Carbs: A Wolf in Sheeps Clothing (warn)

[VerdantGreen]

hi again gd - depends what you call an unproven hypothesis - i thought that a plant will use the stored up nutrients in it's leaves if they arent available to the roots and that will improve taste. and it works from my experience. many will disagree but i think it is better to stop feeding and let the plant suck itself dry. i havent found that my yields suffer and tbh i havent seen anyone on IC that gets better yields than me (although im sure there must be somewhere)- even in hydro - so i'm quite confident that the way i grow plants does work.
if you check my grow diary you can see pics of the plants i grow in my little cab. and i mean pics of the WHOLE PLANT - not just a bud (anyone can find a decent bud in their grow to take pics of). i am very pleased with the results i am getting. i'm sure yours look good too and i would love to see some pics sometime.

it's great to thrash these subjects out, i would agree that their is much mis-information in weed growing info and literature, but there are also people who have been doing it well for years and i think their experience has to be respected.

V.

 

[diggah]

Molasses is such a great fertilizer...carbs being just part of it. Molasses is useless if you use it directly without bubbling it in a tea. I've used Biogrow( does not need to bubbled) for years with great results. I aslo have found the best results in flavor and yeild ,when using no ferts the last 2-3 weeks. Of course the Bat Guano is still breaking down and soil is still alive and well. You disturb the pecious soil balance you are talking about by added more ferts than adding sugars anyway. I rely so much more on nitrogen fixing bacteria than any added nitrogen. Most nutrients come from the air in good organic growing than from minerals in the soil. sorry my statements are scattered, I hope I am clear. cheers.

 

[VerdantGreen]

This is an interesting hypothesis/question. It may be worthy of a study. One would need to establish that the molasses was feeding the same microorganisms and possibly with the same carbon molecular bond structure as the plant may be outputting at this life stage. One could also run a side by side 'field' study using several subject plants, some with molasses, some without and set up a system of objective measurement. (e.g. mass)

it would be interesting to find out - it makes sense to me (with my limited understanding of the processes involved ) that the plant wouldnt be sending carbs to the rootzone to feed the microbes if it already had a good supply of usable nutrients that could be supplied by the molasses sugars feeding the microbes.

V.

 

[diggah]

GD , what nutrients do you use the last two weeks that you find help with girth?

 

[Microbeman]

Verdant,
I really do not think 'things' work like that. There are many people who believe strongly in their growing method(s) in that they are in control of what the plant is 'eating' in organics. I was one of them and would have sworn that my experience backed up what I was saying. Once I learned more about how plants really feed, once I learned about the effects of gut microbes on human health and the whole world of interspecies microbial communication, my eyes became much more opened.

BTW, I'm not saying that the plant will grow regardless of OM available.

 

[ganja din]

@ v,

I was not trying to imply one should not take under considerastion info from conjecture. The problem IMO is when it gets stated as fact (not that you were doing that). I didn't mean to insult anyone.

Thanks

 

[VerdantGreen]

microbe - not sure what you mean by 'things' in relation to my posts.

gd - hey no problem at all. as i said, depends on what you categorise as conjecture and what you call practical experience.

V.

 

[Microbeman]

"things" =

that the plant wouldnt be sending carbs to the rootzone to feed the microbes if it already had a good supply of usable nutrients that could be supplied by the molasses sugars feeding the microbes.

 

[VerdantGreen]

microbeman, you obviously know more about this than me, but you said that my question/theory - does a plant 'feed' microbes in response to the level of nutrients available? - might be worthy of study, so presumably you dont know at present whether or not it is correct.
i think it's generally agreed that a plant will use stored nutrients in it's fan leaves when rootzone/other nutrients arent available, so if this is a mechanism that the plant can regulate then isnt it plausible that the flow of carbs to the rootzone would be regulated also?
we know that organic matter/ferts will get broken down by the soil if the plant isnt present, so the plant's carbs arent the only mecahism by which food can become available to the plant. (you'll hate this statement ) but mother nature isnt usually wasteful. perhaps this is why so many people think that molasses helps.
fwiw i personally doubt that many people use molasses because they believe it makes their buds sweeter - they use it because the think it makes the buds grow bigger.

V.

 

[ganja din]

Mj,

Only mobile elements are used that way from within the plant. However, even if all elements were mobile, I don't think you can make comparisons/correlations between the two. Plants can/do use mobile elements even if they are available in the media.

