The Lost Art of Foliar Feeding

[spl1]

I don't foliar feed as from all my experience it slows root growth and temporally changes the osmotic flow within the plants. I grow roots, 100% of my attention goes into growing bright white fuzzy roots. If there anything but that I've done something wrong. I'm with UB on the health and mass of leaves. I want them standing straight out flat as a piece of paper with a nice shean of green that's not to dark or light in color. If your plants are healthy they should be drinking lots of mild nutrient balanced water every couple of days. I don't like to transplant then immediately switch to flower. I give them 6 to 10 days to establish a massive root system then switch the lights. Back in the day I used to try to keep a high humidity in veg and foliar sprayed every week because I thought I had to. I never run humidifiers or foliar these days. It's all about the roots now... (my2cents).

Thanks for stopping by, and I agree that root grow big plants. With that said all the plant studies show that the roots only up take 10% to 12% of available nutrients.
As for leaves standing strait out is a good sign of a average health plant, I like my leaves to reach for the light and they can't get enough.

I would like to read the study that shows the changes of osmotic flow within the plants. Every thing I have read says fruit, nut, food bearing plants absorb 20% to 60% more nutrients threw the leaves over root feeding only. This has been proven with culture samples over and over and over.

Also in the same studies over which way produces bigger root mass they have found that plants with foliar feeding have a higher enzyme activity in the roots, and as well all know enzyme's help the plant uptake more ions in the root system.

Send me the link were it says that foliar feeding study that shows the changes of osmotic flow within the plants to reduce root growth.

U. S. Atomic Energy Department provided a grant and radioisotopes of all nutrients to Michigan State University. The objective was to study the foliar absorption of fertilizer nutrients and trace their movement in the plants. Isotopes are different forms of an atom of the same chemical element.
Some isotopes are referred to as 'stable' and others as 'unstable' or 'radioactive'.
It is the radioactive nature of these unstable isotopes, usually referred to as 'radioisotopes', which gives them so many applications in modern science and technology.
Fertilizers 'labelled' with a radioactive isotope, provide a means of finding out how much is taken up by the plant and how much is lost. Efficient use of fertilizers is a concern. It is important that as much of the fertiliser as possible finds its way into plants and that the minimum is lost to the environment.
Radioisotopes showed that all foliar applied nutrients, are absorbed by the leaves. They were even absorbed through the woody tissue of trees.( bark)
In fact, these isotopes showed that it was 8-10 times more effective to foliar feed a plant as far as the amount of nutrients required and the speed with which those nutrients were utilized.
The beneficial effects of a foliar is due to an increase in cellular based chlorophyll synthesis.
This means that chlorophyll production and synthesis is increased in the cells of leaves most exposed to sunlight. Chlorophyll is the green you see in leaves.
We can actually see this increase in chlorophyll, cellular activity and respiration, as one of the first signs you will see in a crop, after the application of foliar fertiliser is the leaves turning a darker green. This can be measured by a Refractometer in as little as 4 hours.
This increased cellular activity and respiration, increases uptake of water by the vascular system in response to increased needs of water by the leaf (this automatically brings more fertilising elements into the plant via the vascular system)
This does not mean that the application of foliar fertilizer replaces the soil applied fertiliser, but increases their uptake.
Rapidly growing plants require large quantities of water, far in excess of that found in the plant for normal synthesis of new materials. This increase in uptake automatically brings more fertilising elements to the plant via the vascular system.
This increased efficiency can reduce the need for soil applied fertilizer, which reduces leaching and run off of fertilizing nutrients. Some of the latest research shows increased quality and yield by increasing the uptake of N and P, and providing cellular phosphate at a time of high usage by the plant.
A small amount of potash or phosphate can increase the yield so significantly, actually providing a better return per dollar outlayed than soil applied fertilizer..
The need for more water and greater gaseous exchange stimulates additional root mass to provide it.
Excess carbohydrate produced by the plant, due to greater synthesis of sugars by the increased chlorophyll, are excreted by the root hairs which stimulate microbial colonies on the root by providing additional energy sources.
The bacterial colonies in turn provide auxin's and other root stimulation compounds.
More root tissue and root hairs increases the plants ability to uptake water and fertilizer ions.
A chain reaction is set up if the right material is applied at the right time to set up this feedback loop.
Greater efficiencies are to be obtained with foliars because we are stimulating the entire 'pumping' system that comprises the leaf cells.
The important thing to remember is that a small amount of fertilizer used, actually increases the uptake in terms of total uptake by several fold over the amount of fertiliser applied. Some researchers suggest a 6:1 return.
By applying a foliar fertilizer directly to the leaf, it increases the activity in the leaf, at the same time increasing chlorophyll and thus photosynthesis. Because of this increased activity, it increases the need for water by the leaf. In turn this increases water uptake by the plants vascular system, which in turn increases the uptake of nutrients from the soil.
By increasing photosynthesis, we increase production and efficiency.

