Info about DON vs. ions: plants don't only use ions

[spurr]

FWIW, here is a good book:

"Handbook of Microbial Biofertilizers"
Mahendra Rai (Editor)
Psychology Press, 2006


Read some of it for free at Google Books:
http://books.google.com/books?id=xE...ook_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBsQ6AEwAA


Buy it at Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/Handbook-Microbial-Biofertilizers-Mahendra-Rai/dp/1560222697

 

[toohighmf]

I think the dog just dumped fresh microbial bioferts in my backyard! Do you want some?
This thread is full of your 100% organic Microbial biofertilizer!. there are at 30 of these threads. Can't you guys just stick to 1???? To even mention me or my sig I adopted from GH3AD is ridiculous. I have stayed out of the organic grow threads entirely since it is beyond obvious we cant play well together. Why bring me up?

 

[spurr]

This thread isn't about organic vs. chems. It's about what I wrote: that plants use both ions and dissolved organic nitrogen and phosphorus for N and P nutrition, and that a plant won't die right away without N and P as ions. No one here, or at any other forum I know about, has ever written a thread like this.

The only reason I compared synthetic ferts to biological organics, in one post only, was to respond to a post by G3H. in the other post when I wrote about chems vs. organics I wrote they are both equally valid; both are two different means to the same end (harvesting good buds). I was not claiming one is better than the other as a rule. G3H on the other hand was the one who chose to argue the point, stating how much better are chems. Thus I must ask, why are you not upset with G3H for being the one trying to distort the thrust of the this thread? All my other posts were on topic to this thread, it was G3H who was trying to make this thread into what you now seem to trying to make it into. Both of you are being disingenuous.

I brought you up because you are the reason I found, and was told about G3H's quote in the first place. That got me thinking that many people are not aware of the topics I wrote about in this thread. You are an ICmag Mentor so people tend to believe what you write more than non-Mentors. Do you not feel a responsibility to hold yourself to a higher standard than non-Mentors in terms of info you disseminate?

I find it odd that after I proved my point with science you no longer seem to want to talk about science, and instead try to use Ad Hominem logical fallacy/argument against me. That is also what G3H resorted too...

We are getting along, we might be not BFF's, but we are getting along. There seems to be a misconception about having a debate and getting along. They are one in the same, or at least they should be. Having a debate free from hyperbole and fallacious arguments[1] is key to learning and growing, and should be welcomed by all, esp. ICmag Mentors and for someone who profess to be "The Voice of Reason"...

This thread is about how plants can use both ions and DON and DOP for nutrients, which is an unknown phenomena for most people. This thread is not about organics vs. chems, please do not try to derail it into such as topic.


[1] logical fallacies: What both you and G3H seem to be attempting to try and use to cast doubt on what I wrote. You guys are using (at least) the Ad Hominem fallacy. That is accomplished by using a non-relevant topic to try cast doubt on the topic at hand. Ad Hominem is one of the most commonly used logical fallacies at cannabis forums, also are the fallacies of "Appeal to Common Practice", "Appeal to Ignorance", "Appeal to Authority", "Appeal to Popularity", etc.

For a list of logical fallacies and info on what logical fallacies (i.e. fallacious argument) are, and why we should not use them see this site: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/index.html#index

Description of Ad Hominem
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A's claim is false.


The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).
Example of Ad Hominem

• Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
• Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
• Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
• Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."

 

[toohighmf]

as a mentor, I try to simplify things for those who have a hard time grasping the basics of growing, and advance them to higher grounds by cutting the BS and teaching them about real life scenarios to this murphy's law we call indoor horticulture. I also try to keep them safe and aware of the dangers of organics, as well as the dangers associated with Mineral salts, pesticides, PGR's etc.

I don't play psychologist..
Therefore you can A, B, & See your way out of this thread

 

[spurr]

Therefore you can A, B, & See your way out of this thread

Nice, grade school humor, that made me LOL. I assume you were trying to be rude but I found it very funny anway.

 

[ShroomDr]

I never claimed you can harvest nice plants without ions

Im sorry what is the name of the thread? plants don't only use ions.

It seems that you are inferring that harvesting 'not nice' plants is possible, but no one would want that. Your point is lost when simple assumptions cant be made (that we are growing 'nice' plants).