I don't think the plant 'measures' nutrients in media at all. It does know when its 'hungry', but not how much food (elements) are in the media. Much of which is sequestered, etc. Not a lot is bioavailabe at any one given point. So the plant can tell the microherd it needs food when its 'hungry', but the plant doesn't know how much 'food' is on the plate.

The biggest problem with molasses is I highly doubt its a replacement for the many different exudes of plants.

I agree with Mirobeman, I don't think your line of reasoning is valid. I have not read your suggestion elsewhere, and I have looked into it. Why don't you search journal articles for info and tell us what you find (with references)? I have done limited searching and found nothing backing up your suggestion..

I don't think molasses can replace all the various exudes, carb or otherwise, the plant offers as food, communication, etc.

Why are you even staying on this point? Why do you want to add molasses so badly? If the soil food web is working the way the plant and organisms are evolved to work, why add something which 1) isn't needed and 2) can have non-beneficial consequences?

I already responded to your point about sugar for bigger buds = bunk. I have found countless errors repeatedly perpetrated by George Cervanties...

Nobody said microbes (I assume that's what you mean by "soil"?) need plants to breakdown minerals and OM...

HTH HTH

 

[ganja din]

V (sorry I called you MJ last post),

Please, search scholarly lit., I honestly think people are wrong about molasses. As MM said [sic] "...very, very little molasses is directly used by roots".

Also, plant exudes not only include microbial food, but are thought to be a form of communication among other purposes. Molasses can't replace exudes from plants...

 

[Microbeman]

Also, plant exudes not only include microbial food, but are thought to be a form of communication among other purposes. Molasses can't replace exudes from plants...

the whole world of interspecies microbial communication, my eyes became much more opened.

Aye! And why do us humans have such a strong desire to manipulate this?

we know that organic matter/ferts will get broken down by the soil if the plant isnt present, so the plant's carbs arent the only mecahism by which food can become available to the plant.

Do we know this? And to what extent?

 

[VagPuncher]

Why don't you three do a side by side grow; one with carbs and one without and that'll be that

 

[maryjohn]

Vag that would be a tiny sample size with too many variables to get a definitive answer.

To play devils advocate a bit though: can we not conclude that molasses as applied does little to no harm? So what justifies calling it a wolf? At that price it doesn't eat your wallet, it didn't eat anyones plants and it doesn't eat sheep either.

 

[dongle69]

Why don't you three do a side by side grow; one with carbs and one without and that'll be that

Haha I don't think these guys actually grow marijuana.
I would love to see some pics.

 

[ganja din]

Hey v
Here's a thought, which MJ already stated. I bet the reason people see benefits from molasses (growing convental or organic) is becuase their plants are stressed or injured, etc. Most probably those in organic situations have poor media bound organism numbers from too much fets (like guano). Or the plant is stressed and not producing and/or transporting sugars normally. By adding molasses they are mainlining food to microbes (faster than a plant can if exudes are food). Its the microbial reaction to the molasses which befits the plant the most, not the molasses itself. Most research I have read finds stressed or injured plants repond best to carbs like sugar in the drench water. But, its a small effect and effects roots, not 'above ground'.

And as was mentioned, occasional application of molasses with ACT, etc is fine. But overuse is a different story, which is how probably 99% of people use molasses.

Also, besides Cervanties (in his book and HT mag) have you read the same info about sugar and yield? I have not. If you have not, I sure hope you believe Microbeman and myself over George in this matter.

Please read the following links. Some claim its even detrimental to add carbs to media, others show how plant based exudaes feed microbes:

1. "Re: How does sugar water affect the growth and development of a plant?"
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2001-02/981439620.Bt.r.html

Watering a plant with sugar water will usually harm it because it makes soil water less available to the plant. In technical terms, it lowers the water potential of the soil water by lowering the osmotic potential. Water flows from higher to lower water potential. The water potential in the plant must be lower. than the soil water potential in order for water to flow from the soil into the plant.

Plant roots are not adapted to absorb sugar. Plants make all the sugars they require via photosynthesis.

Plant water relations are discussed in college introductory botany texts, plant physiology texts or soil science texts.

2. "Sugar feeding enhances root vigor og young trees folowing containerization"
By Glynn C. Percival

This shows that only root tip growth is marginally increased. No other benefits. Yes its a tree, but its as close as I could find. All such studies seem to find the tree best responds to suagr if the tree has been stressed.