Here is another study done with seaweed used for foilar feeding and it effects on root mass.

Seaweed is constantly worn down by tides and eaten by fish, so it must grow rapidly to survive. Studies at the University of California showed that a frond of seaweed can grow a foot a day, given optimal conditions. The same growth hormones that prompt such rapid growth in seaweed, when applied to plants as a foliar spray, can increase the speed of cell division and elongation in those plants. The hormones also increase root growth when applied to the soil as meal, or when a seaweed extract is used as a root dip.In recent turf test at Virginia Polytechnic Institute in Blacksburg, plots sprayed with seaweed extract had 67% to 175% more roots that untreated plots. Plots treated in fall showed a 38% increase in spring growth over untreated plots and showed 52% more roots.In test at South Carolina's Clemson University, seeds soaked in liquid sea weed extract showed rapid germination and the resulting seedlings and increased root mass and stronger plant growth that seedlings from untreated seeds. They also had a higher survival rate. Soaking plant roots in seaweed extract reduces transplant shock and speeds root growth. Seaweed foliar sprays promote faster, stronger stem and leaf growth and earlier blossoming and fruit set when sprayed on leaves and flowerbeds.

 

[Bob Smith]

Spl1, firstly, I'm convinced, and will certainly give foliar spraying a shot this coming grow.

A question for you, though - I like to KISS with nutes, and simply use General Hydroponics Floranova Bloom from seed to harvest (aka "The Lucas Formula") - in your opinion, would that be an acceptable nute to use for foliar feeding?

And am I correct that you use the same nutes for foliar feeding that you do for "normal" feeding?

In my reservoir I use 8mL/gallon, so would I start off foliar feeding at 2mL/gallon?

Thanks so much for your time and great info; it's quite appreciated.

 

[spl1]

Spl1, firstly, I'm convinced, and will certainly give foliar spraying a shot this coming grow.

A question for you, though - I like to KISS with nutes, and simply use General Hydroponics Floranova Bloom from seed to harvest (aka "The Lucas Formula") - in your opinion, would that be an acceptable nute to use for foliar feeding?

And am I correct that you use the same nutes for foliar feeding that you do for "normal" feeding?

In my reservoir I use 8mL/gallon, so would I start off foliar feeding at 2mL/gallon?

Thanks so much for your time and great info; it's quite appreciated.

I like to keep it simple my self, yep that looks good for your first time doing foliar feeding. I would ramp up to full nut before you go into bloom and keep it there for the next three weeks in bloom if your grow room will let it.

Now grow room set up, humidity, and air movement will dictate how long you can foliar feed in flowering. My room is 30% to 35% humidity at all times and my air flow is off the chain. My coughs are 6" away from one of my 1000 watt lamps. No burning or light washing in my leaves.

Check out my test grows.

I attribute this to foliar feeding and potassium silica added to both the nut and foilr spray. It helps the plant grow strong and helps it deal with high heat. The reason it helps plant grow strong is potassium silica helps with cell division and this makes the plant grow thick bases and steams, thicker leaves (bugs don't like thick leaves they like easy meals, they also don't like the daily foliage feeding)

If you have any other questions fire away.

I hope you have a great grow. Keep us posted with your grow.

 

[Uncle Ben]

The second picture is not my grow but a friend of mine that grew it, he was my mentor and he foliar feed all the way up to 20 day until harvest, this was the biggest of 30 main colas that he triple harvested off this plant.

You can not conclude that his success was based on foliar feeding.

 

[spl1]

You can not conclude that his success was based on foliar feeding.

And you can't conclude that it wasn't. As he said it was just one of many weapons he believed in that worked for him and it has worked for me.

All the science behind it points to it does work. I have seen it in fruit, nut harvest year in and year out on large scale orchard farming.

There are over a hundred university studies just in the USA alone that show foliage feeding increases enzyme production in plants both at the root level and in the leaf system.

Enzyme help create a symbiotic relationship with bacteria, as we all know this helps breakdown organic and some inorganic matter at the root level. also helps the plant uptake more nutrients.

Once again tissue culture prove this without a debt over and over and over.

P.S I like you thread on plant moister stress, it was spot on.

 

[glaucoma1]

The only way to convince the skeptics is to post pics of a full grow where you spray all but one plant and show the difference.

I would love to see that.

