Who uses Phosphites?

[TickleMyBalls]

/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.

well he keeps saying it's from the K, but when I point out that other products with the K, but not the phosphite, only the phosphate didn't work as well, he won't concede that the phosphite does anything. he has said pure flowers is bullshit when the majority of people have found it to be useful. maybe the phosphites allow easier uptake of K too, if thats the case, and the higher yields are due to K, then why would pure flowers be bullshit when it's high in P-phosphites and K?

 

[Metalhead419]

Admiral, you will definitely find this article interesting, should explain to you why you didn't see much of a difference. And to anyone else thats interested in the science of this stuff, not some dude rambling, heres a couple articles. You have to foliar feed with it at the right time. This guy should practice what he preaches, took me 2 minutes to find this shit on google.

http://www.spectrumanalytic.com/support/library/pdf/Phosphite_Fertilizers_What are they.pdf

http://www.spectrumanalytic.com/sup...tors_and_growers_alike_could_get_confused.pdf

 

[VerdantGreen]

interesting read. as an 'old school' gardener, we always learned that K was the main nutrient for flower production and that P was more important for root development. (hence using bonemeal when planting trees/shrubs)

ive always wondered why P was considered the big thing for cannabis flowers.

just remember guys, we are talking about nutes/ferts. dont take it as a personal insult when people say a product isnt up to much, or that the benefit isnt what you think. all part of the discussion. we wouldnt ever learn much if people only told you what you wanted to hear.

VG

 

[talktosamson]

Damn I thought for sure the title of this thread was "Who uses Prostitutes", and then I was like, holey shit 6 pages of people are confessing to hookerdom, I gotta read this!!!! Long story short, I read the thread and learned a lot but not very much about prostitutes....

 

[Admiral Canna]

Damn I thought for sure the title of this thread was "Who uses Prostitutes", and then I was like, holey shit 6 pages of people are confessing to hookerdom, I gotta read this!!!! Long story short, I read the thread and learned a lot but not very much about prostitutes....

LMFAO

 

[grapeman]

Admiral, you will definitely find this article interesting, should explain to you why you didn't see much of a difference. And to anyone else thats interested in the science of this stuff, not some dude rambling, heres a couple articles. You have to foliar feed with it at the right time. This guy should practice what he preaches, took me 2 minutes to find this shit on google.

http://www.spectrumanalytic.com/support/library/pdf/Phosphite_Fertilizers_What are they.pdf

http://www.spectrumanalytic.com/sup...tors_and_growers_alike_could_get_confused.pdf

MetalHead found this publication. First it says that phosphites are poor substitutes for phosphates in the soil. I think I knew that already. Then it says this;
"Research shows that foliar applications of phosphite can replace phosphate in citrus and avocado crops suffering from P deficiency. The conversion of phosphite to phosphate may result from slow chemical oxidation or by oxidizing bacteria and fungi that have been found living on citrus and avocado leaves. There is consistent evidence that phosphite is more readily absorbed into plant tissues than phosphate. This has proven to be the case for citrus and avocado leaves, which are notoriously impervious to phosphate. In these and other crops, foliar application of phosphite has proven to be more than just a fungicide...it increases floral intensity, yield, fruit size, total soluble solids, and anthocyanin concentrations, usually in response to a single application. Phosphite is most effective when the rate and application are properly timed to match the needs of the crop. Since phosphite is chemically different from phosphate, these differences must be taken into consideration to avoid plant toxicity."

I dunno (I really do), but this seems to say there is a measurable benefit to applying phosphites via foliar.

I heard that somewhere before.... Oh yeah, it was me. While I may not have the timing down on this crop perfectly, I do use phosphite foliar (never in the soil) 2 or 3 times (depending on visual health) starting at the end of week 2, then once a week thereafter. Maybe someone else has a better regimin.

 

[spurr]

MetalHead found this publication. First it says that phosphites are poor substitutes for phosphates in the soil. I think I knew that already.

If so, you are only now agreeing with me about it!

Then it says this;

"Research shows that foliar applications of phosphite can replace phosphate in citrus and avocado crops suffering from P deficiency. The conversion of phosphite to phosphate may result from slow chemical oxidation or by oxidizing bacteria and fungi that have been found living on citrus and avocado leaves.

