-
As of today ICMag has his own Discord server. In this Discord server you can chat, talk with eachother, listen to music, share stories and pictures...and much more. Join now and let's grow together! Join ICMag Discord here! More details in this thread here: here.
The myth, of the high P myth?
- Thread starter epicseeds
- Start date
Thomkal Vwalaa
Member
I looked for about 10 seconds and found this. The term chelate is not used no I'm not sure if this settles anything but:
"Citric acid is known to chelate Al strongly and to reverse its phytotoxic effects. Also, citric acid has been shown previously to enhance the availability of phosphorus (P) from insoluble Al phosphates."
http://www.plantphysiol.org/cgi/content/abstract/96/3/737
"Root exudations... of organic acids... citric... is enhanced in many plant species under P deficiency"
"...found that the exudation of citrate by white lupine into the rhizosphere could increase P availability by mobilizing P from sparingly available Fe and Al phosphates. "
http://www.springerlink.com/content/j5023x6558883217/
Y
YosemiteSam
Chelate is one of those terms that get generically used to mean a lot of different things. Methinks sometimes it gets used to indicate a symbiotic relationship as opposed to a true chelation.
But, truth be told, I have no clue about how citric acid and P work together...so perhaps I had best shut up.
But, truth be told, I have no clue about how citric acid and P work together...so perhaps I had best shut up.
I stand corrected, in part. I reveiewed my notes and studies, and it's true that citric acid does not chelate phosphate (Pi). What does happen, to keep Pi soluble, or make it soluble, is citric acid (or other organic acids like citrate, etc.) break the bond between insoluble (precipitated) Al-Pi, Fe-Pi or Ca-Pi; thus freeing (making soluble) the Pi because the organic acid chelates the metals and Ca.
That said, it is possible to chelate Pi with amino acids and also with humic substances/Ca, called "humo-phosphate". The former is easy to buy, but I am not sure if it is a plant fertilizer, I will find out tomorrow; the latter is a plant fertilizer (source of Pi) that is water soluble for ~91.5% of the total Pi held in the humo-phosphate.
I have to head out now but I will provide references and more info soon.
FWIW, I know of a source for amino acid chelated K and P, and Si too. I am not sure if they are plant fertilizers, I will find out tomorrow. Also, I am familiar with Brix Mix from peaceful valley, but I was not aware it has chelated K; can you elaborate or provide links to info about Brix Mix having chelated K?
Y
YosemiteSam
The K in brix mix is not chelated. My point is/was that I use it and then a couple of days later measure the brix level with a refractometer and every time I can measure an increase in brix. That starts me mind wondering just what the actual optimum K level is. Or also, whether or not metal ions might not be better supplied on a foliar basis as opposed to in the irrigation water.
I think I have enough experience now with foliar fed Ca to flat out say that no matter how much you are supplying (or think you are supplying) through irrigation (CaNO3 and KNO3 in my case) that bi-weekly foliar applications make a huge difference. I am using a product called Calcium25...which is not chelated but is specifically designed so as not to get tied up by the negative charge on the waxy surface of the leaf (fatty acids have a natural negative charge). Not as effective as a true, ionically balanced chelated ion...but the best I could find until now.
I now have a source for a wide variety of true amino chelated metal ions (no P or SO4 but all of the positively charged ions). I hesitate to name them until I have tried them. Killing my own plants is one thing, killing someone else's based on one of my hair brained theories is something else.
Anyways, I am thinking of supplying all micros along with extra Calcium with weekly foliar feedings. And yep...I am planning to carry on all of the way through flower.
When you look at amino chelated ions it is not good to feed them in the irrigation water. The reason being is that if you have any microbal activity in your media (mine is coco, no microbes added but no active program to kill any that do form) the amino ligands are apparently like crack cocaine to microbes. That is they will become the preferred food source leaving you with a cation floating around looking to balance its charge...so a big % do not end up going into the plant itself.
