Canna Boost V Molasses - side by side comparison.

[daihashi]

Ok so I'm a bit confused here.

I saw someone else ask this question but it never got answered really. Why are you comparing Molasses to Boost? They are different products and have different purposes. If you wanted to compare Molasses to Sweet then that would be comparable; or alternatively if you wanted to compare Boost to Alfalfa Hay tea (as both would contain Triacontanol, the active hormone/ingredient) then that would be comparable.

Comparing Molasses to Boost is like comparing Liquid Karma to GH Kool-Bloom. They are different products that do different things and because of that they can't really be compared.

I have used both and have had success with both; however I cannot say that I could ever compare the two.

Just my

 

[bonecarver_OG]

hmm... i think you are out of line clackamas - there is ways to be nice about argumenting a point. the way you are doing it is not really cool. but i guess you might be having a bad day.

greyskull - 10 -14 g of a difference in a harvest is not something i think can be proven to be for a specific product. too small of a difference to say its for the boost. do you allways grow same cut? if not its impossible to measure.

and as i said earlier, even adding a 250W HPS will do more in questions of bud size increasement and resin production.

if anyone got the possibility to bring a sample of the boost to a lab it would be very interesting, since im quite sure a lot of people would be dissapointed with the results of the lab test

and yeah, one thing is sure, if it would be 100% reliable product im sure canna would be able to list the ingredients...

but since plant fertilizers are products that are not controlled like comestibles etc, there is no control AT ALL to guarantee anything for the customers, and sadly enough its not necesary by law to list ingredients.

its a shame we have to have a discussion guessing etc, about a product that costs 60 euro a liter (or 100 dollars), or more. i definetly think its not cool by canna to not have more info on the bottles about the contents in general.


but still the canna line of nutes is the only one i use since funny enough with A+B, and some PK and skipping the whole rest of their products, the yields are top class anyway

many times i think LESS is MORE.

peace mates

 

[bonecarver_OG]

daihashi - nobody knows what boost contains, so you are purelly speculating or you just made it up. CANNA HAS NOT REVEALED IT YET.

also i think any extra aditives for flowering can be compared, they are all for ONE purpose. BIGGER YIELDS and BETTER QUALITY suposedly. so its definetly possible to compare the results. if any that is

peace

 

[*mistress*]

basic agronomy of sugar cane. not really thread about commodities futures & production, refinement & distribution of a staple, but, fwiw:

Harvest
Sugarcane is a sustainable plant; when it is cut above the roots, the stalks will regrow the next season and produce for many years before it is exhausted. Sugarcane thrives in hot, wet climates. In the United States, four states harvest sugarcane: Louisiana, Hawaii, Florida and Texas. It is typically harvested and processed by machines that cut down the stalks, load them into a transport vehicle and bring them to a plant to be processed.
Processing
The sugarcane is put into a machine that destroys, twists and turns the stalks to extract the cane juice. The byproduct, bagasse, is utilized to fuel the boilers in the plant or put into agricultural mulch. The juice is filtered to remove the dirt, and then the cane juice is boiled so the water evaporates and sugar crystals grow. The mixture is then spun rapidly to separate the liquid from the sugar, which is then dried. In this form you have raw cane sugar.
Refining
Refining is a process that involves cleaning and purifying the raw sugar. Sugar that is imported to other nations is usually refined after arrival. Eight United States refine sugar: Louisiana, Hawaii, Florida, Texas, California, New York, Maryland and Georgia.