 

[Dr. VonDank]

interesting read but here lies just one of the possible problems and also some discussion of the issues you presented. I will keep it as basic as possible. First off if your plants are reaching upward you probably have magnesium def showing. Think of leafs as solar cells for photosynthesis--you want them flat as possible to absorb the maximum amount of light-anything other than this is a loss of usable energy by the plant. More surface area of leaf 90 deg to lite source equals more energy for flower production. As far as the osmotic properties of a saline solution and plant health its very simple. Foliar feeding can reduce the salt concentration within a plant since foliar feeds are generally low in ppm concentrations to avoid foliage burn(Not related to light burn). This in turn allows the medium in and around the(rhizosphere) to have a abruptly higher nutrient salt concentration which can and does pull moisture out of the plant. Just look up osmotic properties and movement of a saline solutions. Visible signs are often miss diagnosed as over-watering and letting the medium dry out only worsens the condition as the concentration of salt ppm's increase. This is why it is also important to slowly increase the ppm concentrations as to allow the plant to balance itself with the mediums concentration of salts. I also use a refractometer--but I use it to measure the brix--(sugar) concentration within the plant. I don't know if that's what your post was trying to say about the chlorophyll in the leaf after 4 hours following a foliar feed. Anyway I choose not to foliar for the above reasons. And those reasons have come from many years of hands on testing. I'm fairly open minded and have tried-----green thrive alive with b/AN colossal bud blast/humic/seaweed as foliars and/dutch master. But didn't give better results than I'm getting now and as a bonus I'm not adding more humidity to the mix which in turn can promote powdery mildew.

 

[Uncle Ben]

Here is another study done with seaweed used for foilar feeding and it effects on root mass.

Results depend on many factors, conclusions can not be drawn based solely on one outside influence. You're trying to make this a cut and dry, cause/effect relationship. Sorry, but botany doesn't work that way. I know it's easy to pick up a bottle of this and that, we all have the (human) need to believe in something great and powerful (enter religion, ideology, etc.), or need to believe in the current fads or trends, but it's never that easy, clear, or correct. The following truism is where most gardeners, cannabis or not, go wrong in their mode of thinking:

"Variations in plant materials and environmental conditions are greater determinants of plant health than applications of seaweed extract."

(or any other product for that matter). Let's break it down......

====================================================

Scientific literature

There is a substantial body of scientific literature on the application of seaweed extracts in agriculture, in some cases dating back nearly a century. Much of the earlier research suggested benefits from SE treatment, but more recent results have been cautious in recommending SE use. I’ve (Dr. Linda Chaulker) compiled a brief summary of these research findings:

1) Rooting

Logic suggests that the growth regulators found in SE, like any other commercially available rooting hormone, can stimulate root development on cuttings and transplants. This suggestion is borne out in research on both potatoes and pines in laboratory and greenhouse applications and could have use as a root dip during transplanting. Success would not be expected (nor has been found) in field applications to existing plants, as these compounds are quickly degraded by microbes and are unlikely to have any regulatory effect on nearby plant tissues.

2) Turf health

There has been some success in utilizing seaweed extracts as a turf-enhancing treatment. The predominant research has focused on Kentucky bluegrass, where SE applications have been associated
with improved seedling establishment, rooting, and increased drought and salinity tolerance. However, other research with the same plant material reported “little effect” after SE treatment. Seaweed extracts
are also reported to improve root growth of bentgrass and improve the “physical strength” of environmentally stressed turf.

3) Foliar growth

Other than the aforementioned turf benefits, there are few, if any documented advantages of SE application to plant foliage. Treatment of cabbage resulted in no change in either head yield or nutrient content; similarly in apple neither vegetative growth nor leaf mineral content were altered. Likewise, SE did not improve production of peppers or several species of herbaceous perennials.

4) Fruit size, yield and/or quality

Many studies have examined SE efficacy in improving fruit production. The most positive results appear to be in citrus production, where some trials revealed slight increases in fruit yield. Other work on oranges reported no effect on either sprouting or fruit set, however. Peaches gained firmness in response to one SE product, but neither they nor apricots exhibited any response to another SE product. Some apple varieties developed better fruit color after SE treatment, but none of the tested varieties showed
improvements in yield, weight, or mineral composition. Likewise, SE treatment had no effect on grain yield in wheat, persimmon production, strawberry or pepper yields, pear fruit set, or tomato yield or
quality.

5) Disease management

There are few reports of successful disease management through SE application. One positive result was found in potted cabbage seedlings, where damping-off disease was prevented by treatment with seaweed
extract. Other experiments on bacterial and fungal control have had less success. Grain treated with SE was no more resistant to subsequent fungal infection, but germination rates actually decreased as a result.
SE treatment of strawberry fungal infection and bacterial leaf spot in tomato had only a 33% success rate, while investigations on Alternaria leaf blight and peach leaf curl showed no effect.