Anyways, I am stepping completely out of the box. If it works I will report back. If not...well I may change my name
I think I have enough experience now with foliar fed Ca to flat out say that no matter how much you are supplying (or think you are supplying) through irrigation (CaNO3 and KNO3 in my case) that bi-weekly foliar applications make a huge difference. I am using a product called Calcium25...which is not chelated but is specifically designed so as not to get tied up by the negative charge on the waxy surface of the leaf (fatty acids have a natural negative charge). Not as effective as a true, ionically balanced chelated ion...but the best I could find until now.
I now have a source for a wide variety of true amino chelated metal ions (no P or SO4 but all of the positively charged ions). I hesitate to name them until I have tried them. Killing my own plants is one thing, killing someone else's based on one of my hair brained theories is something else.
Anyways, I am thinking of supplying all micros along with extra Calcium with weekly foliar feedings. And yep...I am planning to carry on all of the way through flower.
When you look at amino chelated ions it is not good to feed them in the irrigation water. The reason being is that if you have any microbal activity in your media (mine is coco, no microbes added but no active program to kill any that do form) the amino ligands are apparently like crack cocaine to microbes. That is they will become the preferred food source leaving you with a cation floating around looking to balance its charge...so a big % do not end up going into the plant itself.
Anyways, I am stepping completely out of the box. If it works I will report back. If not...well I may change my name
Y
YosemiteSam
Seems to me that high N and P formulas lead to green, stretchy growth. You get to say my freaking plants are growing 2 inches a day...but in the end it is just nodes spaced further apart and smaller bud size in the end.
Taking the time to build the plant properly in veg, without excess N or P has paid off big for me in both yield and quality.
Better than either of those though, has been foliar feeding Ca. Holy shit it makes a difference.
Taking the time to build the plant properly in veg, without excess N or P has paid off big for me in both yield and quality.
Better than either of those though, has been foliar feeding Ca. Holy shit it makes a difference.
OK, that is what I thought. FWIW, I see little reason to use chelated K because K does not become insoluble very easily (e.g., from higher pH or lower temp or by bonding to other ions), unlike P and many micros. That is why micros are chelated (e.g., because higher pH makes them less soluble), and why it's a good idea to chelate P (because it precipitates when boned with Al, Fe, Ca, etc., and becomes insoluble when in lower temps or higher pH of > ~6.5ish).
CaNO3 is a great foliar spray due to it's low "point of deliquescence" ("POD"; ~53% RH); Ca ions do not get 'tied up' in the cuticle layer to a high degree. Using CaNO3 with a non-ionic surfactant is probably the best DIY foliar 'potentator'; that is, CaNO3 (both the Ca and nitrate) are easily absorbed through cuticle layer (mostly at/around aqueous pores around stomata), they then swell the cuticle layer allowing for more efficient/greater absorption of other ions and organic substances. I make a foliar 'base spray' using CaNO3, humic acid and a very high quality NIS ("Douse" link; something you can't buy at a hydro store). IMO, my foliar base spray is better than either Dutch Master Penetrator or Saturator because both use ions that have high POD of >~93% RH, and the pH when mixed at 1/2 strength is > 10 (and DM says to not adjust pH)!. I use the humic acid to increase evaporation time of water droplets on leaf, i.e., the humic acid keeps leafs wetter for longer.
The foliar spray pH is also very important, 6-9 is the outside ideal range and ~7-8 is ideal. However, the affect pH has on solubility of ions is an important factor, thus I use a spray at pH 6.5. Also very important is the RH when applying, and after applied foliar spray, both in terms of POD and 'half-times of penetration'. It's key to keep RH above the POD of the salts and to keep RH as high as possible to reduce the half-time of penetration. I keep RH at ~85-90% (and higher) for 2-3 hours before spraying and for the whole nightlength after spraying using higher power humidifier (ex., for 12 hours during pre-flowering for Ca rich spray). Using high RH increases absorption and reduces half-time of ions and organic substances in the foliar spray. It's important to spray when the lights are off (lower temp) to enable, and because of, high RH.
