Who uses Phosphites?

[spurr]

I use phosphates for P. But I can tell you that by adding phosphites to my foliar regimen, I have cut my phos acid use (thru drip irrigation) by about 70% with better results. I don't think anyone here is suggesting the use of phosphites as a P source, but there is not doubt in my mind (and a large percentage of the farming industry) the use of Phosphites definitely enhances P within the plant. Any thing we can do to reduce the use of phos acid soil applications is a good thing. The side benefit of being a mild fungicide has been well known for many years.

I can tell you that foliar application of phosphites means near-nil P nutrition for the plant; it's a simple fact that phosphites mostly stay as phosphites inside the plant. What is most likely happening is you were previously over-applying P, which is very common amongst growers. And thus when you backed off on P, and didn't notice any negative results, you incorrectly attributed it to P that you thought you were getting from phosphites; but your plants aren't getting any more than near-nil P from phosphites if foliar applied.

Did you read any of my references yet? Also, if you foliar apply phosphites you are stopping AM fungi from infecting your plants...

When you attribute less need of phosphoric acid (phosphates) to your use of phosphites you are using a common logical fallacy called "Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc", in English that means "After this, therefore because of this." Basically that means you are assuming casualty incorrectly.

• "Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc": http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/post-hoc.html

 

[spurr]

hey idiot... NOBODY only uses phosphites. that is why pure flowers is an ADDITIVE. it states on the bottle to add it to your normal bloom regimen. and most of us cannabis growers use systemic, not foliar, which DOES allow for root access to high levels of P.

Many people in this thread, such as PoppyTeaBags, and others, were claiming to not want to use phosphates ever again...

Pure Flowers is marketed as a P booster, and a K booster too, but it's only the latter, not the former.

Also, systemic doesn't mean what you think it means, look up the definition of systemic. So, who's the idiot?

Even if you applied phosphites to root zone, and the plant takes up the phosphites they still provide near-nil P nutrition, and P deficiency will result if no other P sources are given. The only way phosphites provide more than near-nil P to the plant is after bacteria breaks it down into forms other than phosphites, but that is a slow process. Thus phosphites are not an efficient source of P. Thus, we should not be using phosphites as a source of P...

Have you read any of the refs I posted? Just using hearsay isn't a good way to debate this topic with me.

If phosphites don't work, there's about 1000 industrial farmers out there you should go waste your time on preaching too, cause industrial fertilizer companies are mostly the ones producing phosphite based nutrients, the canna industry is behind.

Like I wrote, phosphites do provide P, but only after bacteria/archaea break it down, and that takes awhile. If commercial conventional farmers are using phosphites for P, then they are not only using phosphites, or their plants would greatly suffer.

You are using logical fallacies called "appeal to belief" and "appeal to common practice". Those basically mean you are arguing you're correct because other people claim it's correct; and you are arguing it's correct because other people (incorrectly) use phosphites to replace, or support phosphates, for P...this is not a good way to debate a topic.

• "appeal to belief": http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-belief.html
• "appeal to common practice": http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-common-practice.html

Here great list of logical fallacies, you and others should read this page and try very hard to not use logical fallacies in debates: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

get out of my thread with your non-phosphite using ass, because I've increased my yields and plant health and about 5 of my friend's yields by only adding pure flowers.

Do you not wonder what increased the yield? I am not claiming Pure Flowers doesn't increase yield, I am claiming the reason it increases yield is due to K, not P.

Once anyone can provide scientific proof I am wrong I stop posting what I know, and have proven, to be correct.

 

[TickleMyBalls]

krunch just summed it all up... I been using phosphates forever talked to krunch turned me onto pura flowers... all i can say is OMG this shit rocks... ill never use phosphates again... ive also noticed certain plants respond alot better to it while others it seem just like they were still getting phosphate... but like i said never go back.

dude, you totally misread Poopy's post. He says he will never use anything but pure flowers as a bloom booster. i think he's still gonna use the phosphates in his normal bloom. no one is saying stop using phosphates in your normal nutes.


so again. get out of here. i haven't seen you post any scientific evidence. all you keep doing is posting things saying not to think it's a causal relationship. And what about the fact that most people growing organically or in coco have microbes already in their soil ready to break down any nutrients for use, not just phosphite...

pure flowers absolutely works as a bloom booster when used properly, just not when it's used by douche nozzle shit stirrers like you.