The raw sugar first undergoes a process called affination. The goal of affination is to remove the liquid layer that builds up around the sugar crystals. The raw sugar is mixed with purer syrup and spun to separate the liquid from the crystals, much as it was before shipment. This removes additional impurities from the sugar. The liquid still contains many particles, which are further removed by carbonation. Small pieces of chalk are mixed in with the liquid, the particles are drawn to them and then they are removed. Then the color is removed either by being burnt off by carbon or an ionic resin. It is boiled to remove the liquid so crystals can grow, and then spun again to remove further liquid. The result is white, refined sugar. The liquid byproduct is molasses.

while actual production may takes place substanitially in brazil, or india, 'deveoping nations'; refinement takes place in us, japan, europe, or 'developed nations'.
same old story. where the natural resource is produced means nothing. the owners (absentee landlords) still control the process. refined in g8 type nations to maintain control over the resource.
light sweet crude oil is produced in nigeria, saudi arabia, venezuela, etc... far more consumption of said fuel in eurpoe & us...

http://www.igrowhydro.com/detail.aspx?ID=3586:

Bio Boost is made of naturally occurring plant extracts. it is derived from plants using a special fermentaion process. Bio Boost is not a nutrient, but a metabolism stimulator, and for that reason it supports the working of other canna products, such as pk13-14.

total nitrogen 0.02%
water soluble nitrogen 0.02%
phosphorus (p205) 0.12%
potassium (k20) 0.08%

unless they have an entirely different process & formulation for their regular 'boost" product, the bio boost is same thing.

interestingly, the same site does not have analysis of the regular boost. the already gave up the drawings w/ the bio boost though...

basically, a plant tea... for 100 pieces of paper a liter? is it fermented in a golden vat? did they find the 18th element that plants eat? seriously... got a 5 gal bucket of feed molasses for 25 coins.

btw, molasses is 'derived from plants', or the sugar can plant...

plant extracts fermented for 6 months? in other words, they went to grocery store, bought produce, threw in a big bucket (vat), & stirred for 6 months...

why not disclose the ingredients? if it really takes 6 months to make, that alone would discourage consumers from repeating process. dont see how they could be any different ingredients than farmers have used for millenia to make teas.

if it does work, cool. you definitely have paid for it. the canna site says they 'guarantee' bigger yields. if you dont get them, take them up on offer...

*edit*
hint, hint: if want greater nute assimilation, just add humic acid...

enjoy yuor garden!

 

[MoleMcHenry]

hmm... i think you are out of line clackamas - ... do you allways grow same cut? if not its impossible to measure.

Bonecarver, I'm glad you mentioned that when a a grower does a product comparison, they need to use the same cut. I'm constantly surprised that growers talk about doing "side by side" product comparisons in which they use plants from seed, or different cuts from clones, or they treat the comparison plants differently in some other ways--and then they make claims about how the product in question is working.

Quite simply--those claims can't be used for comparative purposes since there are so many other variables in the mix.

FYI - For a valid comparison of products, the plants should be exactly the same genetics and in exactly the same environment, with the only difference being that Plant A gets the product and Plant B does not, otherwise it could be those other variables that are causing the differences.

I think one of the best ways to do a product comparison would be to treat multiple plants with the product and compare those to the same number of plants without the product--that would minimize differences due to slight grower errors (like under or over-watering a plant). If I didn't have a 3 plant limit where I live, I'd love to do a 16 plant sog, with 8 plants getting a product and the other 8 not getting it.

There, I said it, and it's off my chest. Phew!

/end rant

 

[daihashi]

daihashi - nobody knows what boost contains, so you are purelly speculating or you just made it up. CANNA HAS NOT REVEALED IT YET.

also i think any extra aditives for flowering can be compared, they are all for ONE purpose. BIGGER YIELDS and BETTER QUALITY suposedly. so its definetly possible to compare the results. if any that is

peace

You're right I am speculating; but when looking at what each claims to do you'll see they are not the same thing and they are not comparable.

Directly from Canna's website

CANNABOOST increases the plant’s photosynthesis. This increase assures that fruits form more quickly, so the availability of nutrients is very important for achieving optimum results with CANNABOOST.

It also holds natural flowering regulators that better distribute both stimulants in the booster itself, as well as flowering substances and energy naturally available in the plant.

It encourages the photosynthesis process within the plant, which increases sugar production in the fruits.

