~star~crash~
Active member
she's a tuff plant for sure ... you would be surprised how badly i've f*cked up in the past with nutrition and still sort of pulled it off in the end...I understand what Ur saying btw ...dont wait till it's too late ...
-
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!
Slownickel lounge, pull up a chair. CEC interpretation
- Thread starter slownickel
- Start date
- Status
led05
Chasing The Present
Azomite
Azomite
Slow
Throughout this thread I've heard your distaste for Azomite, I get the ridiculously high content of Al but when mixed at such small amounts I'm curious its effects, especially on the scale it's used commercially - herd mentality...?
Do you have testing for this or is it just simply, holly crap, 11% Al, wtf, stay away... ?
I got a 50# bag sitting here, I add it to new beds at a rate of a 1 # / 10 SF and never seen an issue but have never used it in pots, inside or in GH so its' difficult to measure true effects
Thanks
Azomite
Slow
Throughout this thread I've heard your distaste for Azomite, I get the ridiculously high content of Al but when mixed at such small amounts I'm curious its effects, especially on the scale it's used commercially - herd mentality...?
Do you have testing for this or is it just simply, holly crap, 11% Al, wtf, stay away... ?
I got a 50# bag sitting here, I add it to new beds at a rate of a 1 # / 10 SF and never seen an issue but have never used it in pots, inside or in GH so its' difficult to measure true effects
Thanks
You're OK with adding Molybdenum, but scared of sodium?
You stand a much higher chance of killing things by overdosing the molybdenum than you would from the sodium that comes along with it.
Last edited:
led05
Chasing The Present
I wonder how many people in this thread have a water softener my guess more than who realize...
does filtration prefer Mg, Ca, K or Na....... read up
paradoxlost
Member
Molybdenum toxicity doesn't occur till near 1000 ppm. Mo also helps with nitrogen processing by breaking down more complex proteins.
Sodium as a large, monovalent cation disperses soil, forces ions out of the root zone, and overall is toxicity is more readily achievable than molybdenum as it is more abundant in general.
If anything molybdenum additives would be helpful specifically for soil health, not more so for plant health.
Lightweight
Member
Where did you see the 1000 ppm toxicity number? That's not accurate. At a thousand parts per million you to have more molybdenum than potassium in a lot of soils and molybdenum is considered a trace mineral, not a macro. I have molybdenum in my greenhouses at about 4 to 5 ppm and I consider that luxury levels. 2 ppm is probably sufficient for most. To get to 4 to 5 PPM it takes very little sodium molybdate to get there so the amount of sodium that comes along with it is negligible.
paradoxlost
Member
My source is USGS. I'm on my phone but I have the document at my house on my laptop.
Lightweight
Member
I think you must have read it wrong. You'll be hard pressed to find any knowledgeable people that wouldn't say you'd be risking toxicity above 5 ppm. The University of Wisconsin, Oxford, Oregon State Ag Dept, Agricultural Canadian Research Station, Graime Said, etc. all say 5 ppm is about the healthy limit in soil. Spectrum Analytics says 1 ppm is sufficient for most crops and most of the rest say around 0.5-2ppm is sufficient for most crops.
And just FYI, you could use ammonium molybdate or molybdenum trioxide also, but I don't know how cheap or easy to find those are. Sodium molybdate is cheap and easy to find.
paradoxlost
Member
No it said between 1000 and 2000 ppm is normal toxicity for Mo. But yea, I mean those are well and good, but I'd rather use like a puree of a Mo accumulator.
But yea, I'd love for a link to toxicity of Mo in plants being anything less than 1000 ppm. Not recommended concentration.
Last edited:
Lightweight
Member
I'm not on a desktop ATM, but I can find one for you later tonight when I sit down at my computer. Or someone else can link one or you can do a quick Google search and you'll find plenty of info. And just for your own information, with any mineral the difference between an adequate amount and a toxic amount is never going to be 1,000 times. If you applied that idea to calcium for example, that would be the difference between growing in a soil with say a 75% calcium saturation and a bag of pure gypsum.
And I'm sure you can find something that's a Mo accumulator, but it's easier to hit the numbers you want with manufactured compounds.
I think the article your talking about was referencing PPM in plant tissue?
That is the one I remember standing out on Mo from USGS. Something about grain and forage crops.