 

[spurr]

PTB wrote: "ill never use phosphates again"; that seems pretty unambitious to me. Lets allow PTB to tell us what he meant. (sorry to put you on the post PTB!)

Also, even if people are not using phosphites as sole P source, that doesn't negate the fact that phosphites are not a direct P source.

so again. get out of here. i haven't seen you post any scientific evidence.

<face palm> I guess you didn't read my article and my refs then, just like I assumed...Look at this thread and see all my refs:

"Phosphite: What companies aren't telling you
What phosphites will and will not do for a plant; the good and bad"
https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=187090​

I am not going to continually post the same things until people actually read my article and refs, just stating what you assume to be correct, without any scientific proof, is a major fail.

 

[TickleMyBalls]

so i skimmed through the "article" you posted and there isn't a single link to the scientific studies referenced. yes the references are listed, but you can't read the actual studies that the author draws his conclusions from. lets get some info from an actual scientific source, not some copy and pasted paper someone wrote for a friend.

 

[TickleMyBalls]

and I'll put my trust in farmers every day of the week before scientists that work on theories.

you should quit wasting your time. your words are falling on deaf ears, or blind eyes i suppose in this case.

 

[spurr]

so i skimmed through the "article" you posted and there isn't a single link to the scientific studies referenced. yes the references are listed, but you can't read the actual studies that the author draws his conclusions from. lets get some info from an actual scientific source, not some copy and pasted paper someone wrote for a friend.

You "skimmed" my article, and you still think that allows to you form an opinion on the article? Ok...sure.

You are digging your own hole...There is a neat thing called Google, it's pretty amazing, you enter a search term, such as a title to a paper, within quotes, and then you read the paper from the links Google provides. I didn't use google to source those papers, I used other search methods, but you can use google if you like.

I am not here to hold your hand, most of my refs are available for free, in full text. I can upload full text of those you can't find. However, it seems you are unfamiliar with properly cited and written academic articles. Granted, I didn't use in-line cites (as per APA format for example) because I figured just providing refs was 'good enough' for an article I am not trying to publish in a peer-reviewed journal. The info in my article is sourced from the refs I posted. My article is like a "CliffNotes" for the refs...that is how it works.



/done trying to educate you

 

[TickleMyBalls]

good, please stop trying to educate everyone else in this thread too. the thread is titled, who uses phosphites? not "come in and teach people why phosphites are bullshit" so if you don't use phosphites, please leave.

 

[staff11]

He adds solid advice for people that might not want to waste their money on a product that is misleading. I'm sure you guys are having great results, but it's not from the phosphites.

 

[TickleMyBalls]

so what is it from if the only change in regimen is adding pure flowers to a formula used for years? again, I will bring up the bubba kush. a tell tale sign of low P in a plant is purpling of nugs and stunted growth. using phosphate bloom boosters at recommended levels, around 55 days the nugs would start to turn purple and stop growing. with my first bubba kush plant that was fed pure flowers, I had 0 purple nugs, they all continued to fatten up through day 70 when they were chopped and it was a record yield for was it considered a historically low yielding strain.

so where did all the extra P come from that my bubba loved? seems like pure flowers to me considering thats the only thing to change in the way I've fed it over the last 3 years.

 

[spurr]

so what is it from if the only change in regimen is adding pure flowers to a formula used for years?

I'm not sure how many different ways I can write it: form the K, not the phosphites!

 

[TickleMyBalls]

I'm not sure how many different ways I can write it: form the K, not the phosphites!

ok, if K dif. was characterized as purple buds and stunted growth, then i'd believe you, but it's not. why did my other bloom boosters with high K also not work? there are tons out there, one for example is PK 13/14. didn't work as well. or how about my friend that used beastie blooms. extremely high levels of P and K. still purple nugs low yield.

the only difference is the Phosphite man.