There is consistent evidence that phosphite is more readily absorbed into plant tissues than phosphate. This has proven to be the case for citrus and avocado leaves, which are notoriously impervious to phosphate.

In these and other crops, foliar application of phosphite has proven to be more than just a fungicide...it increases floral intensity, yield, fruit size, total soluble solids, and anthocyanin concentrations, usually in response to a single application.

Phosphite is most effective when the rate and application are properly timed to match the needs of the crop. Since phosphite is chemically different from phosphate, these differences must be taken into consideration to avoid plant toxicity."

I am very short on time tonight, I will provide better breakdown of those papers tomorrow. Also, note that I referenced both of those papers in my article I wrote MONTHS ago. But, for now:

You are mixing up what is being stated. Please see the first bold, just like I have been writing, plants can't use phosphites for P directly. Bacteria/archaea needs to break it down first, for more than near-nil P, just like I have been writing this whole time.

Also, from your quote, the part about "foliar application" doesn't say it provides direct source of P, it merely states it can help yield. That part states foliar application helps plants, and if it's from P, it would be due to bacteria/archaea in the "phyllosphere" first breaking it down into usable forms of P (e.g. phosphates, NOT phosphites)...

I dunno (I really do), but this seems to say there is a measurable benefit to applying phosphites via foliar.

Yes, but not as you are portraying it. As I have written many times: once phosphites are converted into usable forms of P (e.g. phosphates), by microbes (i.e bacteria/archaea), the plant can benefit from it as a P source; but not before the conversion for more than near-nil P. Nothing in your quote refutes what I have been writing, in fact, it validates what I have been writing! (which is why I used them as references months ago...)

Think about it, the route phosphites take to get into the plant doesn't matter, e.g. via. root or leaf. In both cases, phosphites will be inside the plant, and moved to the same areas via. xylem. Thus, if root application of phosphites does not directly provide P to the plant, neither will leaf application! In both areas, the rhizosphere and phyllosphere, it's the bacteria/archaea that convert phosphites into usable forms of P for the plant (e.g. phosphates)...but that's a slow process!

I heard that somewhere before.... Oh yeah, it was me. While I may not have the timing down on this crop perfectly, I do use phosphite foliar (never in the soil) 2 or 3 times (depending on visual health) starting at the end of week 2, then once a week thereafter. Maybe someone else has a better regimin.

And I am still correct that your application of phosphites does notprovide P to the plant directly. You can't refute the facts I have laid out, no matter how badly you want to. The phosphites must first be broken down by bacteria/archaea in the phyllosphere (or rhizosphere).

I never wrote what you see in your grapes is not a P benefit from phosphites after microbes break it down. I did however write your application of phosphites does not mean direct P benefit to the plant.

And thus, applying phosphates, not phosphites, is the most efficient route to take for P nutrition.

...there must be an echo in here because I could have sworn I already wrote this same info many times.

Thus, it's 2-0 for spurr, in terms of the papers you guys/gals have uploaded (and I already referenced months ago) in an attempt to refute what I am writing/claiming.


Also, you like references? How about these I posted a while ago that most people are ignoring, apparently because they disprove your positions:

• At least read the first four, or stop trying to refute what I am writing! I can provide full text of studies you can't find.
• .
• Also, note that I referenced the papers "[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Phosphite Fertilizers: What Are They? Can You Use Them? What Can They Do?" AND[/FONT] "[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Phosphites and Phosphates:When Distributors and Growers alike could get confused!" long before you guys/gals found, and misunderstood them. If any of you would have taken the time to read what I wrote in my article, you would not be following in my footsteps![/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]1. [/FONT]"Phosphite (phosphorous acid): Fungicide, fertilizer or bio-stimulator?"
Hoang Thi Bich THAO, Takeo YAMAKAWA
Soil Science & Plant Nutrition, Volume 55, Issue 2, pages 228–234, April 2009
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1747-0765.2009.00365.x/abstract