Ask yourself

1.) Who are you helping with this info? No one.
2.) Does your topic have a practical application? No.
3.) Are you helping or just trying to aggravate? Aggravate.
4.) Do chem fert users go to the organic subforum and argue minute points just to get a stir out of people. No.

 

[toohighmf]

sophmoric, humorous, and perhaps a bit sarchastic, though not rude.
I wanted to use a equation like yours, but don't really have the time for it.
ShroomDr. don't bother!

 

[SumDumGuy]

This is one of the things Head lives for man.... this and crankin out killer genetics!!!

And I'm patiently waiting for the next Head seed release. Anyone with this much OVERALL knowledge in general is sure to have killer genetics .

 

[spurr]

sophmoric, humorous, and perhaps a bit sarchastic, though not rude.

And still rely upon logical fallacies no less, I noticed

I wanted to use a equation like yours, but don't really have the time for it.

What equation? I sure hope you don't mean the example of one of the most common logical fallacies, Ad Hominem? If so I hope you seriously consider what I wrote about logical fallacies and hyperbole. People who rely upon either lacks validly or understanding or willingness to be wrong as needed in an honest debate.

ShroomDr. don't bother!

Don't bother with what? Why are you so upset? I didn't insult you, but you insulted me, and I'm not upset. I didn't use hyperbole or disingenuous arguments (logical fallacies) against you, but you did against me, and I'm not upset.

Or is it that you are upset with what I wrote in terms of showing why G3H, and by extension yourself, are incorrect? If so I am sorry, my goal was not to prove you wrong, only to show claims made are inaccurate. They do not represent who you are, nor does my proving the claims in G3H's quote inaccurate an attack against you. I have no reason to dislike you, we never had interaction before.

If you can prove me wrong on the topic at hand with honest debate and proof (no logical fallacies, etc.) I would be happy to learn. I don't begrudge people who show me my misconceptions, I thank them. I hope you are the same type of person.

P.S. Is it coincidence that this thread had 1 five start rating up until a little while ago when both you and ShroomDr. started posting? Then it got 2 low ratings?

 

[ShroomDr]

I figure as long as a few others comment, newbies wont be sucked into his overly complicated and not really practical ramblings.

The newest eastbound and down (s02e03) had some of the best quotes ever.

 

[spurr]

Im sorry what is the name of the thread? plants don't only use ions.

Yup.

It seems that you are inferring that harvesting 'not nice' plants is possible, but no one would want that. Your point is lost when simple assumptions cant be made (that we are growing 'nice' plants).

Not at all. What I am claiming, is that plants don't use only ions. I never once wrote it's possible (in terms of ubiquity of microbes) or a good idea to try and grow without ions. This thread is what the tittle states:

Plants don't use only ions. For nuetins they also use DON and DOP. As of yet none of you, G3H, THMF or youself, have shown proof to the contratry. All of your positions rely on the "yea but" argument by trying to make this thread about something other than it is. I can only assume in an attempt to try to prove a point (which isn't working) in a disingenuous manner.

Ask yourself

1.) Who are you helping with this info? No one.
2.) Does your topic have a practical application? No.
3.) Are you helping or just trying to aggravate? Aggravate.
4.) Do chem fert users go to the organic subforum and argue minute points just to get a stir out of people. No.

1.) Many of people. Not only is the info useful for practical growing, i.e. chem growers can offer more and different sources of N and P, which is a good thing. I am also helping organic growers by explaining the microbes are sources of ions, thus by simply by mixing synthetic ferts and organics we are not necessarily killing the microbes (I am working on compiling quantitative data that topic). Knowledge in and of itself is a worthy goal, and that means I am helping people by increasing their knowledge (those who were unaware). Maybe you don't see value in this info; but you can't speak for everyone else.

I have an aversion to incorrect info being disseminated by those with higher status, esp. cannabis book authors. I call 'um as I seem 'um. I dislike to see info that I know is wrong and that I know is teaching other people to be wrong; I am looking out for those who maybe unaware.

Ex., the claims about green light not driving photosynthesis (or not drive it to a high degree) and that using green light at night is "safe"; neither of those claims are true. Yet even when people think both claims are true, and tell everyone else the same info as truth, they can still grow nice plants; the same applies to the quote in THMF sig...