Here is a blurb about Triacontanol:

In 1977 the first observations of Triacontanols growth enhancing effects were published in the USA by Dr. S.K. Ries in Michigan State University. After this, research has been made all over the world, with the most important results of latter years coming from USA and Japan. Triacontanol is a linear saturated fatty alcohol as plant growth stimulator found in the plant cuticle waxes, which is healthy and safe for human and animal use. Its efficiency is proved for high yield in the case of number of field crops like rice, wheat, tomatoes, maize, lettuce, cucumber, potatoes, cauliflower, etc. The best results have been extremely impressive and have given over 100% increases in yields. For a long time it was unknown what caused the growth-improving effect of triacontanol. The latest researches suggest that triacontanol directly activates the genes that control photosynthesis. These genes in turn activate the enzymes controlling the chemistry of photosynthesis.

Here's is what we know of Molasses in Horticulture from a different actual horticulture website:

Molasses - Molasses is one of those time-honored, farmer-tested wonder products. What is the difference between the horticultural molasses and ‘eating’ molasses? The sulfur has been removed in the ‘eating’ variety and the sulfur is a great addition to the soil. Grandma use to serve up molasses mixed in warm water to treat for anemia. It would provide B vitamins and iron. The molasses provides the same benefits for the soil, it is a great pick-me-up. The B Vitamins will help relieve stress, iron is great for the plant, sugar will provide carbon and feed the microbes, which will make nutrients more available to the plant and improve the crumb structure of the soil. The Organic Cotton Growers in West Texas spray the cotton with molasses to stimulate life in the soil along with a nitrogen-fixing organism to feed the plants. One question that comes up is

Here is an excerpt (long) from a post by 3LB regarding molasses:

The reason nutrient manufacturer’s have “discovered” molasses is the simple fact that it’s a great source of carbohydrates to stimulate the growth of beneficial microorganisms. “Carbohydrate” is really just a fancy word for sugar, and molasses is the best sugar for horticultural use. Folks who have read some of our prior essays know that we are big fans of promoting and nourishing soil life, and that we attribute a good portion of our growing success to the attention we pay to building a thriving “micro-herd” to work in concert with plant roots to digest and assimilate nutrients. We really do buy into the old organic gardening adage - “Feed the soil not the plant.”

Molasses is a good, quick source of energy for the various forms of microbes and soil life in a compost pile or good living soil. As we said earlier, molasses is a carbon source that feeds the beneficial microbes that create greater natural soil fertility. But, if giving a sugar boost was the only goal, there would be lot’s of alternatives. We could even go with the old Milly Blunt story of using Coke on plants as a child, after all Coke would be a great source of sugar to feed microbes and it also contains phosphoric acid to provide phosphorus for strengthening roots and encouraging blooming. In our eyes though, the primary thing that makes molasses the best sugar for agricultural use is it’s trace minerals.

In addition to sugars, molasses contains significant amounts of potash, sulfur, and a variety of micronutrients. Because molasses is derived from plants, and because the manufacturing processes that create it remove mostly sugars, the majority of the mineral nutrients that were contained in the original sugar cane or sugar beet are still present in molasses. This is a critical factor because a balanced supply of mineral nutrients is essential for those “beneficial beasties” to survive and thrive. That’s one of the secrets we’ve discovered to really successful organic gardening, the micronutrients found in organic amendments like molasses, kelp, and alfalfa were all derived from other plant sources and are quickly and easily available to our soil and plants. This is especially important for the soil “micro-herd” of critters who depend on tiny amounts of those trace minerals as catalysts to make the enzymes that create biochemical transformations. That last sentence was our fancy way of saying - it’s actually the critters in “live soil” that break down organic fertilizers and “feed” it to our plants.

One final benefit molasses can provide to your garden is it’s ability to work as a chelating agent. That’s a scientific way of saying that molasses is one of those “magical” substances that can convert some chemical nutrients into a form that’s easily available for critters and plants. Chelated minerals can be absorbed directly and remain available and stable in the soil. Rather than spend a lot of time and effort explaining the relationships between chelates and micronutrients, we are going to quote one of our favorite sources for explaining soil for scientific laymen.

