Who uses Phosphites?

[VerdantGreen]

@ Spurr .... nice plagraizing from a user on the shroomery anyways, here is the whole post with all studies sourced. i have bolded what i feel is the most important information.

hmmm, just a theory, but have you considered that it might be spurr who wrote that as well? writing style looks spot on to me.

i may be wrong though...

VG

 

[staff11]

will one of you phosphite haters please point to a single post in this thread where any pure flowers user on here claimed to use Phi as the only source of P? no one here did. it has always been used as a booster. it is an additive. the direct fast source of P to the roots is whatever normal nutrients you use. as Spurr constantly points out, Phi must be broken down by the microbes in the soil, even if they do so slowly, prolonged use of Phosphites would obviously benefit the plant, because even though the P isn't availble immediately at feeding time, there's still the rest of the time when the microbes are still working to convert the phosphites.

maybe your crusade should be against using phosphites in aeroponics.

No people are haters if they don't agree with you. Great logic...lol.

 

[vonforne]

Anyway.............Who uses Phosphites?

This is the subject gentlemen.

So......besides spurr. Who uses them......right or wrong?

 

[spurr]

@ Spurr .... nice plagraizing from a user on the shroomery anyways, here is the whole post with all studies sourced. i have bolded what i feel is the most important information.

Haha...that was me at the shroomery. That's for posting, yet again, my article. I posted it here and at the shroomery.

I have tried to tell Roger Rabbit what is what many times, but he is so full of himself he can't stand it when I tell him how he is wrong...and he's wrong a lot. I have proven topics time and time again, yet he just gets upset and bans me. Just like has happened at TCC and CW2 in the past. Like I wrote, lots of people simply don't like to learn they are wrong. They attach ego to beliefs, thus they take it as a personal attack when I prove they are wrong...sad.

I find it funny that you, and others, like my article when you thought I didn't write it.

I have learned even more about phosphites since I wrote the article a while ago. And I never plan to try using phosphites because I prefer to grow organically and don't want to hinder fungi. And I found more good references, like this one:

"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 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]
[/FONT]

 

[spurr]

will one of you phosphite haters please point to a single post in this thread where any pure flowers user on here claimed to use Phi as the only source of P? no one here did.

I am no phosphite hater, I am simply explaining to you, and others, what companies are not telling you; or what companies simply don't understand. I am a whistle-blower...I have nothing against phosphites, but I do have something against lies and misinformation by companies to try and take advantage of growers.

Phosphites are good for fungicide...but that's about it.

Here ya go, read this post from this thread, if you think no one has tried using only Pure Flowers then you sir/mama, need to re-read this thread. And maybe then you will read what I wrote with an open mind:

https://www.icmag.com/ic/showpost.php?p=4009187&postcount=55
​

I used pure flowers several times. As per the advertisement for it stated, I assumed it was a better source of P, I tried using it as a primary source of P one run.

Phosphorous deficiency developed rapidly and severely. Snake oil is right.... I can't believe the way the ads read... I've posted in the past about this product being a big scam.

Systemic fungicide is not what I was looking for. The ad said this is a superior bloom booster, that's what I bought it for, and yet its not even a bloom booster.

it has always been used as a booster. it is an additive. the direct fast source of P to the roots is whatever normal nutrients you use.

It has never been used a booster, only companies have been selling it that way, which is a scam. Phosphites are not a bloom booster, except as a rather poor SAR inducer. But there are better SAR inducers, those which will increase trichcome number and density, i.e. methylated jasmonic acid.

Phosphites are not a bloom booster, and if people get a boost from Pure Flowers it's from the K.

as Spurr constantly points out, Phi must be broken down by the microbes in the soil, even if they do so slowly, prolonged use of Phosphites would obviously benefit the plant, because even though the P isn't availble immediately at feeding time, there's still the rest of the time when the microbes are still working to convert the phosphites.

Ok, so you would rather fly around the world to get to your local grocery store than simply walk down the street to the grocery store?

You are clutching a straws, it's time to throw in the towel. There is no way you, or others, would use a product that is inefficient and ineffective if you didn't attach ego to belief...otherwise you would have thanked me and not used it again as P source or a bloom booster; you would have used it for what it is: a fungicide.

maybe your crusade should be against using phosphites in aeroponics.

My crusades are against anything that is not telling the truth, I care about the truth and provable facts, that it.

 

[spurr]

@ Spurr .... nice plagraizing from a user on the shroomery anyways, here is the whole post with all studies sourced. i have bolded what i feel is the most important information.

hmmm, just a theory, but have you considered that it might be spurr who wrote that as well? writing style looks spot on to me.

i may be wrong though...

