<facepalm> read the damn references I posted to you twice now. I am not here to hold your hand.
-
ICMag with help from Landrace Warden and The Vault is running a NEW contest in November! You can check it here. Prizes are seeds & forum premium access. Come join in!
Info about DON vs. ions: plants don't only use ions
- Thread starter spurr
- Start date
- Status
<facepalm> read the damn references I posted to you twice now. I am not here to hold your hand.
It has EVERYTHING to do with how plants absorb nutrients.
So... you are unable or unwilling to simply post up the mechanism.
You act like you're here to share information, but that is a ruse.
You want to trick me into downloading from your site so you'll have my i.p.
no thanks.
just post up the info, if you can.
Just read the damn link
read what link? the zip file?
Why do that when it would be very easy for him to copy the information and paste in into a post?
It does not matter.
I agree that some plants can use some mineral containing organic molecules for some things... and I'll learn which plants, how and for what on my own.
But I have never seen any evidence to indicate that a plant which is never fed mineral ions will eventually die, so I don't see any evidence that the quote of mine which spurr originally 'took to task' was incorrect.
If a plant cannot live it's full life cycle solely on DOM, then it is true that eventually, without those 6 inorganic mineral elements, most plants will die.
He could have made his point, without attacking my true statements.
almost seems personal.
Why do that when it would be very easy for him to copy the information and paste in into a post?
It does not matter.
I agree that some plants can use some mineral containing organic molecules for some things... and I'll learn which plants, how and for what on my own.
But I have never seen any evidence to indicate that a plant which is never fed mineral ions will eventually die, so I don't see any evidence that the quote of mine which spurr originally 'took to task' was incorrect.
If a plant cannot live it's full life cycle solely on DOM, then it is true that eventually, without those 6 inorganic mineral elements, most plants will die.
He could have made his point, without attacking my true statements.
almost seems personal.
See what I wrote to someone else:
Reading the references I uploaded will tell you more than I can in just one post, you will get a much better understanding of the phenomenon and all issues involved by reading the papers. There are a few different routes to absorption. And leafs also absorb organic substances such as dissolved organic nitrogen (from the phyllosphere) as 'food' just like they absorb ions (as 'food') from the phyllosphere through the cuticle layer. Here is a post of some of my references that will offer much insight for you, more than I can provide in a single post: https://www.icmag.com/ic/showpost.ph...8&postcount=18
I feel it would be redundant for me to write what those authors already wrote; who probably explain it better than I could too boot because they have a better grasp on it than I do
I think you mixed up what you meant to write, regardless, you "have never seen any evidence" because you refuse to read what I have provided for you. Specifically read these papers I uploaded:
"Dissolved Organic Nitrogen and Mechanisms of Its Uptake by Plants in Agricultural Systems"
David L. Jones, John F. Farrar, Andrew J. Macdonald, Sarah J. Kemmitt, and Daniel V. Murphy
"Tansley review: Uptake of organic nitrogen by plants"
Tor gny Nä sholm, Knut Kielland and Ulrika Ganeteg
New Phytologist (2009) 182: 31–48
"Plant Uptake and Utilization of Organic Nitrogen"
Torgny Nasholm
Dept of Forest Ecology and Magagment/Dept of Forest Genetica dn Plant Physuilogy, SLU
"Dissolved organic nitrogen uptake by plants—an important N uptake pathway?"
David L. Jones, John R. Healeya, Victoria B. Willett, John F. Farrar, Angela Hodge
Soil Biology & Biochemistry 37 (2005) 413–423
There is DON, DOC, DOP, etc., neither of us can prove one way or another, but the strongest evidence points to my position, but you refuse to read the references I have provided while complaining that I am not providing info. FWIW, I never gave a time frame for how long plants could probably live without ions.
I will not let this thread breakdown like the one in your forum, I will just place you on ignore...in fact, I'm gonna do that right now. Goodbye.
@ all,
In soils there are large pools of dissolved organic nutrients like DON, DOP, DOK, etc. Thus it stands to reason plants have evolved to utilize them directly as a 'food' source because in nature very little (or nothing) goes to waste and the most efficient route is often taken. It seems to me the more efficient route for a plant is to directly use dissolved organic nutrients than to wait for microbes to break it down into ions via. microbial loop and mineralization.
Microbes and plants compete for dissolved organic nutrients, they both use it directly and microbes also feed plants and plants also feed microbes. It's like one big
in the rhizosphere.