6) Pest management

An early report 40 years ago suggested that seaweed extract would decrease red spider mite infestations. Nothing more has developed from that initial hypothesis, but a number of more recent papers have
documented the nematicidal activity of some seaweed extracts. Researchers have found reduced egg production and hatching and increased larval mortality in nematodes treated directly with seaweed
extract. Applied to greenhouse plants, seaweed extracts reduced nematode infestation of tomato plants and citrus species, but no effect was found on these latter plants in the field. Researchers have suggested
that plant maturity could influence effectiveness, with a greater benefit seen in younger plants compared to older, established trees in the field.

7) Environmental stress resistance

Virtually no success has been reported in this area; while the earlier-mentioned turf work suggested SE application improved salinity and drought tolerance, that effect does not carry over to other plant
materials. Herbaceous perennials treated with SE did not exhibit improved drought resistance, nor did SE treatment assist in plant growth or transplant survival of four common ornamental shrubs and trees. In
fact, untreated plants mulched with pine bark performed better than those that received a commercial product containing “a blend of endo- and ectomycorrhizal fungi, beneficial root/soil bacteria, chelated micronutrients and biocatalysts including humic acids, complex carbohydrates, yucca plant extract, sea kelp and organic N and P.”

In another study, compost was found to be more effective in drought
resistance than biostimulants including seaweed extracts.

Conclusions from researchers

1) Plant selection: “…working with resistant varieties seems to be the best solution [to disease resistance].”

2) Environmental conditions: “…soil fertility and production conditions were more important growth and yield determinants than were foliar sprays.”

3) Management techniques: “If proper planting techniques are followed, the use of biostimulants is unwarranted.”

4) Overall assessment: “…treatments are ultimately dependent on multiple plant, soil, and environmental factors, and often have no discernible effects.” “…there appears to be little value in applying these products.”

5) Marketing: “Manufacturers" claims for the benefits of these products go beyond what is substantiated by the research.” “The number of products now on the market seems to outnumber the published papers.”

These researchers’ conclusions say it all – seaweed extracts are aggressively marketed with little regard for objective, scientific research. There is a final concern never addressed, which is the justification for large-scale removal of vegetation from one ecosystem (the marine kelp “forests&#8221 for application to another (terrestrial landscapes). The ecological impacts of increased seaweed harvesting are currently under investigation and the possibility of significant ecosystem damage is real.

There is no argument that seaweed products are useful and valuable to humans for the reasons discussed earlier. However, given that there are few documented benefits from applying seaweed extracts to plants, this is not a justifiable nor sustainable practice. The marketing of such products as “earth friendly” in this context should be repugnant to environmentally conscious consumers.

======================================================
FROM:

Seaweed extracts, the myths:
http://www.puyallup.wsu.edu/~Linda%20Chalker-Scott/Horticultural%20Myths_files/Myths/Seaweed%20extracts.pdf

 

[spl1]

interesting read but here lies just one of the possible problems and also some discussion of the issues you presented. I will keep it as basic as possible. First off if your plants are reaching upward you probably have magnesium def showing. Think of leafs as solar cells for photosynthesis--you want them flat as possible to absorb the maximum amount of light-anything other than this is a loss of usable energy by the plant. More surface area of leaf 90 deg to lite source equals more energy for flower production. As far as the osmotic properties of a saline solution and plant health its very simple. Foliar feeding can reduce the salt concentration within a plant since foliar feeds are generally low in ppm concentrations to avoid foliage burn(Not related to light burn). This in turn allows the medium in and around the(rhizosphere) to have a abruptly higher nutrient salt concentration which can and does pull moisture out of the plant. Just look up osmotic properties and movement of a saline solutions. Visible signs are often miss diagnosed as over-watering and letting the medium dry out only worsens the condition as the concentration of salt ppm's increase. This is why it is also important to slowly increase the ppm concentrations as to allow the plant to balance itself with the mediums concentration of salts. I also use a refractometer--but I use it to measure the brix--(sugar) concentration within the plant. I don't know if that's what your post was trying to say about the chlorophyll in the leaf after 4 hours following a foliar feed. Anyway I choose not to foliar for the above reasons. And those reasons have come from many years of hands on testing. I'm fairly open minded and have tried-----green thrive alive with b/AN colossal bud blast/humic/seaweed as foliars and/dutch master. But didn't give better results than I'm getting now and as a bonus I'm not adding more humidity to the mix which in turn can promote powdery mildew.

Thanks again for stopping by, if you take a look at my test grows you will see there is no magnesium deficiency. I have nice green full leaves.