VG

No, sir, you're not wrong. I actually have a been a member of more than cannabis sties, I know a lot about growing fungi as well

Just for epicseeds, here is my article Dave posted here for me, before I had this account, IIRC before I posted it the shroomery. Epicseeds can check the dates on both threads to see I am not lying...if she/he still wants to call me a lair:

Phosphite: What companies aren't telling you
(posted on August, 31, 2010, but I wrote it like a week before it was posted)​

 

[Mr. Greengenes]

I have no idea who's right, but after nine rounds (pages) it really looks like grapeman has made the only reasonable counters to spurr's well outlined and scientifically argued points. As a unexpert audience member, I have to give the debating victory to spurr even though instinct tells me grapeman, the agricultural professional is right. Either way, I'm impressed by both. I could never argue in such style against the majority as spurr has done, though I've been in his position many times. A toast to all for such an interesting thread. And please folks, stop asking them to leave!

 

[funkymonkey]

Has spurr actually used the products he is slating?

If the answer is no then he should STFU quite frankly.

Grapeman said it best when he mentioned how most plant scientists he has met can't grow anything.

In the battle of experience vs theory, experience wins every time.

 

[spurr]

A layperson's definition of the word "theory" is not what "scientific theory" means; that is a very common misunderstanding. Scientific theory is a proven explanation of phenomenon formed after rigorous testing/experimentation using the scientific method.

It basically works like this:
hypothesis > test hypothesis (repeatedly) > scientific theory > accepted consensus on scientific theory > scientific law

Scientific law works on a grand scale, like the "law of relativity", it's kind of on its own, apart from scientific theory. Accepted scientific consensus on a scientific theory is as far as most topics go, such as the functionally of phosphites. Which have been proven, and accepted by scientific consensus, for a long time, to be a fungicide and a very poor source for P.

I don't need to use it to understand it. And when growers 'test' something they don't really test it, they simply use it and usually simply look at the plant. That is not analytical, nor of much value, nor following the "scientific method". At least grapeman is testing for P from petiole, the only issue is he seems to be drawing false conclusions from insufficient data, aka he using a "valid argument", but not a "sound argument", because one or more of his premises are wrong...connecting dots without proof.

And once again: Experience doesn't equal correctness.

You also would be surprised to learn many scientists are great growers, yours truly is one example, as are many others such as Sam Skunkman, MicrobeMan, etc., etc....

 

[vonforne]

Human scientific studies on nature........how long have we been on this planet? A few million years. And our science is very limited in that time. But now Mother Earth has been at it for over 450 BILLION years. So, who knows who is right. The man that implemented the action?..........or the one who wrote it?

 

[spurr]

Sorry Von, you lost me on your line of thought, I am not sure I understand your point. It's true that science has only been around a few hundred years, but that doesn't mean it's wrong to use science, it's the best option we have. It's much better than the other option of using conjecture, assumption, speculation and hearsay. Even worse is when people use logical fallacies...like funkymonkey.

It has been proven many times over, by many different scientists and people, that phosphites are a very poor source of P:

 

[OsWiZzLe]

http://www.springerlink.com/content/q13537657751q101/

Defining the phosphite-regulated transcriptome of the plant pathogen Phytophthora cinnamomi


Abstract

Phosphite, an analog of phosphate is used to control oomycete diseases on a wide range of horticultural crops and in native ecosystems. In this study, we investigated morphological and transcriptional changes induced in Phytophthora cinnamomi by phosphite. Cytological observations revealed that phosphite caused hyphal distortions and lysis of cell walls and had an adverse effect on hyphal growth. At the molecular level, the expression levels of 43 transcripts were changed. Many of these encoded proteins involved in cell wall synthesis, or cytoskeleton functioning. The results of both the microscopic and molecular investigations are consistent with phosphite inhibiting the function of the cytoskeleton and cell wall synthesis.

 

[grapeman]

Back to phosphites. I do have to point out one thing. There is this nagging study that Spurr keeps pointing to that if you read past the first page (where it claims phosphite is useful as a fungicide, it goes on to say say that citrus sprayed with phosphites had higher P values in the tissue.

Now you can not have it both ways. either it works or it does not.

For me, in my never ending quest to grow products cheaper, it is a fact that since I have been using phosphites along with my phos acid (P) in the soil via drip, I have been able to increase P levels in the petioles (taken at on set of bloom) while decreasing usage of Phos Acid via drip by 80%.

I save money, maintain levels of P in the plant and use less Phos acid on the soil via drip which I imagine is a good thing since, for the last decade or more, we have been mindful of the soil and using acadian kelp and humic/fulvic acid via the drip 4 times a year.