In soils there are large pools of dissolved organic nutrients like DON, DOP, DOK, etc. Thus it stands to reason plants have evolved to utilize them directly as a 'food' source because in nature very little (or nothing) goes to waste and the most efficient route is often taken. It seems to me the more efficient route for a plant is to directly use dissolved organic nutrients than to wait for microbes to break it down into ions via. microbial loop and mineralization.
Microbes and plants compete for dissolved organic nutrients, they both use it directly and microbes also feed plants and plants also feed microbes. It's like one big
in the rhizosphere.
None of that evidence shows that a plant can live it's entire life cycle without using ions. I'll not see any because there is not any. It has never happened.
and yes there was a typo, how in character for you to point it out.
The sentence should read "I have never seen any evidence to indicate that a plant which is never fed mineral ions will not eventually die".
None of that evidence makes my statement which you took to task incorrect.
I never said that plants cannot use organics.
It is true that most plants will eventually die without inorganic minerals.
It is true that plants can thrive without organics.
No, plants don't only uptake ions.
I agree with you on that and that does not disagree with my statement you began the thread with... and you could have made it without trying to start an argument over my quote. I can prove that plants can thrive without DOMs, can you prove that plants can live their entire life without ions? (if they don't live their full life cycle, then they died.)
Why would you pick an argument and then ignore me when you fail to make your point?
and yes there was a typo, how in character for you to point it out.
The sentence should read "I have never seen any evidence to indicate that a plant which is never fed mineral ions will not eventually die".
None of that evidence makes my statement which you took to task incorrect.
I never said that plants cannot use organics.
It is true that most plants will eventually die without inorganic minerals.
It is true that plants can thrive without organics.
No, plants don't only uptake ions.
I agree with you on that and that does not disagree with my statement you began the thread with... and you could have made it without trying to start an argument over my quote. I can prove that plants can thrive without DOMs, can you prove that plants can live their entire life without ions? (if they don't live their full life cycle, then they died.)
Why would you pick an argument and then ignore me when you fail to make your point?
there is no credible evidence that plants need ions to live, not thrive, just simply live, without ionsI never once claimed platns do better with only dissolved organic sources for food. I never claimed you can harvest nice plants without ions (from chem ferts or from microbes); I only claimed there is strong evidence, due to the fact plants use DON, DOC, DOP, etc. *directly*, that plants can live without ions.
I guess my biggest question is "Why would cannabis growers need to learn how to get plants to barely survive?"
or need to know that plants might be able to make it to a subpar harvest without ions?
Is the lesson "If you want a nice crop, be sure and provide plenty of ions!"?
I don't ever want my plants 'just simply to live' I want them to thrive.
Last edited:
I can't put you on ignore so we HAVE to play nice.
I never wrote they can live the entire life cycle, I wrote they can probably live without ions. I never gave a time-frame. Living without ions can mean living a week, 2 weeks a month, whatever; but it would be living without ions.
That fact you wrote "Without those inorganic minerals plants could not live." means your statement is probably false, that is why I used your quote. When you wrote "could not live", that means to me they die right away, which I highly doubt is the case considering it's shown they use dissolved organic nutrients in lue of and along with ions.
This thread isn't about you, I am sorry I used your well known quote as an example. However, I would think by now you would at least read my references so you have a base to stand upon when trying to refute my references and claims.
I will remove your quote from my OP, and I hope this is the last back and fourth between us, no one wants to read this crap, least of all me. We could get some good info in this thread if you would chill out a bit.
I never wrote they can live the entire life cycle, I wrote they can probably live without ions. I never gave a time-frame. Living without ions can mean living a week, 2 weeks a month, whatever; but it would be living without ions.
Plants fed ions eventually die, all plants eventually die regardless of their source of nutrients.
I will remove your quote from my OP if you want me to, doesn't bother me one bit; if it makes you happy then fine. This thread isn't about you, I just used your quote as an example because it's a well known quote.
That fact you wrote "Without those inorganic minerals plants could not live." means your statement is probably false, that is why I used your quote. When you wrote "could not live", that means to me they die right away, which I highly doubt is the case considering it's shown they use dissolved organic nutrients in lue of and along with ions.
You can't prove that, just like I can't prove they won't eventually die (although that is not my position). Due to the ubiquity of microbes and root exudates there will always be ions for plants to use and there will always be dissolved organic nutrients for plants to use. This includes the phyllosphere and microbes that live inside plant tissue.
It's equally true they thrive better with organics such as kelp extract, humic acid, etc.
Yes I does, at least to me, because "plants could not live" means they die right away; how else could one interpret that claim?