I would like to see the paper you mention either way.
paradoxlost
Member
Basically 10 ppm will poison cattle and other grazers but doesn't do anything as far as plant toxicity.
paradoxlost
Member
It's not all about hitting numbers. Plant compounds are more complexes of compounds and those trace proteins and plant metabolites that haven't been quantified not only raise the margin of error, but definitely achieve a more balanced ecosystem. Also I did Google it and am telling you what I found, but search your self.
paradoxlost
Member
https://pubs.usgs.gov/bul/1466/report.pdf
go to page 37 under the paragraph Under man made conditions
go to page 37 under the paragraph Under man made conditions
I’m shooting for better vpd levels so my humidity is higher unless venting, 20% humidity is average outside.
At night can hit 80% at times, so if warm need to vent that.
It’s true that the outside water table affects the inside GH, it only took two, one inch rainfalls after a summer of no rain to overwhelm my dehumidifier. ( which was undersized)
Still tuning this ship in a bit, needs a few things like insulation to go year round. It gets down to 28 degrees out there and five jillybeans are fine. Not growing, but not dying. Neutral.Serious purple. A container one is part dead.
Dealt with botrytis losses of 5-10% from temp and humidity swings but was also using soil mix made days before planting in mid June. Like Slow pointed out a while back, I’ve got micro/macro imbalances/shortages which puts things at a disadvantage for disease. Going to get the soil paste tested I guess since it’s peat based.
MOLYBDENUM 37
Under natural conditions There are no recorded instances of a fieldoccurrence of molybdenum toxicity to plants (Johnson, 1966), although high levels may be accumulated in the plants. Dye and O'Harra (1959) reported that, among forage plants, legumes usually collect more molybdenum than do grasses; they cited a high value of 372 ppm molybdenum (dry weight basis) in a sample of black medic from a Carson Valley, Nev. ranch. Warren and Delavault (1965) stated that many trees and lesser plants growing over commercial, or potentially commercial, molybdenum deposits may be expected to carry upwards of 500 ppm molybdenum in their ashes and that relatively few should be found with less than 250 ppm. Deficiency levels for plants are usually indicated by less than 0.10 ppm in their tissues (Johnson, 1966), whereas Embleton, Jones, and Platt (1976) reported that >100 ppm (dry matter) molybdenum in the fruiting shoots of Navel and Valencia oranges is probably an excessive amount. Under man-induced conditions Tbxicity in the plant is observed only under extreme experimental conditions; in solution-culture ex- periments using 1,000-2,000 ppm molybdenum, tomato plants de- veloped an intense golden yellow color in their leaves, and seedlings of cauliflower turned an intense purple (Johnson, 1966). Wallace, Rom- ney, Alexander, and Kinnear (1977) wrote the following: "A level of 10~3 M H2Mo04 was toxic to bush beans grown in solution culture. Leaves, stems, and roots, respectively, contained 710,1054, and 5920 /xg Mo/g dry weight." Animals Under natural dietary conditions "Molybdenum toxicity, variously referred to as molybdenosis, teart disease, and peat scours, has been reported from many parts of the world .... In most instances toxic amounts of molybdenum in forage consumed by ruminants have re- sulted from naturally occurring excess molybdenum in the soil or irrigation water" (Johnson, 1966, p. 287). This toxicity in ruminants is a complex matter, involving not only excess molybdenum but also low copper levels and high sulfate-sulfur concentrations in the forage. Molybdenosis occurs when the copper in forage is normal (8-11 ppm in dry matter) and the molybdenum is above normal (more than 5-6 ppm for cattle or 10-12 ppm for sheep) (Dye and O'Harra, 1959). Molyb- denosis in grazing animals has been observed in the San Joaquin Valley of California (Barshad, 1948) and in Nevada and Oregon (Kubota and others, 1961,1967). The amount of molybdenum absorbed by plants is not strongly correlated with total molybdenum in the soil, because soil pH and other soil properties greatly affect availability to plants, molybdenum being more available at high pH values. The area in Kern County, Calif., reported by Barshad (1948) to produce molyb- denosis in cattle, had alkaline soils with total molybdenum concentra- tions of 1.5-5.0 ppm; these soils supported pasture plants, a large proportion having 20 or more ppm molybdenum (dry weight).