And Spurr, you did not address my question (that I saw anyway) which was this: After your reading of the uses of phosphites via foliar, don't you believe that phosphites are a hell of a good vechicle to bring other nutrients into the leaf? Even it you don't believe there is any benefit to using phosphites like I do via foliar, you have to admit it's a pretty good product to add ca, S, K and others to for entry into the leaf.

 

[spurr]

grapeman:
Back to phosphites. I do have to point out one thing. There is this nagging study that Spurr keeps pointing to that if you read past the first page (where it claims phosphite is useful as a fungicide, it goes on to say say that citrus sprayed with phosphites had higher P values in the tissue.

Now you can not have it both ways. either it works or it does not.

I have addressed that many times. I never said phosphites (Phi) do not provide P, but I did say they do not do so directly. It's only after bacteria oxidize Phi in the phyllosphere, and convert it into phosphates (Pi), that P is provided. I pointed this out at least a half a dozen times already.

That said, if Phi is taken into leaf as Phi, it stays as Phi inside the plant because there is no known enzyme that can oxidize Phi into Pi once inside plant tissue. That is why Phi has been proven, via. radioactively labeled Phi, to stay in plant tissue, as Phi, even a year after it's taken in leaf tissue as Phi!

And like I wrote to you, specifically, at least twice, you should apply Pi as foliar (e.g. phosphoric acid), not Phi (e.g. phosphorus acid). Because by spraying with Pi and not Phi, you are skipping the slow, inefficient and ineffective oxidation step of Phi > Pi by simply providing Pi in the first place.

Maybe you should re-read some of my posts to you. And the studies I posted too.

grapeman:
For me, in my never ending quest to grow products cheaper, it is a fact that since I have been using phosphites along with my phos acid (P) in the soil via drip, I have been able to increase P levels in the petioles (taken at on set of bloom) while decreasing usage of Phos Acid via drip by 80%.

I addressed this at least two times also:

point 1: you were probably over-applying phosphates in the first place via. drip, this is a very common mistake by most growers (even commercial growers). Thus, when you backed off on Pi in drip lines, your plants were STILL getting sufficient levels of P from the Pi in drip lines. Try this: don't apply Phi as foliar, but still only use 80% of the Pi in drip, and then test for P.

point 2: you should be applying Pi as foliar, not Phi. If you applied Pi you would get better results, and much faster, than by applying Phi. The P in petiole would be at least as high as it is now if you used Pi and not Phi.

point 3: you haven't done enough testing with proper controls to form an opinion you can call correct...see point #1.

point 4: your grapes would have a chance to be infected with AM fungi if you didn't use Phi. Your use of Phi means your plants will not be infected. That said, if your applying greater than ~30 ppm of Pi to drip lines then AM fungi would be greatly hindered anyway...

point 5: I asked you how you tested for P, but you didn't answer me. Depending upon testing methods, your results could be out-of-whack if the test can't distinguish between Pi and Phi...ex., if your test simply thinks everything is P.

grapeman:
I save money, maintain levels of P in the plant and use less Phos acid on the soil via drip which I imagine is a good thing since, for the last decade or more, we have been mindful of the soil and using acadian kelp and humic/fulvic acid via the drip 4 times a year.

You would save more money if you applied Pi, and not Phi as foliar. Not only that, but you would provide much faster P nutrition into the plant. Also, have you tried cutting back on Pi in drip lines and not applying Phi as foliar? If not, you need to do so before you can make absolute statements that Phi is giving your plants P.

The phyllosphere is naturally rich in beneficial fungi and bacteria, attracted and fed by exudates from the leaf. Those beneficial microbes help by warding off harmful fungi like PM, etc. Thus, by applying Phi as foliar you are killing many of the beneficial fungi in the phyllosphere that we WANT in the phyllosphere.

In no way is it wise to apply Phi as foliar for P, it just isn't.

grapeman:
And Spurr, you did not address my question (that I saw anyway) which was this: After your reading of the uses of phosphites via foliar, don't you believe that phosphites are a hell of a good vechicle to bring other nutrients into the leaf? Even it you don't believe there is any benefit to using phosphites like I do via foliar, you have to admit it's a pretty good product to add ca, S, K and others to for entry into the leaf.