3. "Effect of Inoculation on Root Exudates Carbon Sugar and Amino Acids Production of Different Rice Varieties"
By U.A. Naher, O. Radziah, M.S. Halrmi, Z.H. Shamsuddrn and I. Mohd Razi
http://scialert.net/pdfs/jm/2008/580-587.pdf



4. "Hungry microbes share out the carbon in the roots of plants"
http://www.york.ac.uk/admin/presspr/pressreleases/hungrymicrobes.htm

18 October 2007

Media Information: David Garner 01904 432153

Hungry microbes share out the carbon in the roots of plants

Sugars made by plants are rapidly used by microbes living in their roots, according to new research at the University of York, creating a short cut in the carbon cycle that is vital to life on earth.

The green leaves of plants use the energy of sunlight to make sugar by combining water with carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. This sugar fuels the plant’s growth, but scientists in the University’s Department of Biology discovered that some of it goes straight to the roots to feed a surprising variety of microbes.

A study led by Professor Peter Young, of the Department of Biology at York and Dr Philippe Vandenkoornhuyse of the University of Rennes in France is published in the latest issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA (PNAS).

In the carbon cycle, plants remove carbon dioxide (a greenhouse gas) from the atmosphere. Eventually, the carbon compounds that plants make are ‘eaten’ by microbes and animals, which release carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere. The rapid cycling demonstrated by the new research is an important link in this process.

Professor Young said: "Our research identifies microbes in roots that create a short cut in the carbon cycle. This is an important development given current interest in reducing outputs of carbon dioxide and the ‘carbon trading’ that is intended to help this."

The researchers traced the path of the carbon by replacing the normal carbon dioxide in the air around the plants with a version made with C-13, a natural, non-radioactive form of carbon that is slightly heavier than the usual kind. Within hours, microbes in the roots were feeding on sugars laden with C-13 and using it to build their own cells.

The newly-made molecules of DNA and RNA produced by the microbes could be separated from pre-existing ones because the C13 made them heavier. DNA and RNA are large molecules that carry genetic information about the organisms that made them, so it was possible to identify the microbes that made those heavy molecules. These were the ‘greedy’ ones that were consuming the largest share of the sugars provided by the plant.

Professor Young said: "There are rich communities of microbes growing in or around the roots of all plants growing in normal soil. Most do no harm to the plant, and some are very beneficial to it. We looked at two sorts of microbe: bacteria and mycorrhizal fungi."

The researchers found a high diversity of both types of microbe inside the roots of grass or clover plants growing in a pasture, but the ‘heavy’ label revealed that some of these were growing much more actively than others.

Professor Young added: "It is these active organisms that are important because they are turning sugar back into carbon dioxide, which is released into the atmosphere. We were astonished at the wide variety of active bacteria that we discovered. Many of them had not been seen in plant roots before, and we have no idea how they may affect plant growth."

The role of mycorrhizal fungi is better known. They are particularly important in carbon cycling, because they pump the carbon compounds out of the root into a massive network of fine fungal filaments in the soil, where it becomes available to other microbes and also to larger soil organisms like worms, mites and insects. In return, the fungus gathers phosphorus from the soil and delivers it to the plant, helping the plant to grow better. The research confirmed that there were many different fungi in the roots of each plant, but revealed, for the first time, which of these fungi were most active.

HTH

 

[ganja din]

The reason to call a wolf is too much molasses is bad for a few possible reasons:

1. Bacteria bloom (upset media homeostasis)

2. Too much S

3. False sense of benefit

4. And the following:

"Re: How does sugar water affect the growth and development of a plant?"
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2001-02/981439620.Bt.r.html

Watering a plant with sugar water will usually harm it because it makes soil water less available to the plant. In technical terms, it lowers the water potential of the soil water by lowering the osmotic potential. Water flows from higher to lower water potential. The water potential in the plant must be lower. than the soil water potential in order for water to flow from the soil into the plant.

Plant roots are not adapted to absorb sugar. Plants make all the sugars they require via photosynthesis.

Plant water relations are discussed in college introductory botany texts, plant physiology texts or soil science texts.

 

[maryjohn]

Osmotic issues always have to do with dosage no?

Ganja you may make more headway if you advocate reducing dosage to a liliputian quantity. It's psychologically easier to bear than a wolf. (sorry for the pun)

 

[Microbeman]

Haha I don't think these guys actually grow marijuana.
I would love to see some pics.

Yes you caught me. Never even seen a marijuana plant in my 22 year old life.

 

[h.h.]

It's a good thing my girls can't read all this crap cause they would be fucked up of they knew the truth.