Phi = phosphites and Pi = phosphates
​

Phosphite (Phi), a reduced form of phosphate (Pi), is widely marketed as either a fungicide or fertilizer or sometimes as a biostimulant. This is confusing for both distributors and growers. The present paper explores data from various studies to clarify that Phi does not provide plant P nutrition and thus cannot [directly; edit: spurr] complement or substitute Pi at any rate.In addition, Phi itself does not have any beneficial effect on the growth of healthy plants, regardless of whether it is applied alone or in combination with Pi at different ratios or different rates. The effect of Phi on plants is not consistent, but is strongly dependent on the Pi status of the plants. In most cases, the deleterious effect of Phi is evident in Pi-starved, but not Pi-sufficient, plants. Plants fertilized with Pi allowing for approximately 80–90% of its maximum growth might still be at risk of the effect. This negative effect becomes more pronounced under more seriously Pi-deficient conditions. Although a number of studies have shown positive crop responses to Phi, these responses are likely to be attributable to the suppression of plant diseases by Phi and/or to Pi formed from oxidation of Phi by microbes. In addition, indirectly providing P by Phi-to-Pi oxidation is not an effective means of supplying P to plants compared with Pi fertilizer.An understanding of these issues will aid the right selection of fertilizer as well as minimize the harmful effects of Phi use on crops.

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]


2. "Phosphorous and phosphoric acid: When all P sources are not equal"
Asha M. Brunings, Lawrence E. Datnoff and Eric H. Simonne
Horticultural Sciences Department, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida; doc document is HS1010, April 2005
(full text) http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/HS/HS25400.pdf


3. "A critical assessment of the suitability of phosphite as a source of phosphorus"
Arne M. Ratjen1, Jóska Gerendás
Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science, Volume 172, Issue 6, pages 821–828, December, 2009
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jpln.200800287/abstract



4. "Attenuation of Phosphate Starvation Responses by Phosphite in Arabidopsis"
Carla A. Ticconi, Carla A. Delatorre, and Steffen Abel
Plant Physiol, November 2001, Vol. 127, pp. 963-972
http://www.plantphysiol.org/cgi/content/abstract/127/3/963



5. "Transport and compartmentation of phosphite in higher plant cells--kinetic and P nuclear magnetic resonance studies"
Danova, Dijkema C, DE Waard P, Köck M
Plant Cell Environ. 2008 Oct;31(10):1510-21. Epub 2008 Jul 24.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18657056


6. "Phosphate foliar fertilization as a source of phosphite residues"
L. Tosi, M. Malusà
ISHS Acta Horticulturae 594: International Symposium on Foliar Nutrition of Perennial Fruit Plants
http://www.actahort.org/books/594/594_33.htm



7. "Phosphite Fertilizers: What Are They? Can You Use Them? What Can They Do?"
C.J. Lovatt and R.L. Mikkelsen
Better Crops/Vol. 90 (2006, No. 4)
(full text) http://www.ipni.net/ppiweb/bcrops.nsf/$webindex/3EF696A6E5851563852572140026EACD/$file/06-4p11.pdf


8. "Phosphites and Phosphates:When Distributors and Growers alike could get confused!"
New AG Internatlation, September 2007
(indudsty publsion)
http://www.spectrumanalytic.com/sup...tors_and_growers_alike_could_get_confused.pdf


9. "Phosphite, an Analog of Phosphate, Suppresses the Coordinated Expression of Genes under Phosphate Starvation"
Deepa K. Varadarajan, Athikkattuvalasu S. Karthikeyan, Paino Durzo Matilda, and Kashchandra G. Raghothama
Plant Physiol, July 2002, Vol. 129, pp. 1232-1240
http://www.plantphysiol.org/cgi/content/abstract/129/3/1232


10. http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0304423808003361"Phosphite Treatment: Treating Your Plants with Phosphite"
Dieback Working Group
(full text) http://www.dwg.org.au/go/about-dieback/phosphite-treatment/index.cfm



11. "Bleeding Trees"
Annette Stark
Ventura County Reporter
(full text) http://www.pesticidefreezone.org/VenturaCountyReporter.htm



11. "A brief note about potassium phosphite on phytophthora"
Dr. Ilangovan Ramasamy
Chief Scientist, Arborjet
(written by a coorpate sitcints but good info regless with refences to boot)
(full text) http://www.agriinfotech.com/htmls/P...EFFECT OF POTASSIUM PHOSPHONATE ON PHYTOP.pdf



12. "Benefits of Tru-Foliar™ Fertilizers Containing Phosphite (HPO3-)"
Grigg Bothers Foliar Fortilzers
(written with good info and some references, but ti's a brochure for their product that has good pics of Phi vs Pi vs control as a fertlizer)


