, I use Mesa Verde. Below is a link to Mesa Vere unrefined oxidized lignite (it's pulverized); they also sell a micronized product called "micromate": http://www.humates.com/mvrhighgrade.html


4. For a bit more reading, check out the links below. Granted, they are written by the lead scientists as BioAg, but they are unbiased (IMO) and offer good info:

FWIW,

1. Here is a decent article from BioAg:
2. Here is the FAQ from BioAg that discusses testing and reporting issues with FA and HA; as well as sourcing issues, etc.:
http://www.bioag.com/buycropproducts/faqforhumicacids.html



3. Here is a short but good web page about humic substances, for the technical geeks out there

I have a hard time taking a company (BioAG) seriously when it has this kind of cure-all claim on it's product page:

Use for skin conditioning, improve circulation, and to remove toxins from the body. It's been found to ease symptoms of back pain, achy joints, inflammation, flu and stress.

Click to expand...

Having said that, there were some interesting things to read on that site.

Edited five years later to add I do like their Ful-Power product, actually. I've seen plants respond quite positively to it. I still don't like the shiny marketing they used, though.


.

Yea I don't bother reading things about health benefits, granted I have not researched the claims, but it does seem to be too much of a cure-all as you noted. However, the horticultural info is spot on by what I have researched in academia.

The sourcing of humic substances can make or break the quality of the product, as well as the processing method. Mesa Verde also sells liquid and dry HA product they make from oxidized lignite:
http://www.humates.com/products.html

Mesa Verde sells the pulverized lignite I posted above and micronized lignite too ("micromate"): http://www.humates.com/mvrmicromate.html

Edit:

I made an error writing that BioAg using oxidized lignite, they "...[use] a carbonaceous shale or mudstone from the fruitland formation. Even in this formation the quality varies according to geological time of deposit or depth. A couple hundred feet this way or that and you probably have a different quality of material. Our raw material has been protected by 20 feet of sandstone and is high in humic AND fulvic. It contains imprints of plants. In basic terms, our humate is fossilized peat from broad-leaved freshwater plants. Leonardite is salt water reed/sedge based." (ref.)

Humic acid vs fulvic acid and Daltons:

I spoke with Ryan Zadow from BioAg about their humic acid (Humisolve), fulvic acid (Ful-Power), and other issues. We spoke about biological activity of humic acid molecules vs fulvic acid molecules (e.g., roots being able to absorb the molecules). This speaks to issues about using HA and FA being plant biologically active via roots (e.g., diffuse through Casparian Strip), ex., for hydro and soil/soilless.

Ryan told me a general rough guide for distinguishing between HA and FA by molecule weight, used by some scientists, is 5,000 Daltons. Ie., < 5000 Daltons are FA molecules (lower weight) and > 5,000 Daltons are HA molecules (higher weight). Less than ~5,000 Daltons is considered a general rough guide for lower molecular weight. The root absorption of molecules by weight (Daltons), i.e., diffusion into root cells, is not black and white; it is different for different species and other factors.

For roots, lower Daltons means increased biological activity, in a general sense. That is, smaller molecules can more easily diffuse into root tissue through Casparian Strips. B.E.S. Gunning and M.W. Steer ("Plant cell biology: structure and function", pp. 51, 1996) wrote (re Endodoermis and Casparian Strip): What all that means is high quality lower molecular weight HA, e.g., < 5,500 to ~ 6,000 Daltons (or greater), just like FA, can be taken into roots. And thus HA can be biologically active in the sense of diffusing into roots, just like FA (especially when HA is < 6,000 Daltons). So, using high quality HA in fertigation water is not a waste, it's a very wise move for reasons besides, and including, being biologically active.

P.S. Ryan also told me they use as little alkali as they can/need for extraction of HA. They do not use a lot of alkali in an attempt to get the highest extraction rate; unlike some other manufactures of HA, they prefer lower extraction rates for a better end product.

Hey Mullray. In a straight coco grow is there any real advantage to adding humic/fulvic to the mix? I have tried them and could not tell any diff (quite possibly due to the low quality I used...General Hydro). Hell I cannot tell any difference adding Si...seems to me foliar feeding Ca helps the cell wall integrity more than Si.

Hell, I am not even using chelated micros right now and everything seems to be going along just fine. Maybe even better with what I have been reading about edta (too big a molecule to actually pass through cell membranes). Seems to me to feed a balanced diet and not throw stuff like that in the mix may be best.

I am liking what I am reading about lignosulfates though. If I could find them I might give lignosulfate chelated micros a shot. Plus I will definitely give it a shot as a surfactant if I find a source.

Also I totally buy into the lower molecular weight stuff being better for what we are doing. Given that the elements are basically the same in all of these things (carbon chains)...then in general (certainly not carved in stone) the lower the molecular weight the smaller the molecule. The smaller the molecule the easier it is absorbed by the plant and the better chance it has to pass into the cells.

I have another small grow where I have dropped P down to 31 parts per million just to see what happens. In that grow I plan to foliar feed two or three of the immobile elements all of the way through flower (i know, a serious violation of stoner rules).

I am starting to think we push our plants too hard too fast and end up with deficiencies of immobile elements (whether we actually see them or not) that end up ultimately limiting growth (and bud sites/formation) more than anything we can gain. The guys at Albion make the claim that N translocates 20 times faster in a plant than Ca and that the paths taken are different. So my thinking is that slowing things down will allow the plant to move the less mobile stuff into place before problems arise...a weakest link kind of thing...grow the plant no faster than it can take in Ca and get it to the new growth sites.

I am going to try feeding less in veg-stretch and see if I don't actually get higher yields. My thinking is that I will be able to build a better structure to the plant before it starts to make buds (kinda like taking the time to build a solid foundation).

I may be completely off with this thinking...but hey, thats the great news about having your own grow...you can do whatever the fuck you want with it.

Looking back, this post seriously rambled...sorry.