I am all to aware of what osmosis is had how it works. I have been building class 5000 clean rooms in bould for the last 8 years. Every bit of water needs to zero when used in a clean room.
Most of the reverse osmosis happens in the root level when inorganic salts are not converted to a usable ion this in fact creates an environment that can cause reverse osmosis to happen and the plant will suffer.

Once again were is the science that shows foliage feeding can reduce the salt concentration within a plant since foliar feeds are generally low in ppm concentrations to avoid foliage burn(Not related to light burn)
I run my foliage feeding wide open full nut, the same that the load that I water feed it. Remember the plant will only take in around 10% to 12% of the nut at the root level. Tissue cultures have proven this time and time and time again, in over 100 USA university studies.
I have not even taken in to account the rest of the world findings on this subject.

I would like to read the study and results were foliage feeds causes the the plant to have an reverse osmosis effect that causes a lower salt concentration in any plant. Every single study done shows the complete opposite, except were they just sprayed RO water with no minerals or vitamins in the water then you could have that problem.

Then again any living thing drinking strait RO water with no minerals or vitamins added with have that problem.

In 15 years I have never had a single mold problem, I keep my rooms around 30 to 35% humid and lots of air flow, plus my plant have a lot of enzyme activity on the leaves that help keep mold away, and this is do to foliage spraying stimulating the plant to increase enzyme activity both on the leaf and root zone.

 

[spl1]

Results depend on many factors, conclusions can not be drawn based solely on one outside influence. You're trying to make this a cut and dry, cause/effect relationship. Sorry, but botany doesn't work that way. I know it's easy to pick up a bottle of this and that, we all have the (human) need to believe in something great and powerful (enter religion, ideology, etc.), or need to believe in the current fads or trends, but it's never that easy, clear, or correct. The following truism is where most gardeners, cannabis or not, go wrong in their mode of thinking:

"Variations in plant materials and environmental conditions are greater determinants of plant health than applications of seaweed extract."

(or any other product for that matter). Let's break it down......

====================================================

Scientific literature

There is a substantial body of scientific literature on the application of seaweed extracts in agriculture, in some cases dating back nearly a century. Much of the earlier research suggested benefits from SE treatment, but more recent results have been cautious in recommending SE use. I’ve (Dr. Linda Chaulker) compiled a brief summary of these research findings:

1) Rooting

Logic suggests that the growth regulators found in SE, like any other commercially available rooting hormone, can stimulate root development on cuttings and transplants. This suggestion is borne out in research on both potatoes and pines in laboratory and greenhouse applications and could have use as a root dip during transplanting. Success would not be expected (nor has been found) in field applications to existing plants, as these compounds are quickly degraded by microbes and are unlikely to have any regulatory effect on nearby plant tissues.

2) Turf health

There has been some success in utilizing seaweed extracts as a turf-enhancing treatment. The predominant research has focused on Kentucky bluegrass, where SE applications have been associated
with improved seedling establishment, rooting, and increased drought and salinity tolerance. However, other research with the same plant material reported “little effect” after SE treatment. Seaweed extracts
are also reported to improve root growth of bentgrass and improve the “physical strength” of environmentally stressed turf.

3) Foliar growth

Other than the aforementioned turf benefits, there are few, if any documented advantages of SE application to plant foliage. Treatment of cabbage resulted in no change in either head yield or nutrient content; similarly in apple neither vegetative growth nor leaf mineral content were altered. Likewise, SE did not improve production of peppers or several species of herbaceous perennials.

4) Fruit size, yield and/or quality

Many studies have examined SE efficacy in improving fruit production. The most positive results appear to be in citrus production, where some trials revealed slight increases in fruit yield. Other work on oranges reported no effect on either sprouting or fruit set, however. Peaches gained firmness in response to one SE product, but neither they nor apricots exhibited any response to another SE product. Some apple varieties developed better fruit color after SE treatment, but none of the tested varieties showed
improvements in yield, weight, or mineral composition. Likewise, SE treatment had no effect on grain yield in wheat, persimmon production, strawberry or pepper yields, pear fruit set, or tomato yield or
quality.

5) Disease management

There are few reports of successful disease management through SE application. One positive result was found in potted cabbage seedlings, where damping-off disease was prevented by treatment with seaweed
extract. Other experiments on bacterial and fungal control have had less success. Grain treated with SE was no more resistant to subsequent fungal infection, but germination rates actually decreased as a result.
SE treatment of strawberry fungal infection and bacterial leaf spot in tomato had only a 33% success rate, while investigations on Alternaria leaf blight and peach leaf curl showed no effect.