 

[spurr]

Purple buds aren't a sign of P def., but purple stems/petioles/leafs are. The simple fact is phosphites will not fix a P def, but they will cause it if it's the only source of P. Did you not see the pic I posted?

Honestly, I think you are making this up to try and prove a point, esp. because you claim purple buds, but that isn't a sign of P def...

 

[TickleMyBalls]

i know usually purple buds aren't indicative of P def. but on bubba kush it starts on the leaves and moves to the buds. I've successfully stopped the spread of purple by adding natures nectar Phosphorus, but it didn't stop the stunted growth.that shit is also just not very soluble and is a hassle to mix. thats actually how I found pure flowers cause it's made by the same company and was sitting on the shelf next to it at the store.

 

[Metalhead419]

Ya, this dude doesn't know what hes talking about. Phosphites kick ass. I have been pulling bigger yields with bigger nicer nugs since I have started using it. I was using at as my only bloom booster for a while, this time I added just a little kool bloom and it I think I got even fatter nugs, its hard to tell. The pictures speak for themselves, multiple 10 gram blue dream nugs from this room, gen hydro micro and bloom, silica, fulvic, pure flowers, and koolbloom. Took these with about a week to go.

 

[spurr]

Ya, this dude doesn't know what hes talking about. Phosphites kick ass. I have been pulling bigger yields with bigger nicer nugs since I have started using it.

You too, got benefit from K, not P. I challenge anyone to prove phosphites are a direct source of P nutrition. And by "prove" I mean with scientifically sound proof, not a grow using Pure Flowers because Pure Flowers offers both K and phosphites....

 

[grapeman]

You too, got benefit from K, not P. I challenge anyone to prove phosphites are a direct source of P nutrition. And by "prove" I mean with scientifically sound proof, not a grow using Pure Flowers because Pure Flowers offers both K and phosphites....

Spurr - this isn't my first rodeo with phosphites. I started using a product named Nutri-Phite back in the early or mid '90's. Nothing but phosphites after a early season application of phos acid at 20% of the rate I needed to use aas compared to seasons past. It satisfied my P demands and I was able to quantify this via petiole analysis, which I do 3 times a season EVERY season.

Nutri-Phite now makes their product (aside from plain phosphites) mixed with ca, k, kelp and other products now.

Some time in the late '90's it became obvious to me that disease pressure was much lower on vineyards where the product was used. Just a side benefit. This info may be new to you and/or others here, but has been known by myself and others for well over 15 years. I am convinced that while phosphites will not replace phosphates, but when used in conjunction with phosphates, allows much less phosphates to be used while enhancing the effect.

 

[statusquo]

/facepalm
I'm sorry spurr lol. Good call on posting the logical fallacies list too ^_^ That should be mandatory learning in 9th grade of highschool or earlier - along with deductive reasoning and ethics.

Anyways, OP, why would you not want free information in your thread? I realize what the title is but it's free information and he's not flaming anyone or calling people names (despite people doing it to him) and he's offering some references and explanations (he's explained the increased yield due to K instead of P quite a few times =/). If you don't like the way he does something just ask him/pm him about it. No need to censor/name call/kick out. I'm not saying you did any of these things necessarily, more of a general comment.

 

[Metalhead419]

You too, got benefit from K, not P. I challenge anyone to prove phosphites are a direct source of P nutrition. And by "prove" I mean with scientifically sound proof, not a grow using Pure Flowers because Pure Flowers offers both K and phosphites....

Who cares? It made my buds bigger. Is that not what we are trying to do here?

 

[Admiral Canna]

I bought the PF awhile back.

Added it to my weekly nute regiment for a grow. Can honestly say I didn't see a difference.

Thats just me tho.


But I will say grapeman says its the shit as foliar, but I used it by hand watering it into ProMix. So I'm sure thats diff.