I did address it, and no, using anions like Phi and Pi, are not a good vehicle for helping other ions and dissolved organics substances into the leaf:

https://www.icmag.com/ic/showpost.php?p=4015618&postcount=110

spurr:
Real quick cuz' I don't have much free time right now: it's generally cations that help other ions enter the leaf via. leaf cuticle layer, they swell the cuticle layer thus allowing greater absorption of other ions. Generally ammonium and calcium and potassium are the best at helping other ions pass into leaf. Anions are not what to use, esp., anions with high "Point Of Deliquescence" (POD) such as phosphates and phosphites.

If phosphites are oxidized into phosphates by microbes in the phyllosphere or rhizosphere, it happens before they enter the plant, otherwise phosphites stay as phosphites if the plant absorbs them as phosphites.

The reason using phosphites (Phi) as a P source is not worthwhile, nor a good idea, is they need to be converted (oxidized) into phosphates before they enter the plant to offer P nutrition, thus, it's much more efficient and effective to simply skip the process of oxidization of Phi > Pi, and just use phosphates (Pi).

Also, phosphites are phytotoxic in low amounts when plants are low in P; this is why they can induce SAR: because they can damage plants. Phosphites are not a good source of P nutrition, in fact, they are a very poor source of P nutrition. If you want to reduce phosphoric acid in fertigation water than use it as a foliar spray instead, along with calcium-nitrate (POD = ~53% RH), and a good non-ionic surfactant (i.e. none from a hydro store are good choices). That will greatly increase absorption of the anions and other ions and dissolved organic substances. There is no reason to apply phosphites as a source of P in foliar spray when you can spray with phosphates and get better results for P nutrition, and faster.

I have studied foliar application of spays and leaf biology very extensively, I can post more info on the best way to get most of the spay into the leaf, but not right now, it's time for dinner.

AND

https://www.icmag.com/ic/showpost.php?p=4015631&postcount=111

spurr:
Yes, Saturator sucks monkey balls, the "Point Of Deliquescence” (POD) is > 93% RH! A much better, and simpler, and less expensive method is using CalMag+ (~1-2.5 ml/gal), humic acid and a good non-ionic surfactant. I could explain why each is used, but not right now. For now: CalMag+ is used for calcium-nitrate (POD ~53% RH), which is much better than the potassium-nitrate (POD = > 93% RH) in DM Saturator, or the mono-ammonium-phosphate in DM Penetrator (POD = > 93% RH).

 

[spurr]

@ ALL,

People are starting to have me repeat, many times, what I have already written. Please, re-read this thread before you ask me anymore questions, or try to refute what I wrote. I don't feel I should have to repeat myself, over and over, just because people are not reading what I wrote closely enough, or with enough attention.

I have answered all questions and points many times already. I won't repeat myself again. It's frustrating because I take a lot of time, and care, in my posts only to have them ignored and to be asked something I already answered a few times!

Please, re-read this thread, and re-read all my posts. Let what I wrote sink into your brains, and then, if you are still unsure or still have questions, ask me. Otherwise it's just plain rude to ask me about things I already answered many times over.

 

[epicseeds]

my appologies spurr. i am a long time member at the shroomery as well. and for the record, i agree 100% with your take on phosphites.

 

[TickleMyBalls]

how do you even have time to grow weed? I know I don't have time to read and re read every post you wrote. I don't even know how you had time to write it all. get off the internet and go not use phosphites on your own grow. stop telling people that even though what they're doing is working well for them, it's a waste of time and money.

or how about this... I'll buy you a bottle of pure flowers, send it to you and you can grow a strain side by side one with and one without and post it on here to show us all how pure flowers does nothing for your plants.

 

[OsWiZzLe]

EFFECT OF PHOSPHITE FERTILIZER FORMULATIONS ON ONION YIELD AND QUALITY


http://www.cropinfo.net/AnnualReports/2003/onidripBiagro03.htm

Biagro Western (Visalia, CA) manufactures formulations of phosphite fertilizer. They claim that phosphorus (P) in the form of phosphite (PO3) is to be more easily absorbed by plants than P in the form of phosphate (PO4). This trial tested three phosphite fertilizer formulations for their effect on onion plant P content, and onion yield and grade.

 

[ShroomDr]

Human scientific studies on nature........how long have we been on this planet? A few million years. And our science is very limited in that time. But now Mother Earth has been at it for over 450 BILLION years.

Current interpretations of astronomical observations indicate that the age of the universe is 13.75 ±0.17 billion years.

The earth was not formed at the beginning of the universe either.


OR...

The earth is only 5000 years old, and jebus walked with dinosaurs.

You make your pick, but ive never seen it listed at 450 Billion. Hell our sun will fizzle out in 5 billion years.


-

 

[OsWiZzLe]

http://www.scribd.com/doc/20206361/Understanding-the-Phosphonate-Products