6) Pest management

An early report 40 years ago suggested that seaweed extract would decrease red spider mite infestations. Nothing more has developed from that initial hypothesis, but a number of more recent papers have
documented the nematicidal activity of some seaweed extracts. Researchers have found reduced egg production and hatching and increased larval mortality in nematodes treated directly with seaweed
extract. Applied to greenhouse plants, seaweed extracts reduced nematode infestation of tomato plants and citrus species, but no effect was found on these latter plants in the field. Researchers have suggested
that plant maturity could influence effectiveness, with a greater benefit seen in younger plants compared to older, established trees in the field.

7) Environmental stress resistance

Virtually no success has been reported in this area; while the earlier-mentioned turf work suggested SE application improved salinity and drought tolerance, that effect does not carry over to other plant
materials. Herbaceous perennials treated with SE did not exhibit improved drought resistance, nor did SE treatment assist in plant growth or transplant survival of four common ornamental shrubs and trees. In
fact, untreated plants mulched with pine bark performed better than those that received a commercial product containing “a blend of endo- and ectomycorrhizal fungi, beneficial root/soil bacteria, chelated micronutrients and biocatalysts including humic acids, complex carbohydrates, yucca plant extract, sea kelp and organic N and P.”

In another study, compost was found to be more effective in drought
resistance than biostimulants including seaweed extracts.

Conclusions from researchers

1) Plant selection: “…working with resistant varieties seems to be the best solution [to disease resistance].”

2) Environmental conditions: “…soil fertility and production conditions were more important growth and yield determinants than were foliar sprays.”

3) Management techniques: “If proper planting techniques are followed, the use of biostimulants is unwarranted.”

4) Overall assessment: “…treatments are ultimately dependent on multiple plant, soil, and environmental factors, and often have no discernible effects.” “…there appears to be little value in applying these products.”

5) Marketing: “Manufacturers" claims for the benefits of these products go beyond what is substantiated by the research.” “The number of products now on the market seems to outnumber the published papers.”

These researchers’ conclusions say it all – seaweed extracts are aggressively marketed with little regard for objective, scientific research. There is a final concern never addressed, which is the justification for large-scale removal of vegetation from one ecosystem (the marine kelp “forests”) for application to another (terrestrial landscapes). The ecological impacts of increased seaweed harvesting are currently under investigation and the possibility of significant ecosystem damage is real.

There is no argument that seaweed products are useful and valuable to humans for the reasons discussed earlier. However, given that there are few documented benefits from applying seaweed extracts to plants, this is not a justifiable nor sustainable practice. The marketing of such products as “earth friendly” in this context should be repugnant to environmentally conscious consumers.

======================================================
FROM:

Seaweed extracts, the myths:
http://www.puyallup.wsu.edu/~Linda%20Chalker-Scott/Horticultural%20Myths_files/Myths/Seaweed%20extracts.pdf

She only published a paper with no study documentation to back up her findings???
Just like the polar ice story in the news and he got millions for that grant and never stepped out and did the work.

I find it strange UB that you rely so much on just one source to back up you idealism. When more than a 100 of her colleges claim different at other Universities.

Were is the links to the other claims, what universities have shown this with tissue samples?

I don't know about you but I never put all my eggs into one basket for investment, why would I do it when I grow?

If I put all my investment in one stock, I would be one of the guys crying why my money or my plants just don't produce like they should.

It is amazing how some people become complacent over the years.

 

[Uncle Ben]

She only published a paper with no study documentation to back up her findings???

Call her up. She can back up all of her findings.

I find it strange UB that you rely so much on just one source to back up you idealism. When more than a 100 of her colleges claim different at other Universities.

I'm not saying there is no value in using foliar sprays. Then again, I'm not saying there is value. I have been in this business too long. Often there is something flawed in their methods. You really have to dissect how they did their studies to come to a valid conclusion. For example, here is well done study: http://www.wynboer.co.za/recentarticles/200705miko.php3

Were is the links to the other claims, what universities have shown this with tissue samples?

Again, you need to ask her. She dispels many gardening myths based on her background. I don't know why she doesn't site a bibliography, guess she feels she doesn't have to. If put to the test, she can back up her positions.

At least one of the sites you linked us to is a seller of foliar products. That sux.

I don't know about you but I never put all my eggs into one basket for investment, why would I do it when I grow?

By pushing seaweed and foliar feeding, sounds like you have to me, reason why I posted "Variations in plant materials and environmental conditions are greater determinants of plant health than applications of seaweed extract."

....and for the record, here's a shot of ONE main cola of four at harvest since you seem quick to post anecdotal evidence. The other 3 were just as fat. This plant received no foliar sprays, no supplements, just plain ole well water, slow release high N fertilizer and some organics like bone and blood meal. No jeers please - if you've never grown pure sativa, then you will not understand why it doesn't look like some of your seedbank pimp ads. It has a much different structure than most mutts.