I have many great studies on foliar absorption of ions and organic substances, re "laws of cuticular penetration", specific to CaN03 and Ca (both uploaded to this post), K, laws of charges (cation vs anion), etc., etc. I am buying a few more studies tomorrow (many from Jörg Schönherr). I plan to start a thread on best practices for foliar spraying next week, in the science sub-forum. Another ICmag member has been nudging me to make that thread for some time.
I have been using 'true' amino acid chelated Ca, Mg, and micros for years, as a foliar spray. I use an amino acid chelated Ca folair spray during pre-flowering because Ca is (mostly) immobile in plants, and Ca is needed in spades during times of high growth rates, like preflowering. I have noticed considerable yield and growth increases from Ca spraying during preflowering and early flowering; I also spray with amino acid chelated Mg.
IIRC the problem/issue with using chelated ions in foliar spray is reduced bioavailability/mobility within the tissue. It's true that chelated ions are absorbed more readily, but IIRC they also tend to be 'used' less efficiently verses non-chelated ions. That is why I use both forms of Ca in foliar during preflowering: CaNO3 (for swelling cuticle layer and for nutrition) and chelated Ca for increased absorption which is potentated by the swelled cuticle layer, and for nutrition...
A buddy I turned onto the amino acid chelated Ca also noticed very worthwhile results from application during preflowering.
I use Albion brand OMRI amino acid chelated Ca, Mg, etc., from here: http://www.essential_plant_nutrients.miracletreecare.com/
It's OK to supply some micro via foliar, but they should also be supplied via roots; folair fertilization cannot replace rhizosphere fertilization, but it does augment it well.
I have not read that in relevant literature, can you cite your references? Microbes do feed upon *some* amino acids, but they mostly prefer feeding upon carbohydrates as root exudates (and upon OM), roots exudates are also comprised of many amino acids, as well as other organic acids like citric acid, citrate, oxdiate (sp?), formation of carbonic acid, etc.
I have read academic literature explaining the exact opposite from what you wrote above, re many microbes (ex. bacteria) release amino acids, some of which chelate (and/or solublize) ions, like Fe, etc. So bacteria themselves will chelate some ions in the soil solution, as well as solublize some ions (ex. freeing Fe and Pi from Fe-Pi).
The problem with using amino acid as chelators is they are rather weak chelating agents, unlike synthetic chelating agents, which are strong chelators. That is why EDTA or DTPA are generally preferred, the latter is a stronger chelating agent than the former, especially at higher pH.
I have been doing what you are going to try for a number of years, and yup, it works very well. Granted, I have not tried to replace fertigation of micros with only foliar fertilization of micors, mostly because AFAIK it is not a sound methodologically; but I am very interested to read your results if you do try it...Anyways, I am stepping completely out of the box. If it works I will report back. If not...well I may change my name
Side note: I read a good study the other day finding that Pi is a key player in THC and CBD formation; and that higher Pi levels in fertigation water increased THC and CBD, considerately. I will post that study, along with a few other cannabis specific fertilzer studies (e.g., "Mineral Nutrition of Cannabis sativa L.") in the other thread about cannabis tissue assays, today or tomorrow.
See the following papers I have attached, re foliar spraying and root absorption of chelated ions:
1. "Foliar Nutriton Using Inorganic Salts: Laws of Cuticular Penetration"
Jörg Schönherr
Proc. IS on Foliar Nutrition, Eds. M.Tagliavini et al., Acta Hort. 594, ISHS (2002)
2. "Cuticular penetration of calcium salts: effects of humiidty, anoins, and adjuvants"
Jörg Schönherr
J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. vol. 164, pp. 225-231 (2001)
3. "Use of synthetic chelating agents in plant nutrition and some of their effects on carboxylating enzymes in plants"
Arthur Wallace
Annals New York Academy of Sciences, vol. 18, no. 88, pp. 361-77 (1960)
4. "Differential absorption of metal chelate components by plant roots"
Lee O. Tiffin, John C. Brown and Robert W. Krauss
Plant Physiol. vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 362–367 (1960)
Y
YosemiteSam
Albion is the amino chelated minerals I am starting to use. The info about microbes/aminos came form one of their guys in a phone conversation...I did not ask him for a reference.