“Micronutrients occur, in cells as well as in soil, as part of large, complex organic molecules in chelated form. The word chelate (pronounced “KEE-late”) comes from the Greek word for “claw,” which indicates how a single nutrient ion is held in the center of the larger molecule. The finely balanced interactions between micronutrients are complex and not fully understood. We do know that balance is crucial; any micronutrient, when present in excessive amounts, will become a poison, and certain poisonous elements, such as chlorine are also essential micronutrients.
For this reason natural, organic sources of micronutrients are the best means of supplying them to the soil; they are present in balanced quantities and not liable to be over applied through error or ignorance. When used in naturally chelated form, excess micronutrients will be locked up and prevented from disrupting soil balance.”
Excerpted from “The Soul of Soil”
by Grace Gershuny and Joe Smillie

That’s not advertising hype either, no product being sold there. That’s just the words of a pair of authors who have spent their lives studying, building, and nurturing soils.

Molasses’ ability to act as a chelate explains it’s presence in organic stimulant products like Earth Juice Catalyst. Chelates are known for their ability to unlock the potential of fertilizers, and some smart biological farmers we know are using chelating agents (like Humic Acid) to allow them to make dramatic cuts in normal levels of fertilizer application.

So while I may be speculating. Molasses does not have anything to do with increased photosynthesis; which is one of Canna's claims regarding boost. Triacontanol claims to increase photosynthesis and enzyme control sound VERY similar to Canna Boost. Molasses does not do the same things that Canna Claims, not even close.


Yes I'm speculating, yes I still disagree that comparing Molasses to Boost is pointless because Boost increases photosynthesis and Molasses is primarily there to provide carbohydrates, chelate, etc etc.

If you don't want to compare Boost to Triacontanol then you could also compare it to Liquid light which somehow increases the plants metabolic rate (rate of photosynthesis) as well. I have a bottle of liquid light I've never used so I can't tell you how it works although I'm sure several other members here have probably used it and could enlighten you more.

End result; I choose to humbly agree to disagree. Molasses and Boost are not comparable.

edit: Just so no one gets the wrong idea. I am not saying anyone is wrong; I am simply saying the two products seem incomparable when looking at how they benefit from the plant. Surely we wouldn't compare humic/fulvic acids to a PK product or a Carb booster. Yes they all help increase yield but product for product they have different purposes and effect the plants differently.

I would love to see a comparison of canna boost vs liquid light or triacontanol as BOTH LL and Triacontanol can be had for about 20 bucks each vs Canna's $100/per liter bottle of boost.

 

[Jalisco Kid]

I pay 23 bucks/5 gal pail for my molasses at a feed lot. JK

 

[Greyskull]

greyskull - 10 -14 g of a difference in a harvest is not something i think can be proven to be for a specific product. too small of a difference to say its for the boost. do you allways grow same cut? if not its impossible to measure.

tables of 20, sour dubble. thats why i am saying i can tell a difference...

not like i was growing a table of OG without and a table of critical mass with... same plants pretty much same food (except for boost) same room same temps tables right next to each other.

 

[indifferent]

Great thread. I grow in coco with canna nutes, and use boost, cos I got a load of 250ml sample bottles, but about to run out. I used the canna range minus boost for years and it does do something, it adds a small bit of yield, mainly by fattening up the lower buds a bit, but I have my doubts if its at all worth it.

I think a PK booster is the most important part of getting good yield and quality, and not all PK boosters are equal in my eyes. I have used Atami and Canna version of PK13-14 and find that both add yield and resin but the Canna seems to give a tad more resin, something a friend said he found too. I saw a few older US growers of high renown saying that AN Hammerhead added more resin that PK13-14 and tried that and I found the same, it gives really good resin production, so I switched to that a year ago and still use it. I think the secret is the 0-9-18 )I think) PK ratio. I also use liquid bat guano which is 3-13-2 I think, and does increase flavour and help yield too, I use it in the last 4 weeks of feeding before flush, I use the PK booster from 4 weeks into flowering, at first adding a little alongside my base nute then increasing the proportion of PK until eventually using just PK and guano.