 

[spl1]

Call her up. She can back up all of her findings.

I have had email back and forth with her in the past few years. That's why I said her test were not on fruit bearing plants only landscape shrubbery.

I'm not saying there is no value in using foliar sprays. Then again, I'm not saying there is value. I have been in this business too long. Often there is something flawed in their methods. You really have to dissect how they did their studies to come to a valid conclusion. For example, here is well done study: http://www.wynboer.co.za/recentarticles/200705miko.php3

That's my next thread, and I have photos on this subject as to over all mass of plant to harvest size.

Great article, what it does not tell you is it helps the plant go from a 10% - 12% uptake to around 18% to 23% in ion uptake.

....and for the record, here's a shot of ONE main cola of four at harvest since you seem quick to post anecdotal evidence. The other 3 were just as fat. This plant received no foliar sprays, no supplements, just plain ole well water, slow release high N fertilizer and some organics like bone and blood meal. No jeers please - if you've never grown pure sativa, then you will not understand why it doesn't look like some of your seedbank pimp ads. It has a much different structure than most mutts.

That is a very nice bud UB I hope it brings many happy nights after all 4 colas cure.

Was that plant grown outside? or maybe in a green house? or moved outside during the day time?
I have never seen a sativa grow like that indoors under HPS light, only out doors in sunlight in my 15 years of farming.

Here is a couple of pics from my last test indoor grows that I did last year. I know have over 500 of these plants growing outdoors right now.

The first and last picture are of Thai Stick at four weeks into bloom
and the three middle pics are of a Ice strain.

I will be uploading some more outdoor grows of plants soon. So we can compare apples to apples.

 

[Uncle Ben]

Was that plant grown outside?

Outside.

I have never seen a sativa grow like that indoors under HPS light, only out doors in sunlight in my 15 years of farming.

I've done that well with Dalat sativa indoors.

Here is a couple of pics from my last test indoor grows that I did last year. I know have over 500 of these plants growing outdoors right now.

Nice! Good luck with your venture. IOW, make money! The Thai looks very much like the TFD ThaiTanic I grew. The leaves tend to cup. Dalat is the overhead shot in the #2 photo, rest are TT. Dalat colas were so heavy (stems so weak) I had to hold them up with dog chains.

 

[spl1]

Outside.

I've done that well with Dalat sativa indoors.

Nice! Good luck with your venture. IOW, make money! The Thai looks very much like the TFD ThaiTanic I grew. The leaves tend to cup. Dalat is the overhead shot in the #2 photo, rest are TT. Dalat colas were so heavy (stems so weak) I had to hold them up with dog chains.

Nice grows for sure UB happy smoking

 

[Huh??]

Lol
Pic 2 is pretty fucking sweet

 

[spl1]

UB what was the total dry weight of that monster from hellboy 1

 

[Lanzet99]

The lost art of foliar feeding

One of the things I see most people asking about how to increase their bud size, they want the newest big bloom gut buster on the market, and run out to send large amounts of money on it.

FOLIAR FEEDING is the easiest and cheapest ways to increase your size and weight, I use Miracle Grow for foliar feeding plants it works great, but just about any water soluble fertilizer will do. I take that the bottle says per gallon and dived it by 8 and that’s what I start per gallon on new just rooted clones or seedlings that have a true set of leaves. Mist very lightly in the first week.
In the second week I start to drench the leaf system with foliar spray, this will do a couple of things.

1.The plant will start to grow like hell this is due to the fact that it is taking in water and Nitrogen threw the leaf system.
2.This also makes the plant intake more fertz in the root and micro root level.
3.It will make the plant stem system stronger from the extra weight of water it is trying to keep the leaf system up. (Heavier Buds)
4.The best part is it helps keep the bugs from invading your plant, Mites do not like foliar sprays with fertz in them.

I try to foliar feed the plants on their wake up cycle doing this daily will grow big ass buds and monster plants.

The third week I step up the fertz to ¼ tsp per gallon and every week after I step it up until it is full strength or the plants shows signs of over nut burn, whichever comes first.
Also threw out the day you can mist with water to help the plant take more of the dried on Fertz and this also keeps the humidity up a little bit.

Now the flower cycle foliar feeding, I like to use Miracle Gro Bloom Booster with Superthrive.

I mix the bloom booster full strength and add ¼ tsp of superthrive per gallon of water and foliar feed with this for up to four weeks in flowering. Of course this is all dependent on the strain and flower time.
Superthrive does have growth hormones that do get absorbed in the leaf system right were the plant will be blooming and could possibly make the root system a little stronger. Since Superthrive has never been tested in a lab on Mary Jane, we can only go off of what it has been tested on.