13. "Effect of phosphite phosphorus on alfalfa growth"
K. L. Wellsa, J. E. Dollarhidea, R. E. Mundell Jr.
Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, Volume 31, Issue 15 & 16 September 2000 , pages 2707 - 2715
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/271579404-32525420/content~db=all~content=a905416262~frm=abslink


[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]14. "Effect of phosphite fertilization on growth, yield and fruit composition of strawberries"
Ulvi Moor, Priit Põldmaa, Tõnu Tõnutarea, Kadri Karpa, Marge Starasta and Ele Vool
Scientia Horticulturae Volume 119, Issue 3, 3 February 2009, Pages 264-269
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0304423808003361[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]

[/FONT]

 

[spurr]

OK, 'nuff said. If you gals/guys still try to refute what I am writing, I have a beautiful white straight jacket, and a nice big bottle of lithium for you!

 

[Hammerhead]

Lots of great info her.

 

[spurr]

Hey again hammerhead

Yup, phosphites (e.g. phosphorus acid) are a fail except as fungicides, because they are the least effective and efficient source of P vs. phosphates (e.g. phosphoric acid).

 

[spurr]

So...

Who is gonna call up makers of Nutri-phite (sp?) and Pure Flowers and bitch at them for being idiots by marketing phosphites as a P source that is better than phosphates!?!

If no one wants to, I will do so. I really hate it when companies sell a line of total fuc*ing bull*hit! (I am not claiming Pure Flowers is BS, only their claims about phosphites being the better source of P; the K from Pure Flower helps in pre-flowering)

 

[Hammerhead]

I would like to know what there responce is.

 

[spurr]

I will post it after I talk to them. I might just email them my article and my issues with their claims instead, though. Because if I just call them they will probably take the same head-in-sand approach that some members have in this thread.

I have called out a few companies for BS claims in the past, some are open to the criticisms, some not so much (ex. the BS claims about Penetrator/Saturator sold by Dutch Master; they are idiots)

 

[spurr]

@ grapeman,

I am sorry if my big post came off as argumentative toward you, and I'm sorry if I was terse, harsh or rude, I really am. I like you, I always have. But I can only take so much naysaying and incorrect arguments and claims until I get grumpy. And it's not you alone, the culmination of the many people making incorrect claims and rude comments to me, in this thread, has made me less than cordial.

I have faults in terms of interpersonal communications, I have slight chemical imbalance that makes me care less about interpersonal relationships than most people. I try to be nice, but I can only take so much, and then I say fuc* it...and I become terse and kinda gruff.

 

[grapeman]

If so, you are only now agreeing with me about it!




I am very short on time tonight, I will provide better breakdown of those papers tomorrow. Also, note that I referenced both of those papers in my article I wrote MONTHS ago. But, for now:

You are mixing up what is being stated. Please see the first bold, just like I have been writing, plants can't use phosphites for P directly. Bacteria/archaea needs to break it down first, for more than near-nil P, just like I have been writing this whole time.

Also, from your quote, the part about "foliar application" doesn't say it provides direct source of P, it merely states it can help yield. That part states foliar application helps plants, and if it's from P, it would be due to bacteria/archaea in the "phyllosphere" first breaking it down into usable forms of P (e.g. phosphates, NOT phosphites)...




Yes, but not as you are portraying it. As I have written many times: once phosphites are converted into usable forms of P (e.g. phosphates), by microbes (i.e bacteria/archaea), the plant can benefit from it as a P source; but not before the conversion for more than near-nil P. Nothing in your quote refutes what I have been writing, in fact, it validates what I have been writing! (which is why I used them as references months ago...)

Think about it, the route phosphites take to get into the plant doesn't matter, e.g. via. root or leaf. In both cases, phosphites will be inside the plant, and moved to the same areas via. xylem. Thus, if root application of phosphites does not directly provide P to the plant, neither will leaf application! In both areas, the rhizosphere and phyllosphere, it's the bacteria/archaea that convert phosphites into usable forms of P for the plant (e.g. phosphates)...but that's a slow process!




And I am still correct that your application of phosphites does notprovide P to the plant directly. You can't refute the facts I have laid out, no matter how badly you want to. The phosphites must first be broken down by bacteria/archaea in the phyllosphere (or rhizosphere).

I never wrote what you see in your grapes is not a P benefit from phosphites after microbes break it down. I did however write your application of phosphites does not mean direct P benefit to the plant.