38 ELEMENT .CONCENTRATIONS TOXIC TO PLANTS, ANIMALS, AND MAN
Under man-induced dietary conditions Applying molybdenum fer- tilizers, or liming to release previously unavailable molybdenum, may result in the forage containing amounts of the element that are toxic to animals. Mining activities may expose deposits having concentrations of molybdenum and other elements that can be considered anomalous in the natural geochemical environment of plants and animals. An area in Missouri was studied (Ebens and others, 1973) where clay mining operations had contaminated adjacent areas to the extent that beef cattle grazing these areas exhibited symptoms of metabolic im- balance thought to be chronic molybdenosis due principally to copper-molybdenum imbalance. G. A. Christianson and G. A. Jacobson (written commun., 1974) reported molybdenosis in beef cattle in North Dakota in the vicinity of a lignite ashing plant. Apparently emissions from the plant raised the molybdenum level in the forage, creating a molybdenum-induced copper deficiency in the cattle. Molybdenum concentrations in fecal material from contaminated fields ranged from 16 to 26 ppm (dry weight). Bowen (1966) reported that 5 mg molybdate in a 10-g/day dry-weight diet (500 ppm) was toxic and 50 mg (5,000 ppm) was lethal to rats, duration not given. Owing to poor absorption, horses and pigs have low susceptibility to molybdenosis (Underwood, 1971). Man At normal environmental concentrations of molybdenum, toxicity is of little concern. Underwood (1971, p. 135) stated, "Molybdenum is apparently of so little practical significance in human nutrition, either in health or disease, that few people have been stimulated to under- take studies with this element." The only incidence of molybdenosis in humans of which we are aware was reported by Agarwal (1975). He found that peasants in India who consumed sorghum that was grown in alkaline soils high in molybdenum and fluorine as a staple, de- veloped a crippling syndrome of knock-knees (genu valgum). No in- stances of the disease were reported prior to the construction of a large dam that raised the water table in the surrounding district and caused an increase in alkalinity and concurrently the uptake of molybdenum by the sorghum. No specific concentrations of molybdenum in sor- ghum, soils, or humans were given.
You link is the exact article I was thinking of.
Under natural conditions There are no recorded instances of a fieldoccurrence of molybdenum toxicity to plants (Johnson, 1966), although high levels may be accumulated in the plants. Dye and O'Harra (1959) reported that, among forage plants, legumes usually collect more molybdenum than do grasses; they cited a high value of 372 ppm molybdenum (dry weight basis) in a sample of black medic from a Carson Valley, Nev. ranch. Warren and Delavault (1965) stated that many trees and lesser plants growing over commercial, or potentially commercial, molybdenum deposits may be expected to carry upwards of 500 ppm molybdenum in their ashes and that relatively few should be found with less than 250 ppm. Deficiency levels for plants are usually indicated by less than 0.10 ppm in their tissues (Johnson, 1966), whereas Embleton, Jones, and Platt (1976) reported that >100 ppm (dry matter) molybdenum in the fruiting shoots of Navel and Valencia oranges is probably an excessive amount. Under man-induced conditions Tbxicity in the plant is observed only under extreme experimental conditions; in solution-culture ex- periments using 1,000-2,000 ppm molybdenum, tomato plants de- veloped an intense golden yellow color in their leaves, and seedlings of cauliflower turned an intense purple (Johnson, 1966). Wallace, Rom- ney, Alexander, and Kinnear (1977) wrote the following: "A level of 10~3 M H2Mo04 was toxic to bush beans grown in solution culture. Leaves, stems, and roots, respectively, contained 710,1054, and 5920 /xg Mo/g dry weight." Animals Under natural dietary conditions "Molybdenum toxicity, variously referred to as molybdenosis, teart disease, and peat scours, has been reported from many parts of the world .... In most instances toxic amounts of molybdenum in forage consumed by ruminants have re- sulted from naturally occurring excess molybdenum in the soil or irrigation water" (Johnson, 1966, p. 287). This toxicity in ruminants is a complex matter, involving not only excess molybdenum but also low copper levels and high sulfate-sulfur concentrations in the forage. Molybdenosis occurs when the copper in forage is normal (8-11 ppm in dry matter) and the molybdenum is above normal (more than 5-6 ppm for cattle or 10-12 ppm for sheep) (Dye and O'Harra, 1959). Molyb- denosis in grazing animals has been observed in the San Joaquin Valley of California (Barshad, 1948) and in Nevada and Oregon (Kubota and others, 1961,1967). The amount of molybdenum absorbed by plants is not strongly correlated with total molybdenum in the soil, because soil pH and other soil properties greatly affect availability to plants, molybdenum being more available at high pH values. The area in Kern County, Calif., reported by Barshad (1948) to produce molyb- denosis in cattle, had alkaline soils with total molybdenum concentra- tions of 1.5-5.0 ppm; these soils supported pasture plants, a large proportion having 20 or more ppm molybdenum (dry weight).