I add liquid worm humus throughout and molasses too, and I innoculate my coco with mychorrizae and mix in some worm castings too (only 10-15%) as I think humtes are very important in coco, and the molasses feeds the mychorrizae as well as the plant, and does seem to enhance flavour, making plants sweeter, but too much in late flower can leave a taste in the buds, avoid that.

One product I know that does work and is perhaps worth it's stupid cost is Atami Bloombastic. Hazyfontazy memorably called it simply 'the tits' and I agree, it adds loads of bud mass and increases resin a lot too, I had two sample sizes and it gave me the best crops ever of my favourite clones, all sativas that take 12-14 weeks, it made them denser and more sparkly than I thought it possible to get them, and I;ve run em for a few years.

I also add cheap local seaweed extract for the first half of flower to keep the plants healthy and green, I stop using it when I cut out the base nutes and switch to PK and guano. I used Canna A+B for years, loved it, then tried a locally produced cheap seaweed based alternative and found it worked just as well, it's 7 quid for 2.5 litres. Last year I bought 5 bottles of Levington Flowerite which is seaweed based, organic and has added calmag, all plastered prominently on the bottle, the local garden centre were selling em off, 50p a litre. It rocked, could not tell the difference from Canna, and that experience turned me off ever using cannabis specific products again. I've switched base nutes and gone from using GHE diamond Nectar to cheap liquid worm humus from Chempak, and in both cases not lost anything in performance of my plants, so one by one, I'm finding cheaper alternatives to stuff from the hydro shop.

I switched from sacks of Canna coco to Neopeat brand compresed bricks I get for 89p each and produce 8-10 litres per brick, works every bit as good as Canna and needs no flushing, used at least 25 of them and never needed to flush a single one, just expand, charge with a nute mix and use.

I ran out of Clonex and got a pot of Baby Bio Rooa liquid rooting hormone from the local garden centre, a couple of quid cheaper than Clonex and out of my last run of 35 clones, 32 rooted in coco jiffies so it definitely works good.

Anyways, I'm very keen to see the outcome of Boost vs Molasses in coco, I think it's high time we all tried to find alternatives to expensive cannabis specific products cos the companies are ripping us off and most of the stuff sold for general horticulture does the same job really, just we have to figure out how to use it.

 

[bonecarver_OG]

greyskul cool

i supose if there would be such a smal increase in yield it would easilly get bypassed, i mean i would not see it

daihashi - good post

now with that information in hand about Triacontanol, it seems defiently logic but still it seems to be a bit of canesugar or similar fermented, with some Triacontanol added - again im just speculating the almost smoky smell of the boost product, and the claims about flavour enhancement, leads to believe its molasses or similar in some amount also.

peace all

 

[daihashi]

daihashi - good post

now with that information in hand about Triacontanol, it seems defiently logic but still it seems to be a bit of canesugar or similar fermented, with some Triacontanol added - again im just speculating the almost smoky smell of the boost product, and the claims about flavour enhancement, leads to believe its molasses or similar in some amount also.

peace all

Werd; I have no doubt that there is probably some sugar/carbs added into the boost. When you open it and smell it; under that smokey smell you can smell a sweetness... slight fermented scent almost but I think what is actually making Boost work is not the added sugars but rather what I believe to be the active ingredient, Triacontanol.

To be honest I've been meaning to do a side by side test of an alfalfa tea vs Canna boost. I haven't looked up any horticulture papers to find out how much alfalfa for the alfalfa tea is needed to see increased metabolic rate in plants like Tomatoes; which would be needed to accurately compare it against boost IMO. At $100 a bottle I've been trying to not use boost but I would really like to know if an alfalfa tea/concentrate mixed into your nutrient solution could be a dirt cheap alternative to using Boost.