And thus, applying phosphates, not phosphites, is the most efficient route to take for P nutrition.

...there must be an echo in here because I could have sworn I already wrote this same info many times.

Thus, it's 2-0 for spurr, in terms of the papers you guys/gals have uploaded (and I already referenced months ago) in an attempt to refute what I am writing/claiming.


Also, you like references? How about these I posted a while ago that most people are ignoring, apparently because they disprove your positions:

• At least read the first four, or stop trying to refute what I am writing! I can provide full text of studies you can't find.
• .
• Also, note that I referenced the papers "[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Phosphite Fertilizers: What Are They? Can You Use Them? What Can They Do?" AND[/FONT] "[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Phosphites and Phosphates:When Distributors and Growers alike could get confused!" long before you guys/gals found, and misunderstood them. If any of you would have taken the time to read what I wrote in my article, you would not be following in my footsteps![/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]1. [/FONT]"Phosphite (phosphorous acid): Fungicide, fertilizer or bio-stimulator?"
Hoang Thi Bich THAO, Takeo YAMAKAWA
Soil Science & Plant Nutrition, Volume 55, Issue 2, pages 228–234, April 2009
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1747-0765.2009.00365.x/abstract

Phi = phosphites and Pi = phosphates
​

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]


2. "Phosphorous and phosphoric acid: When all P sources are not equal"
Asha M. Brunings, Lawrence E. Datnoff and Eric H. Simonne
Horticultural Sciences Department, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida; doc document is HS1010, April 2005
(full text) http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/HS/HS25400.pdf


3. "A critical assessment of the suitability of phosphite as a source of phosphorus"
Arne M. Ratjen1, Jóska Gerendás
Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science, Volume 172, Issue 6, pages 821–828, December, 2009
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jpln.200800287/abstract



4. Attenuation of Phosphate Starvation Responses by Phosphite in Arabidopsis
Carla A. Ticconi, Carla A. Delatorre, and Steffen Abel
Plant Physiol, November 2001, Vol. 127, pp. 963-972
http://www.plantphysiol.org/cgi/content/abstract/127/3/963



5. Transport and compartmentation of phosphite in higher plant cells--kinetic and P nuclear magnetic resonance studies.
Danova, Dijkema C, DE Waard P, Köck M
Plant Cell Environ. 2008 Oct;31(10):1510-21. Epub 2008 Jul 24.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18657056


6. Phosphate foliar fertilization as a source of phosphate residues
L. Tosi, M. Malusà
ISHS Acta Horticulturae 594: International Symposium on Foliar Nutrition of Perennial Fruit Plants
http://www.actahort.org/books/594/594_33.htm



7. Phosphite Fertilizers: What Are They? Can You Use Them? What Can They Do?
C.J. Lovatt and R.L. Mikkelsen
Better Crops/Vol. 90 (2006, No. 4)
(full text) http://www.ipni.net/ppiweb/bcrops.nsf/$webindex/3EF696A6E5851563852572140026EACD/$file/06-4p11.pdf


8. Phosphites and Phosphates:When Distributors and Growers alike could get confused!
New AG Internatlation, September 2007
(indudsty publsion)
http://www.spectrumanalytic.com/sup...tors_and_growers_alike_could_get_confused.pdf


9. Phosphite, an Analog of Phosphate, Suppresses the Coordinated Expression of Genes under Phosphate Starvation1
Deepa K. Varadarajan, Athikkattuvalasu S. Karthikeyan, Paino Durzo Matilda, and Kashchandra G. Raghothama
Plant Physiol, July 2002, Vol. 129, pp. 1232-1240
http://www.plantphysiol.org/cgi/content/abstract/129/3/1232


9. Effect of phosphite fertilization on growth, yield and fruit composition of strawberries
Ulvi Moor, Priit Põldmaa, Tõnu Tõnutarea, Kadri Karpa, Marge Starasta and Ele Vool
Scientia Horticulturae Volume 119, Issue 3, 3 February 2009, Pages 264-269
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0304423808003361


10. Phosphite Treatment: Treating Your Plants with Phosphite
Dieback Working Group
(full text) http://www.dwg.org.au/go/about-dieback/phosphite-treatment/index.cfm



11. Bleeding Trees
Annette Stark
Ventura County Reporter
(full text) http://www.pesticidefreezone.org/VenturaCountyReporter.htm