Great, you will really like using Albion Ca for pre-flowering! I have used it ever since I first tested it a couple of years ago, a buddy of mine also liked using that Ca. I will call the folks at Miracle Tree Care and ask them about the issue of microbes and amino acid chelated ions in rhizophere; although, there are many microbes (bacteria and fungi) in the phyllosphere too...
A key reason to foliar apply Ca (and Bo) for growers in hot/warm and arid grow rooms (or outdoors) is that Ca and Bo uptake by roots depends upon E (rate of transpiration). Ca and Bo are 'sucked' into roots tissue, unlike other ions. In a hot/warm and arid grow, the "Air to Leaf Vapor Pressure Deficit" (VPD) is too high, thus E is too low, and that means Ca and Bo uptake by roots is reduced (often greatly), thus the plant can/does suffer in terms of growth, yield, etc.
I also use Albion amino acid chelated Mg and I have tested their Fe too, but Fe is easy to over apply via foliar and plants need so little Fe I do not use it regularly.
FWIW, I use ~25 ppm of Ca from Albion in foliar spray because leaves can not absorb, and utilize, lots of ions. Thus, using low ppm is the way to go. I have tested using ~50 ppm and it worked fine, but I found similar results from 25 ppm. And 10 ppm seems to work fine too, but I have not tested that rate more than once or twice. I plan to test 5 and 10 ppm, using less for the same effect is better than using more.
You should also think about using the same NIS I use, it works very well and is WAY better than anything you can get at a hydro store, IMO and IME. Douse lowers water tension to a sufficient degree so that penetration of cuticle layer is increased, and no so far that penetration takes place via stomata (which are for gases, not fluids).
I also plan on testing a NIS from LoveLand (link), they offer very cutting edge surfactants and adjuvants. There are two NIS's I am interested in, one is supposed to create ideal sized water droplets on leaves, so you should not need an atomizing sprayer/fogger. Here is the main NIS from Loveland I am interested in trying: "Spreader 90" (link).
To the point about water droplet size on leaves, a buddy of mine, ncga, suggested to me the Fogmaster JR 5330 (link) for a good portable atomizer (15-40 micron water droplets, adjustable in micron size). I bought one and it's great, really makes a difference foliar spraying because water droplet size is an important factor to ionic absorption (smaller = greater absorption, to a degree).
The method of foliar spraying suggested by most cannabis growers is badly flawed and does not follow proven science; there is much to be improved upon. One of the worst myths in the cannabis world about foliar spraying is that ions and organic substances enter leaves via stomata, which is false in normal circumstances.
There are surfactants designed specifically to allow foliar sprays (ions and/or organic substances) to enter via stomata, those that are used for herbicides; re "Organo-Silicone" based surfactants. We do not want those types of surfactants because they lower water tension too far (which leads to entry via stomata), we want non-ionic surfactants that do not lower water tension too far.
There is also a type of surfactant called a "penetrant", they soften/damage the cuticle layer to increase absorption of ions and organic substances. An example of a penetrant is "methylated seed oil" (MSO), a type of "concentrated crop oil" (CCO) surfactant normally using methylated soy bean oil. Other kinds penetrants (i.e., CCOs) are based on mineral oils. Neither Organo-Silicone based surfactants or CCO surfactants are good for plants we are going.
FWIW, below is a collection of good articles about foliar spraying, and info on correct methods of foliar spraying. Some info is a bit old and some a bit biased and flawed, so I covered the most important and correct info in this post, and my last post to you above.