38 ELEMENT .CONCENTRATIONS TOXIC TO PLANTS, ANIMALS, AND MAN
Under man-induced dietary conditions Applying molybdenum fer- tilizers, or liming to release previously unavailable molybdenum, may result in the forage containing amounts of the element that are toxic to animals. Mining activities may expose deposits having concentrations of molybdenum and other elements that can be considered anomalous in the natural geochemical environment of plants and animals. An area in Missouri was studied (Ebens and others, 1973) where clay mining operations had contaminated adjacent areas to the extent that beef cattle grazing these areas exhibited symptoms of metabolic im- balance thought to be chronic molybdenosis due principally to copper-molybdenum imbalance. G. A. Christianson and G. A. Jacobson (written commun., 1974) reported molybdenosis in beef cattle in North Dakota in the vicinity of a lignite ashing plant. Apparently emissions from the plant raised the molybdenum level in the forage, creating a molybdenum-induced copper deficiency in the cattle. Molybdenum concentrations in fecal material from contaminated fields ranged from 16 to 26 ppm (dry weight). Bowen (1966) reported that 5 mg molybdate in a 10-g/day dry-weight diet (500 ppm) was toxic and 50 mg (5,000 ppm) was lethal to rats, duration not given. Owing to poor absorption, horses and pigs have low susceptibility to molybdenosis (Underwood, 1971). Man At normal environmental concentrations of molybdenum, toxicity is of little concern. Underwood (1971, p. 135) stated, "Molybdenum is apparently of so little practical significance in human nutrition, either in health or disease, that few people have been stimulated to under- take studies with this element." The only incidence of molybdenosis in humans of which we are aware was reported by Agarwal (1975). He found that peasants in India who consumed sorghum that was grown in alkaline soils high in molybdenum and fluorine as a staple, de- veloped a crippling syndrome of knock-knees (genu valgum). No in- stances of the disease were reported prior to the construction of a large dam that raised the water table in the surrounding district and caused an increase in alkalinity and concurrently the uptake of molybdenum by the sorghum. No specific concentrations of molybdenum in sor- ghum, soils, or humans were given.
You link is the exact article I was thinking of.
paradoxlost
Member
Yea, so exactly like I said. Mo toxicity between 1000-2000 ppm. If you're growing a crop that isn't for consumption, although marijuana may be depending on what you are doing, a higher than normal Mo content may help out with N complexing at a higher rate.
I have been working with SlowN for a while, and the concept of WooWoo juice simple IMO. A nutrient without much to offer. Hope I didn't screw that up too much slowN..........
For example: Buddha bloom you posted has an NPK ratio of .5-2-1
First thing I see is SlowN recommends a feed more around the 1-2-1 range depending on soil conditions. However that is very close, so that is a good thing.
However lets take something like MPK. It has a NPK ratio of something like 0-52-30. Now I know organics is different than chemicals, however I am just showing the difference in nutrient levels. My organic amino's has a ratio of around 16-0-0, which is very solid for an organic.
Didn't mean to shut you down brother. Just was a quick answer to a question that I didn't think needed to be extrapolated.
~star~crash~
Active member
appreciated!
Lightweight
Member
So yeah, I researched it before you posted that link and the excerpts. Everything I read that I thought was about plant toxicities had to do with toxicities having to do with animals and possibly people, like you said. So here's my heaping portion of humble pie that I'm sitting down to at moment.
You were right; I was wrong.
You're very intelligent; I am dumb.
You are dashingly handsome; I have my own side-show tent at the circus.
You smell nice; I smell like Brad Pitt after a 100KM race and fell in a pile a dog poo right after the finish line.
Women are attracted to you; I only attract flies
You have a winning personality; I'm so annoying even telemarketers don't call me.
You are very interesting to others; I eat Tide pods
Etc.
I'm sure I could go on, but I gots stuff to do.
The only thing I'd disagree with you with is that this thread is about hitting numbers from the very first page through to the end. I have no desire to be guessing what's going in my soil or where my mineral levels should be, not to say I won't top-dress with some plant material, I will, but most of my soil building is going to be with materials that I have a decent idea of what the mineral content is.
Anyway, thanks for teaching the class a thing or two
- Status