11. A brief note about potassium phosphite on phytophthora
Dr. Ilangovan Ramasamy
Chief Scientist, Arborjet
(written by a coorpate sitcints but good info regless with refences to boot)
(full text) http://www.agriinfotech.com/htmls/P...EFFECT OF POTASSIUM PHOSPHONATE ON PHYTOP.pdf



13. Benefits of Tru-Foliar™ Fertilizers Containing Phosphite (HPO3-)
Grigg Bothers Foliar Fortilzers
(written with good info and some references, but ti's a brochure for their product that has good pics of Phi vs Pi vs control as a fertlizer)


14. Effect of phosphite phosphorus on alfalfa growth
K. L. Wellsa, J. E. Dollarhidea, R. E. Mundell Jr.
Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, Volume 31, Issue 15 & 16 September 2000 , pages 2707 - 2715
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/271579404-32525420/content~db=all~content=a905416262~frm=abslink


[/FONT]

LOL - no I'm not agreeing with you. I've never made any claims herein but for one.

Phosphites work. I've apply foliar sprays for years and have maintained or increased P in my plants as per petiole analysis while using LESS P.

You are being anal here. When I test for P that means I test for P - not phosphites. And it is in the plant at higher levels then ever attained using P alone. And this is done using amounts of P that is reduced by 80%.

So, you can actually quote studies all you want and it will not change the fact that foliar phosphites increase the measurable level of P in the plant vs a control and via my own fucking petiole tests that I do to the tune of about $3k/year.

Now a word about scientific studies. I am not a scientist, but I do not hold ag or crop scientists in very high regard. I have yet to encounter one (except Dr. Shimon Levee in Israel) that knew a fuck about growing anything. I can remember at least 6 off the top of my head who came to me to discuss how I accomplished what I do in grapes (from trans evaporation using overhead sprinklers, to using Hydrogen Cyanamid for bud break, to using high K amounts early in the fruiting cycle for added weight & sugar formation and earlier coloring of fruit to using ABA to break down the waxy skin of berries to promote earlier raisins, to developing a new trellis system that is now the industry standard and some other things that I cannot recall off the top of my head.

In all cases these science types copied me and published papers (UC Davis and UC Extension), some giving credit, some not.

So science papers never wow me. Maybe you but not me.

So when I say using phosphites increases levels of P within the plant, I don't really care if you believe me or not. I already know it does.

And that's about all I have to say. LOL

 

[BlueberryLovr]

Grew my best batch ever w/ PF as foliar along with adding it into my feedings. Same conditions, same genetics. Just replaced KoolBloom powder with PF for the PK. Not too dramatic difference compared to past harvests, though. (But still a recognizable difference in density and quality.)

I'm confused now. I hate it when there's a debate between first-hand experience and academic papers. Both are legitimate sources of info, especially from folks with loads of experience (ie. grapeman). So if phosphites foliars are helping to keep plants healthy and contributing to yield/quality, why not continue their use?

 

[TickleMyBalls]

do what works for you. this guy seems to be hung up on the why and the how of the process. says phosphites are only a useable source of P when broken down by microbes for the roots to uptake, but doesn't aknowledge that most mixes used to grow cannabis HAVE pleanty of microbes working in them to help break down nutrients to make them mobile for the roots. which means for cannabis growers phosphites would be a source of highly available P, whether directly, or after it is broken down by your micro army, who gives a fuck?

 

[opt1c]

far as academic papers go u stop learning when u start teaching; they're in the past end of story.... try talking to em bout rdwc; u'll see what i mean first hand

 

[grapeman]

As a clarification, and out of respect to spurr, I need to point out 1 thing. I don't now, nor have ever relied on phosphites as THE source of P to either vines or this crop.

But I do have higher P levels in my petioles on vines when phosphites are used and have seen larger healthier buds on this crop when I use "pure flowers". He is correct in pointing out that pure flowers does contain K (the phosphite product I use in the grapes does not). So, without spending $$$ to test a pure phosphite against pure flowers (with k) on this crop, it is impossible to determine if any yield increase on this crop is due to phosphites, K or both.

But who cares if it is producing results?

 

[Hammerhead]

if your seeing tangable results from using the product use it. No one can tell you what you see in your own garden. Im sure some day I might try it.