"Characterization of aqueous pores in plant cuticles and permeation of ionic solutes" (link)
by Jörg Schönherr
Journal of Experimental Botany, Vol. 57, No. 11, pp. 2471–2491, 2006
^^^ That academic peer-reviewed paper is a must read, along with the other papers by Jörg Schönherr I uploaded in my last post. Jörg Schönherr is my favorite academic researcher on foliar spraying; and a leading authority IMO.by Jörg Schönherr
Journal of Experimental Botany, Vol. 57, No. 11, pp. 2471–2491, 2006
"The Basics of Foliar Feeding" (link)
by George Kuepper
NCAT Agriculture Specialist
ATTRA Publication #CT135 (2003)
^^^ That article is must read, albeit it's by an employee of chemical company for foliar fertilizers, but it is pretty unbiased. I like it becuase it shows the physical leaf action of folair spraying and physiology of leaves.
"Comments to Consider on Foliar Feeding" (link)
by Dr. George Rehm Professor Emeritus
U of MN Soil Scientist
Volume 6 Issue 11 August 11, 2009
^^^ That article is a bit scientifically dismissive of many wild claims made by some companies who sell foliar products, it is worth reading.^^^ That article was written by a person with a vested interest in chemical foliar spaying, so it should be read with the knowledge it's not unbiased. But it's still worth reading and provides good info about the work of Dr. Tukey.by Dr. George Rehm Professor Emeritus
U of MN Soil Scientist
Volume 6 Issue 11 August 11, 2009
^^^ That article is short a pretty unbiased, the author does a good job of laying out the basics and references the work of Dr. Turkey, also.
"Myths of Foilar Feeding" (link)
Linda Chalker-Scott, Ph.D.
WSU Extension Horticulturist and Associate Professor
^^^ Her paper is a bit biased and flawed in some claims, but it's worth reading, she references the work of Dr. Turkey, also.Linda Chalker-Scott, Ph.D.
WSU Extension Horticulturist and Associate Professor
Y
YosemiteSam
25 ppm of the liquid Ca is like 1.5 ml per gal...right? I use a lot more of the Ca25, like 2 grams per gallon.
I will check out the surfactant. I need a non-ionic one...correct?
I will check out the surfactant. I need a non-ionic one...correct?
PointofNoReturn
Member
Nice Links, thanks alot.
You wrote that without an extra surfactant, organic Substances cannot enter the Stomata. This may be a Myth but it seems to work for alot of Poeple, using Kelp based Products. Do you thinks its useless to spray Kelp without adding surfactants? Anyway, what Organic Substances are you talking about. Do the Auxin of Kelp get absorbed by Stomata?
I personally use a foliar consisting of a mix of Molasses(very little), Humic/Fulvic and an Ascophyllum Nodosum extract. I was planning on getting a Yucca based Surfactant,should i ?
Thx in Advance
You wrote that without an extra surfactant, organic Substances cannot enter the Stomata. This may be a Myth but it seems to work for alot of Poeple, using Kelp based Products. Do you thinks its useless to spray Kelp without adding surfactants? Anyway, what Organic Substances are you talking about. Do the Auxin of Kelp get absorbed by Stomata?
I personally use a foliar consisting of a mix of Molasses(very little), Humic/Fulvic and an Ascophyllum Nodosum extract. I was planning on getting a Yucca based Surfactant,should i ?
Thx in Advance
When people used kelp based sprays the organic substances and ions do not enter via stoma; they enter by absorption through cuticle layer, then through cell membrane. The myth is that foliar sprays enter a leaf via stoma. Thus, spraying on the under side of leaves is not needed, but it does help because of greater spay area. The myth of stoma and foliar sprays comes from so-called cannabis gurus, i.e., book authors and such.
No, it's not useless to spay without a surfactant, but using a good surfactant/emulsifier (ex., do not use dish soap) aids in efficacy of foilar sprays a great deal. It's important to try and get RH as high as possible an hour or two before, and at least a few hours after spraying for highest efficacy, even if using a good surfactant.
Organic substances range from cytokinins to auxins to gibberellins to hormones to DON (dissolved organic nitrogen) and DOP (dissolved organic phosphorous) as DOM (dissolved organic matter), etc.
No, auxins from kelp are not absorbed by stoma; stoma are for gasses.