I also add 1/4 tsp of dish soap per gallon to help the plant soak up nut threw the leaves by keeping the water wetter longer on the leaves.

Here is my full foliar mix during veg per gallon, the red is the minimum and the blue really kicks the plant into over drive:

1 tsp Miracle Gro all purpose plant food 24-8-16 (any water soluble plant food will work)
1/4 tsp (1ml) Superthrive
1/2 tsp (2ml) Dyna-Gro Pro-Tekt 0-0-3
1/4 tsp Epsom salt
1/4 tsp dish soap
1/4 (1ml) Folic Acid I use Humboldt Nutrients FlavorFul but any brand will work
1/4 (1ml) Humic Acid I use Humboldt Nutrients HumBolt but any brand will work
1/4 (1ml) Enzyme I use Humboldt Nutrients ProZyme but any brand will work

Here is my full foliar mix during Bloom per gallon, the red is the minimum and the blue really kicks the plant into over drive, I due this until I see a 1/4"DIA size buds on the top colas then I stop:

1 tsp Miracle-Gro Bloom Booster 15-30-15
1/4 tsp (1ml) Superthrive
1/2 tsp (2ml) Dyna-Gro Pro-Tekt 0-0-3
1/4 tsp Epsom Salt
1/4 tsp dish soap
1/4 (1ml) Folic Acid I use Humboldt Nutrients FlavorFul but any brand will work
1/4 (1ml) Humic Acid I use Humboldt Nutrients HumBolt but any brand will work
1/4 (1ml) Enzyme I use Humboldt Nutrients ProZyme but any brand will work
1 tsp (5ml) sweet carbohydrates I use Humboldt Nutrients Humboldt Honey but any brand will work
1 tsp (5Ml) Ginormous 0-18-16 this is made by Humboldt and it does what it claims

P.S. This is the same nut I feed all my dirt based plants and is use the same nut for the foliar, I like to keep it simple.

I hope you guys like this it has served me well for over 15 years.

hey i am runnin an ebb and flow and if i were to start foliar feeding would i still add nutes to the resevoir of my system or will foliar feeding be a sufficent way to deliver all the vital nutrients to my plants

 

[spl1]

hey i am runnin an ebb and flow and if i were to start foliar feeding would i still add nutes to the resevoir of my system or will foliar feeding be a sufficent way to deliver all the vital nutrients to my plants

Yes you would still add nut to the water

 

[Uncle Ben]

UB what was the total dry weight of that monster from hellboy 1

Don't remember.

hey i am runnin an ebb and flow and if i were to start foliar feeding would i still add nutes to the resevoir of my system or will foliar feeding be a sufficent way to deliver all the vital nutrients to my plants

If God wanted you to feed your plants thru their leaves, he would have hung roots on them.

 

[spl1]

Don't remember.



If God wanted you to feed your plants thru their leaves, he would have hung roots on them.

I God didn't want a plant or human to be able to absorb any chemicals threw are skin just like leaves we wouldn't be able to!

EPIDERMIS:
The epidermis is the outer layer of cells covering the leaf. It forms the boundary separating the plant's inner cells from the external world. The epidermis serves several functions: protection against water loss, regulation of gas exchange, secretion of metabolic compounds, and (in some species) absorption of water. Most leaves show dorsoventral anatomy: the upper (adaxial) and lower (abaxial) surfaces have somewhat different construction and may serve different functions.
The epidermis is usually transparent (epidermal cells lack chloroplasts) and coated on the outer side with a waxy cuticle that prevents water loss. The cuticle is in some cases thinner on the lower epidermis than on the upper epidermis, and is thicker on leaves from dry climates as compared with those from wet climates.
The epidermis tissue includes several differentiated cell types: epidermal cells, guard cells, subsidiary cells, and epidermal hairs (trichomes). The epidermal cells are the most numerous, largest, and least specialized. These are typically more elongated in the leaves of monocots than in those of dicots.
The epidermis is covered with pores called stomata , part of a stoma complex consisting of a pore surrounded on each side by chloroplast-containing guard cells, and two to four subsidiary cells that lack chloroplasts. The stoma complex regulates the exchange of gases and water vapor between the outside air and the interior of the leaf. Typically, the stomata are more numerous over the abaxial (lower) epidermis than the adaxial (upper) epidermis.

There is more to a leaf than just this part of a post , but this is the one that counts for this thread.

MMJ absorbs water threw the leaves, this is proven by every member on this website that sprays there clones to keep them hydrated when there rooting!