I am sorry if you think I was trying to start an argument, I was not. I was only using your quote because it's a well known quote, some well known Ic'ers even use it in their sig. I dont' see what your issue is, you made a definitive claim and I challenged it with scientific data. What's wrong with that?
Just how can you prove they can live without dissolved organic nutrients? Are you going to aseptically grow cannabis? And how, considering the ubiquity of microbes? Besides, I never claimed plants can live without dissolved organic nutrients. Like I wrote before, I can not think of an instance where plants would not have access to ions in the various 'spheres of a plant.
This thread isn't about you, I am sorry I used your well known quote as an example. However, I would think by now you would at least read my references so you have a base to stand upon when trying to refute my references and claims.
I will remove your quote from my OP, and I hope this is the last back and fourth between us, no one wants to read this crap, least of all me. We could get some good info in this thread if you would chill out a bit.
No one is suggesting we try to grow plants without ions; the point of this thread is to disseminate info which many people are unaware of. You may not see value in increasing your plant science knowledge but I do, as to many others.
Another point of this thread is that by offering organics that have dissolved organic nutrients we can probably grow better plants than just by giving them ions alone. This is due to mimicking nature, because in nature plants have access to ions AND dissolved organic nutrients.
For example, plants do fine without supplemental C02, but they do better with supplemental Co2. The reason is when plants were first evolving the atmospheric Co2 was much higher than it is today, over 500 ppm up to ~800 to 1,000 ppm. Thus by providing extra Co2 we are mimicking what plants have evolved to use; the same happens when we give plants dissolved organic nutrients, which plants have evolved to use.
I for one find this topic very interesting, and I know other do too.
It has been proven many times that application of kelp extract (for PGRs, other hormones, etc.) makes plants grown with chems thrive better, the same goes for addition of humic acid. So, besides the point about plants evolving to use dissolved organic nutrients, they are benefited from some organics like kelp extract, hydrolyzed fish, humic acid, etc. Thus, I ask you: why wouldn't you add those items if you want the best plants?
Thanks for the removal. I really don't have much else to say, so after a brief reply to your previous post I bid you adieu.
It seems as though you're splitting hairs.
It would obviously have to be death from causes related to or arising from nutrient deficiency.
There are plenty of slight modifications which would make it longer and less nit-pickable, but I assume a certain level of common sense among people smart enough to sign up here.
Also you have to remember that quotes in peoples sig lines often lack context, and I am talking about cannabis plants on a cannabis site.
We should both do out best to set up experiments.
It is not like I said 'plants could not live for one instant', and there is no common sense reason to take it that way.
Like If I said man can not live, if he only eats rabbit meat.
Every sensible person would understand I did not mean that as soon as one ate their first rabbit meat only meal they'd fall over dead. Anyone curious could look up why it would kill you eventually.
http://www.simplesurvival.net/nutrition.htm
yes everyone will die, but people eating normal diets will not die of starvation like a man eating only rabbit meat.
and I've smoked alot of good herb in alot of places grown by talented growers.
Show me it's better and I'll believe you, but there's nothing my plants need that they don't have access to.
Peace and Love
of course, playing nice is always preferable to being confrontational or argumentative debate is healthy, argument for argument's sake is nothing but frustrating.
On that technicality you are correct, but that is perspective based. From another perspective if a plant dies from any cause related to nutrient deficiency, then the plant died from not having ions.
It seems as though you're splitting hairs.
Of course. If the plant lives it's full life cycle senescence kicks in. But I specifically excluded that sort of eventual death.
It would obviously have to be death from causes related to or arising from nutrient deficiency.
Forgive my mistake, given the duplicate thread titled @gratefulh3ad, I'm sure my assumption is forgivable.
Yes, when you condense complicated thoughts into concise sentences, you usually loose some precision.
There are plenty of slight modifications which would make it longer and less nit-pickable, but I assume a certain level of common sense among people smart enough to sign up here.
I could absolutely prove it. sterile media saturated with pasteurized DOM, in a sterile lab. How big will the seedling get before it dies.
Also you have to remember that quotes in peoples sig lines often lack context, and I am talking about cannabis plants on a cannabis site.
We should both do out best to set up experiments.
please provide some quantitative evidence. I won't comment on it, but I'd love to see it. The day I smoke herbs better than I grow, will be the day I switch methods.
sensibly. In the context of growing cannabis with expectations of a smokable harvest. In context with other things I've posted.
It is not like I said 'plants could not live for one instant', and there is no common sense reason to take it that way.
Like If I said man can not live, if he only eats rabbit meat.