Alternatively they sell just triacontanol on the internet here http://www.super-grow.biz/Triacontanol.jsp

They even show examples of how application on roses and how to mix into a solution or foliar spray. 5g of Triacontanol is about 25 bucks. I don't know if that link is allowed or not but the thought of being able to just buy ready made triacontanol is much more appealing to me than trying to extract it from the wax in alfalfa hay.


Here's another great resource regarding Triacontanol and Alfalfa hay, I would have just quoted it but this is a few pages of information in another thread, really a lot of good HOW TO information here:

http://www.treatingyourself.com/vbulletin/archive/index.php?t-3152.html

 

[bonecarver_OG]

VERY interesting link....

 

[darookie2000]

basic agronomy of sugar cane. not really thread about commodities futures & production, refinement & distribution of a staple, but, fwiw:

while actual production may takes place substanitially in brazil, or india, 'deveoping nations'; refinement takes place in us, japan, europe, or 'developed nations'.
same old story. where the natural resource is produced means nothing. the owners (absentee landlords) still control the process. refined in g8 type nations to maintain control over the resource.
light sweet crude oil is produced in nigeria, saudi arabia, venezuela, etc... far more consumption of said fuel in eurpoe & us...

http://www.igrowhydro.com/detail.aspx?ID=3586:

unless they have an entirely different process & formulation for their regular 'boost" product, the bio boost is same thing.

interestingly, the same site does not have analysis of the regular boost. the already gave up the drawings w/ the bio boost though...

basically, a plant tea... for 100 pieces of paper a liter? is it fermented in a golden vat? did they find the 18th element that plants eat? seriously... got a 5 gal bucket of feed molasses for 25 coins.

btw, molasses is 'derived from plants', or the sugar can plant...

plant extracts fermented for 6 months? in other words, they went to grocery store, bought produce, threw in a big bucket (vat), & stirred for 6 months...

why not disclose the ingredients? if it really takes 6 months to make, that alone would discourage consumers from repeating process. dont see how they could be any different ingredients than farmers have used for millenia to make teas.

if it does work, cool. you definitely have paid for it. the canna site says they 'guarantee' bigger yields. if you dont get them, take them up on offer...

*edit*
hint, hint: if want greater nute assimilation, just add humic acid...

enjoy yuor garden!

There's a mineral stabilizer in the regular boost that's not in the bio boost. Other than that, they are identical, I'm told. I have had great results with it so far. 3 weeks in and I've got great trichome development and huge blooming. I'm feeding them almost every day (using a really fast drying medium - Promix HP). I have changed up most of my regimen (new reflector, canna bio, molasses, Vermi T, CaMg+, growing from seed instead of clone) this time, so it's not a totally neutral comparison, but I will try a clone without boost next round to confirm.

 

[Greyskull]

greyskul cool

i supose if there would be such a smal increase in yield it would easilly get bypassed, i mean i would not see it

its a little thing, totally. but i can see it. it sucks. borderline ocd i guess haha. its kind of like how i can hear the slight slight slight difference in a guitar+amp using a 12ft cable and a 20ft cable. most peple cannot tell a difference. the few that do, some don't think its that big of a difference & some are obsessed by it. total sickness!

 

[bonecarver_OG]

i grow multiple strains in a perpetual thing.. if it so, we would talk about individual increases in yield round about maybe one bong hit per plant..

and that for 60 euro per bottle..

if someone feels like it do a test run of misting (foliar feeding) the plants with boost in early flowering and see if that is more efective in the uptake of the product.. photosynthesis is in the leafs, so its a good idea to try aplying it directly at source, and much less concentracion should be necesary..

i would test the triacontanol directly in combo with my panela mix. in the future i will look at if its possible to order it over here.

 

[Greyskull]

^^^ the dudes at one of the shops I patron SWEARS hitting them right when the buds start showing is the way to do it. they said its like mainlining!!!

I forgot what dosage they said - I am willing to test a 4x4 table of foliar fed boost... i ownder what the reccomended foliar program is...

 

[BillFarthing]

Triacontanol extends veg time. Why would you want to hit a recently flipped lady with it? More veg=more bud?