Let me ask you: who are you helping by trying to 'kick up dust'?

2.) Yes, see my answer to question #1.

3.) Help. You, G3H and THMF might be aggravated, but you can't speak for everyone. Many people found this info helpful. Also, I believe G3H and THMF are aggravated simply because I showed how that claim is wrong. Sadly, it seems to be more about ego than anything else IMO.

4.) Yea, I am sure it has happened. And I have posted in many other threads in this forum. I have provided much info in this forum others were unwilling, or unable to offer. Ex., my article about why phosphites are not a good idea (unless used as the systemic fungicide that it is) and why they don't offer a P boost like phosphate offers. Thus using a phosphite bloom booster like Pure Flowers is a fail, unless you use lots of microbes in your media and phyllosphere that (slowly) breakdown the phosphites into usable phosphorus for the plant.

So lets see, that is at least 2 threads in this forum (this one and the phosphite thread), with totally new boughts of information never before posted here, at any other cannabis forums I know of, or elsewhere I know of (outside of academic journals). Both of which prove many claims and assumptions wrong, all the while helping people by allowing them to understand the 'whys' and thus make a more informed decision. Said decision being very practical and useful for grow better cannabis...and you suggset I has nefarious motives!?!

I am not here as a sneak attack, I wrote this same info in the organic soil section (not in it's own thread but i still wrote about it).

I have a deep interest in all topics except for hydro, including plant photobiolgoy, soil science, plant physiology, etc. I think I should be able to go where I please at this site and post where I please without site police like you telling me where, and where I can not post. This thread is on topic for this forum, if a mod feels differently then they would let me know (I hope), and I would try to do what they ask.

 

[spurr]

I figure as long as a few others comment, newbies wont be sucked into his overly complicated and not really practical ramblings.

There is nothing overly complicated about my initial post and claims. The complication came when I was asked for proof and the why's, and I provided them. A person can stop reading at the first post and get all they need to out of this thread: learning that plants use DON, DOP and ionic N and P as nutrients; and that plants won't die without access to the ions such as N, P, and possibly others. Just learning that info is the goal of this thread, it's not to make people grow differently. I happen to believe knowledge is a good thing to seek for the sake of seeking it.

And to the practicaity: what is wrote is very practical, if you want to provide a more expansive diet to your plants you now have the understanding of how you could do so. Like I wrote above, this info is good for people who use chems and may wish to supplement with fish hydrolysate and kelp extract. The latter proven to help many/veggies (like tomato plants) fed synthetic ferts grow better; and the former should help too.

The newest eastbound and down (s02e03) had some of the best quotes ever.

You'll have to fill me in, what is that a torrent of?

 

[ShroomDr]

overly complicated and not really practical ramblings.

from a user who's joined 45 days ago

 

[spurr]

overly complicated and not really practical ramblings...from a user who's joined 45 days ago

Logical fallacy argument


p.s. this ain't my first rodeo.

 

[spurr]

P.S. I hope you aren't one who uses phosphite as a bloom booster; nor one who states using green light at night in flowering is "safe"; nor one who states that cannabis needs P levels over 50 ppm from chem ferts in flowering (esp. in hydro and non-soil like coco or peat); nor one that states plants don't use green light well for photosynthesis...otherwise I hope you really do value increasing your knowledge

/done

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

just ignore this troll thread and it will sink BACK down into oblivion.
anyone reading it can easily spot the troll, and it is of no actual use to anyone on any practical level...


Yes I'll admit that my quote is not technically 100% perfectly accurate to every circumstance... Concisely worded quotes removed from their original context are rarely completely perfectly accurate... But on EVERY level that PRACTICALLY matters to ALL CANNABIS GROWERS who wish for a SUCCESSFUL GROW, it is correct and as accurate as it ever needs to be.

Anyone who thinks they can successfully grow harvestable plants without ions is an ignoramus.