Every sensible person would understand I did not mean that as soon as one ate their first rabbit meat only meal they'd fall over dead. Anyone curious could look up why it would kill you eventually.
http://www.simplesurvival.net/nutrition.htm
yes everyone will die, but people eating normal diets will not die of starvation like a man eating only rabbit meat.
context
easily, lots of people grow in sterile media.
I'm all chill, when I'm not being nitpicked over misunderstood wording and context. Carry on with your thread. I'm out if you're going to stop making it about my wording in someone's out of context sig quote.
Like I said, the day I smoke pot that I prefer to my own, will be the day that I change methods. I've had organic growers o'plenty mistake my hydro for organic, and have never had organic I'd rather smoke than my hydro.No one is suggesting we try to grow plants without ions; the point of this thread is to disseminate info which many people are unaware of. You may not see value in increasing your plant science knowledge but I do, as to many others.
Another point of this thread is that by offering organics that have dissolved organic nutrients we can probably grow better plants than just by giving them ions alone. This is due to mimicking nature, because in nature plants have access to ions AND dissolved organic nutrients.
For example, plants do fine without supplemental C02, but they do better with supplemental Co2. The reason is when plants were first evolving the atmospheric Co2 was much higher than it is today, over 500 ppm up to ~800 to 1,000 ppm. Thus by providing extra Co2 we are mimicking what plants have evolved to use; the same happens when we give plants dissolved organic nutrients, which plants have evolved to use.
I for one find this topic very interesting, and I know other do too.
It has been proven many times that application of kelp extract (for PGRs, other hormones, etc.) makes plants grown with chems thrive better, the same goes for addition of humic acid. So, besides the point about plants evolving to use dissolved organic nutrients, they are benefited from some organics like kelp extract, hydrolyzed fish, humic acid, etc. Thus, I ask you: why wouldn't you add those items if you want the best plants?
and I've smoked alot of good herb in alot of places grown by talented growers.
Show me it's better and I'll believe you, but there's nothing my plants need that they don't have access to.
Peace and Love
Last edited:
The only things I have to add is sterile media doesn't mean sterile plants, and sterile media is a misnomer unless it's aseptic, which isn't the case with sterile media unless grown in a positive pressure clean room with HEPA filtration down to 0.2 microns. Or unless you try to grow plants in a 0.2 micron filtration bag, or something along those lines. I have the equipment to do such a test.
I'm not sure what you mean by sterile media, if you mean agar nutrient broth that is one thing if it's autoclaved and kept sterile, but if you mean rockwool, or hydroton, etc., that's not sterile, far from it.
That is what I mean by it's not easily possible to grow plants without the presence of microbes, there are many microbes in the rhizosphere and phyllosphere and even within plant tissue. There is no sterile media that cannabis growers use to grow cannabis, even in rockwool there are many microbes which feed upon the ions from chem ferts, and in turn those microbes exude ions and dissolved organic nutrients such as amino acids. That's my point about not growing without presence of microbes; and where there is microbes there is dissolved organic nutrients that come from the microbes, not from microbes breaking down organic matter.
It's well known that aseptic plant tissue culture can be carried out using dissolved organic nutrients in place of ions such as N, P, etc., and the cells re-generate into plantlets just fine; thus plants can grow without an ionic N and P source for at least a few weeks to months.
FWIW, application of PGRs has been shown for over a half a century to offer many benefits to plants that ions can't offer. For example, using brassinosteroids increases rate of photosynthesis, phototropism, stress resistance, yield, growth rate, etc., and application of triacontanol increases rate of photosynthesis many times, along with increasing yields, etc. Yield increases over > 10-20% are easily achieveed by application of those PGRs. And application of methyl jasmoic acid and GA3 increase trich number and density, which won't happen from only using ions. Those claims are very well proven by academia, and I can attest to yield and growth increases and phototropism increases by their application on cannabis.
There is a vast body of science proving efficacy of organic substances like kelp extract and humic acid, the latter esp. for application of ions which increase absorption and chelation of ions. I am not taking about bud taste or smell...
I'm not sure what you mean by sterile media, if you mean agar nutrient broth that is one thing if it's autoclaved and kept sterile, but if you mean rockwool, or hydroton, etc., that's not sterile, far from it.
That is what I mean by it's not easily possible to grow plants without the presence of microbes, there are many microbes in the rhizosphere and phyllosphere and even within plant tissue. There is no sterile media that cannabis growers use to grow cannabis, even in rockwool there are many microbes which feed upon the ions from chem ferts, and in turn those microbes exude ions and dissolved organic nutrients such as amino acids. That's my point about not growing without presence of microbes; and where there is microbes there is dissolved organic nutrients that come from the microbes, not from microbes breaking down organic matter.