Yes, a yucca based surfactant is fine, it's not ideal, but it's better than not using a surfactant. One issue is that saponins in yucca are anti-fungal to a degree, and fungi are important microbes that reside in the phyllosphere; that is a main reason I do not use yucca based surfactant, along with the fact they are not the best surfactant.
To what liquid Ca do you refer? The ppm would dependent on the purity of the liquid. It's easier to calculate ppm using weight, than using volume.
Yup, you want a non-ionic surfactant (NIS); Douse is what I suggest from Ag-spray. But any NIS from a hydro store is better than not using a NIS. FWIW, don't use SM-90 because it is an anti-microbial; my hydro store guy tried to sell me SM-90 as the "best" surfactant...lol, he didn't even know it is an anti-microbial.
You can indeed chelate P (e.g., Pi); I agree there is little reason to chelate N and K, but there is much reason to chelate P. The reason it's a good idea to chelate P is that P is made insoluble (by degrees) by higher pH and lower temps much more easily than N and K; P is on par with metal ions with respect to solubility at pH below neutral. P is made insoluble (by degrees) for example by: (1) increasing pH from ~6.5; (2) decreasing temp; and (3) bonding to cations such as Fe, Al, Ca, etc., and thus precipitating out of solution.
You can chelate K and P with amino acids (ex., Phosphorus Proteinate), and you can chelate P with humus substances and Ca ("humo-phosphate"), too. I wrote a post for you with the science yesterday, but I have to edit two studies I downloaded to remove some identifying info. I will post what I wrote for you, plus studies, etc., later today or tomorrow.
Below is a source of lab grade amino acid chelated P (aka phosphorus proteinate) and K, from sciencelab. But I am not sure if they would make for good fertilizer so I wrote an email to the manufacturer asking them; should get an answer next week.
P amino acid chelates:
1. https://sciencelab.com/page/S/PVAR/23001/SLP3694
2. http://www.parchem.com/chemical-supplier-distributor/Phosphorus-Chelate-20--40M--000792.aspx
K amino acid chelate:
1. https://sciencelab.com/page/S/PVAR/23001/SLP4696
Si amino acid chelate:
1. https://sciencelab.com/page/S/PVAR/23001/SLS1111
Sceincelab amino acid chelates page:
1. https://sciencelab.com/page/S/CTGY/23001
Do you a have a link? I assume by "basis" you mean surfactant/emulsifier, no?
Y
YosemiteSam
The problem with having a lot of EDTA in your mix is that it forms very large molecules that will not pass through cell walls...it has to let go of whatever metal it is attached to for that metal to be effective. Then, that free EDTA is something Ca likes to attach itself to. The EDTA will actually pull Ca out of cells to satisfy its negative charge...not exactly something i like going on in my plants.
i honestly think you are better off going with non-chelated micros and controlling your media pH fairly precisely. why put something in your plant that can lead to problems just to avoid paying attention to what you are actually doing.
but that is just me...i ain't a marketing guy.
I am currently using Yucca plant extract (therm 70) as a surfactant. i will go on the hunt for the stuff you mentioned Mullray.
For the record I do not think anions can be truly chelated either. Theoretically they could but the isoelectric point of the ligand used to do it would be a way lower pH than where we run our reservoirs. As soon as we dumped them in our res they would dissociate and that would be the end of that...technically I guess they would feed microbes or attach themselves to free cations.
i honestly think you are better off going with non-chelated micros and controlling your media pH fairly precisely. why put something in your plant that can lead to problems just to avoid paying attention to what you are actually doing.
but that is just me...i ain't a marketing guy.
I am currently using Yucca plant extract (therm 70) as a surfactant. i will go on the hunt for the stuff you mentioned Mullray.
For the record I do not think anions can be truly chelated either. Theoretically they could but the isoelectric point of the ligand used to do it would be a way lower pH than where we run our reservoirs. As soon as we dumped them in our res they would dissociate and that would be the end of that...technically I guess they would feed microbes or attach themselves to free cations.