 

[VerdantGreen]

my original objection to the quote (which to be fair was in the context of thmf coming over to the organic forum to have a bit of argy bargy ) was mainly that, to make a point, it cherry picked the meaning of 'organic' between organic horticulture and organic chemistry which are two distinct and different definition - and was therefore confusing and misleading.

as for the presence of people here who know a lot about the science of plants and growing weed - i am all for it, i dont necessarily fully understand all of it but that doesnt make me feel threatened or give me the urge to engage in name-calling.
lets face it we have many experienced growers on the forum - and they are valuable, but we have very few people with scientific knowledge as deep as spurr we should try and keep hold of them as they are valuable to the community and in short supply.

VG

 

[spurr]

just ignore this troll thread and it will sink BACK down into oblivion.
anyone reading it can easily spot the troll, and it is of no actual use to anyone on any practical level...

You can't speak for everyone, just more hyperbole.

Yes I'll admit that my quote is not technically 100% perfectly accurate to every circumstance... Concisely worded quotes removed from their original context are rarely completely perfectly accurate... But on EVERY level that PRACTICALLY matters to ALL CANNABIS GROWERS who wish for a SUCCESSFUL GROW, it is correct and as accurate as it ever needs to be.

Are you not going to cede the point when you challenged me to provide info showing growing in a sterile environ with only dissolved organic N or P in place of ionic N or P? I thought you would have commented on the most recent study I found as a good thing, but alas, no. You are still mad...not a very scientific or higher mindset, what would Carl Sagen say? I know he would not treat me the way you have treated me, no scientist without ego issues would treat me the way you have treated me (or the way ShroomDr as treated me). I have shown Doctors and PhD's how they are wrong, and most of the time they thank me, but a few of them, like Dr. Ignham for example, act as you are now acting.

Your sig:
"In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. ... It happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion." – Carl Sagan"

^^^ words to live by, don't ya think?

Anyone who thinks they can successfully grow harvestable plants without ions is an ignoramus.

That again, *is not* the focus, nor claim made in this thread. More fallacious arguments. When people realize they can't win a debate on the issues and facts at hand they resort to logical fallacies and hyperbole...just like oily politicians.

That said, only an ignoramus would close his/her mind down to new info and practical uses to grow better cannabis than they (you) are currently doing because their ego demands it.

Troll you call me? I am far from a troll, but I do have a strong aversion to incorrect info being disseminated by those thought of as knowing more than the average bear (e.g. you and Jorge Cervantes and Dr. Ingham, etc.). My only guilty action is trying to correct info, how wrong is that?

I also got hated on a little when I proved and showed why phosphite bloom boosters like Pure Flowers are a bunch of BS in terms of providing P nutrition to the plant. It seems too many people identity info they claim with their ego.



P.S. I called out Jorge Cervantes for the many wrong claims and info in his books (and books/articles of Frank, Rosenthal, Kushman, et al.), much more than just a single claim as I did here. And you know what? He acted like an adult about it, he acted the way I thought you would act. He first was a little annoyed at me, and asked me to list what exactly he wrote that was wrong, thus I did as he asked, I provided about 12 examples of wrong info he wrote. Mr. Cervantes did not then PM me back calling me a bunch of names and resorting to personal attacks. And that is after I showed him many errors in his writing, not just *one* like I showed of your claim.

P.P.S. That quote is in context, I didn't edit it one bit. As long as you still feel you are right, no matter how much proof is shown to contrary, you are gonna be wrong in multiple ways.

 

[spurr]

as for the presence of people here who know a lot about the science of plants and growing weed - i am all for it, i dont necessarily fully understand all of it but that doesnt make me feel threatened or give me the urge to engage in name-calling.
lets face it we have many experienced growers on the forum - and they are valuable, but we have very few people with scientific knowledge as deep as spurr we should try and keep hold of them as they are valuable to the community and in short supply.

VG

Thank you for the kind words VG. I know you have I have not seem eye to eye before, which I think was my fault, but I'm glad bygones are bygones. I think in my quest for correct info I tend to setp on toes, without any malice, but it doesn't always come across that way (malice free). I think you nailed in post elsewhere, I am far from a diplomat.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

I'm not speaking for anyone, I am speaking as to the practical usefulness of your troll thread, which is NADA.

This thread is nothing but rhetorical nitpicking of semantics with ZERO practical application potential to the cannabis grower.

Nothing has made me angry at all... Why would I be upset by irrelevant nitpicking?