It's well known that aseptic plant tissue culture can be carried out using dissolved organic nutrients in place of ions such as N, P, etc., and the cells re-generate into plantlets just fine; thus plants can grow without an ionic N and P source for at least a few weeks to months.
FWIW, application of PGRs has been shown for over a half a century to offer many benefits to plants that ions can't offer. For example, using brassinosteroids increases rate of photosynthesis, phototropism, stress resistance, yield, growth rate, etc., and application of triacontanol increases rate of photosynthesis many times, along with increasing yields, etc. Yield increases over > 10-20% are easily achieveed by application of those PGRs. And application of methyl jasmoic acid and GA3 increase trich number and density, which won't happen from only using ions. Those claims are very well proven by academia, and I can attest to yield and growth increases and phototropism increases by their application on cannabis.
There is a vast body of science proving efficacy of organic substances like kelp extract and humic acid, the latter esp. for application of ions which increase absorption and chelation of ions. I am not taking about bud taste or smell...
S
staff11
"Outdoors where they belong, I'd still use organics."
where they belong. lol
where they belong. lol
yeah, their ain't no ground or sun indoors. Not much natural 'bout indoor growing, and there is no need to turn my indoor garden into an ion producing rube goldberg machine.
interesting thread. i must say ive debated the merit of what toohighmf has quoted in his signature (with him)
i need to read the references now (probably twice)
cheers
VG
i need to read the references now (probably twice)
cheers
VG
no need. verdant, you have your beliefs and I have mine. I'm sorry science proves GH's quote in my sig. y'all have a fun filled debate.
Science does no such thing, not in the way G3H wrote his quote. I have yet to see G3H, or anyone, post any peer-reviewed papers refuting what I wrote. G3H has posted a paper about how roots use ions, but that isn't the topic of this thread...
Let me go over his quote line by line (again), his original and the updated version thanks to this thread. Granted, in his quote G3H should have clarified that he is writing about the elements roots take up as 'food'. The reason being is there exists non-bioavailable (to roots) organic forms of all of those elements, but not ones the plant roots can take up directly.
If there was not a claim being made about the absolute scientific correctness of his original and updated quote I would not be such a stickler.
1. Below is a study looking at growth of seedlings on sterile media given inorganic P (phosphate ions), and two different forms of dissolved organic P. I have not read this study in whole yet, but I will do so this week. This also answers the challenge of GH3 put to me about his claims that there is no proof plants can do without ions.
"The growth and phosphorus utilisation of plants in sterile media when supplied with inositol hexaphosphate, glucose 1-phosphate or inorganic phosphate"
Volume 220, Numbers 1-2, 165-174, 2000
Julie E. Hayes, Richard J. Simpson and Alan E. Richardson
2. For lots of studies on dissolved organic nitrogen and plant uptake see this post of mine: https://www.icmag.com/ic/showpost.php?p=3903538&postcount=18
Growing with the microbial route (biological organics) for ions (and biological fertilizers) is not a prerequisite for growing naturally (if by that you mean outside under the sun); and nor is growing naturally a prerequisite for growing with the microbial route.
One can very easily and very well employ the microbe sourced ions/bio-fertilizes paradigm to grow cannabis instead of using the synthetic fertilizer paradigm to grow cannabis.
You believe growing with synthetic fertilizers makes for better plants than growing with microbe sourced ions/bio-fertilizes, and it's fine you feel that way. However, I suspect you simply did not succeed all that well when trying to grow organically, esp. if you were using 'organics is a bottle' (i.e. organics from a hydro store; the bane of biological organics using microbes). Also, the media one uses has a big effect upon the efficacy of both organic paradigms of biological organics and 'organics in a bottle'. Thus, I believe, your results were not as good as those of us who do succeed with biological organics, and even for those who succeed with 'organics in a bottle'.
I have grown using both paradigms (synthetic fertilizers and biological organics for microbe sourced ions/bio-fertilizes) and the results (yield and flower quality) were pretty much identical in both cases. That said, I, and most other people preferred the cannabis grown with using biological organics (i.e. microbe sourced ions/bio-fertilizes) when doing a blind-smoke-test. The preference was mostly due to more complexity in the taste/smell/high from the flowers grown using biological organics (yes I know it's highly subjective but it is what it is).
In the end as long as we are happy with our results and try to limit the negative impact upon the Earth we all win
- Status