 

[HortProOrganics]

I pay 23 bucks/5 gal pail for my molasses at a feed lot. JK

That is exactly my thoughts on these over-glorified products....Ever wonder why these companies create certain products ( not all products, so don't go there)------to make huge profits....The bent truth comes with a price tage.

Sure, it would be nice to have the one magical additive and supplement to do it all, but hey, it can't be done. In all my years in Ornamental Horticulture and Sustainable Ag/Living, I always find that no nonsense ingredients tend to keep cash in your wallet, and keep whatever crop, ornamental or edible, happy and stabilized.

 

[daihashi]

Triacontanol extends veg time. Why would you want to hit a recently flipped lady with it? More veg=more bud?

There's no evidence of that except what one person said in a thread on another forum; however there are papers that state Triacontanol improved flower initiation and overall yields; which is what this is all about... yields

Triacontanol (TRIA) is a 30-carbon, straight chain primary alcohol. It is a natural constituent of wax in the cuticle of plants and Ries et al. reported that it has plant growth regulator properties (Ries et al., 1977 ). Subsequently, a number of papers on the effects of TRIA on plant growth and development have been published (Ries, 1985 ). TRIA, in nanomolar quantities, increased dry weight, CO2-fixation, reducing sugars, soluble proteins, free amino acids, and yield in many crop plants (Ries, 1985 ). Among these reports, there were clues that TRIA might have beneficial effects on flowering. For example, TRIA was reported to increase the quality and yield of flowers in Chrysanthemum morifolium and orchids (Skogen et al., 1982 ; Yee, 1983 ). Application of TRIA (10-7 M) increased the yield of certain seed crops (Ries, 1985 , 1991 ) and seed production is closely related to the production of flowers. Welebir reported that TRIA, when applied together with lanthanum, caused a synergistic stimulation in the growth of wheat, barley and rye (Welebir, 1982 ). Lanthanum is a member of the rare-earth elements (REEs) which comprise of a group of 15 trivalent metallic elements with similar properties. They are widely used in agriculture in China (Guo, 1985 ; Tang and Xiao, 1996 ). Applications of cerium and lanthanum, two of the REEs, were reported to increase the root growth of corn (Diatloff et al., 1995a , b ), increase spike production in wheat (Meehan et al., 1993 ) and enhance root and shoot growth in Phaseolus radiatus and Brassica pekinensis (Velasco et al., 1979 ). Recently, the effects of REEs on growth and development of Arabidopsis thaliana were studied. The results showed that lanthanum and cerium promoted reproductive growth and flowering of A. thaliana, but had little effect on its vegetative growth (He and Loh, 2000 ). Changes in the endogenous cytokinin concentrations in plants growing in medium with or without the REE were, however, not significant. Hence it is suggested that REEs such as lanthanum might affect the sensitivity of cells and the membrane binding of plant hormones which, in turn, affect flowering (He and Loh, 2000 ).

Taken from http://jxb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/53/368/505

 

[ChaosCatalunya]

That is exactly my thoughts on these over-glorified products....Ever wonder why these companies create certain products ( not all products, so don't go there)------to make huge profits....The bent truth comes with a price tage.

Sure, it would be nice to have the one magical additive and supplement to do it all, but hey, it can't be done. In all my years in Ornamental Horticulture and Sustainable Ag/Living, I always find that no nonsense ingredients tend to keep cash in your wallet, and keep whatever crop, ornamental or edible, happy and stabilized.

As I said before, Canna are decent people, I do not believe for one minute they would compromise all their great reputation with one Snake Oil product.

There are plenty of things us weed growers can learn from other branches of Horticulture, but always remember we grow a totally unique product, it's value is way higher than any other plant [that I know of] ... so the techniques, equipment and materials professional weed growers can afford to use are way ahead of most ofhers.

The info on how Advanced resell some commercial Horticultural products at many times the original price was most interesting, but I just plain flat refuse to believe Canna are anything but straight.