Advanced Nutrients B-52. Is it worth the price?
- Thread starter fendre
- Start date
ScoobyDoobyDoo
Well-Known Member
since you clearly can't do your own homework...here's a few links. i'll trust the people at these universities before i take your word for it.
http://www.almadenvalleynursery.com/site/breaking-the-vitamin-b-1myth-articles.php
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1216/is_n5_v188/ai_12252342/
http://ag.arizona.edu/yavapai/anr/hort/byg/archive/vitaminb1androotstimulators.html
decrimCA
Active Member
Once again, Scooby has the deets.
I've been using B-52 for a while now, and I love it. And now I know why. ha ha
I've been using B-52 for a while now, and I love it. And now I know why. ha ha
hooked.on.ponics
Well-Known Member
I don't think we're arguing nearly as opposite points as you think we are.
I'm just saying they don't tell you that you have to use foliar feeding. I agree that B-52 works great. It works about the same (IMO) whether you foliar feed or root feed it.
And if you ask them again you'll probably get the same answer I did when I asked them.
jedijoey323
Member
B vitamins should only be given to plants when they are going to be stressed superthrive and b52 are the same thing except superthrive has hormones which makes it ideal for cloning.. vitamino by botanicare and b52 are the exact same but vitamino is cheaper advanced just says its designed for cannabis and so they chose to charge more and people fall for it dont fall for there marketing gimmicks
Scotch089
Well-Known Member
I was recently given 3 little (pint, woo...) samples of Botanicare's Vitamino and was told that the amino acids, etc in it stimulated the transportation and use of Cal and Mag. (ie. faster growth yada yada)
Running RO Water sittin' at 10ppm I run through quite a bit of Bot. Cal/Mag+ so I was like "hell yea let's try it out" you know?
Well... I started with 5ml just to see what it was going to do to the TDS...nothin'... I put 10 more....nothin... Long story short I had put 40ml to app. 9 gallons and there was a MASSIVE 6ppm sway!
What the F*@! is this stuff?? Checked the ingredients and its nothing abstract.
New to the forum game, but would love to know what the wrap is about this shit, no solubles in a solution thats supposed to speed up growth?? hmmm..
The real twist---I changed my veg res about.....36 hours ago, the indica dominant Tangerine Dream has been eatin' up everything I throw at it and since the addition of Vitamino has perked up a tick and the new growth is VERY light, too the point that the yellow is almost a white and the tips are rolling under more than usual. Im gonna ride it out and see what it develops into before I act blindly.
But could this be a sign of hastened use of Calcium and Magnesium? or any other nutrients for that matter..
-tied to what JediJoey had just said, ie. Calcium used in new root growth, so vitamino/b-52 is kickstarting that transportation of calcium and magnesium=better cloning, etc.
Make sense to anybody else? care to clarify?
Scotch
Running RO Water sittin' at 10ppm I run through quite a bit of Bot. Cal/Mag+ so I was like "hell yea let's try it out" you know?
Well... I started with 5ml just to see what it was going to do to the TDS...nothin'... I put 10 more....nothin... Long story short I had put 40ml to app. 9 gallons and there was a MASSIVE 6ppm sway!
What the F*@! is this stuff?? Checked the ingredients and its nothing abstract.
New to the forum game, but would love to know what the wrap is about this shit, no solubles in a solution thats supposed to speed up growth?? hmmm..
The real twist---I changed my veg res about.....36 hours ago, the indica dominant Tangerine Dream has been eatin' up everything I throw at it and since the addition of Vitamino has perked up a tick and the new growth is VERY light, too the point that the yellow is almost a white and the tips are rolling under more than usual. Im gonna ride it out and see what it develops into before I act blindly.
But could this be a sign of hastened use of Calcium and Magnesium? or any other nutrients for that matter..
-tied to what JediJoey had just said, ie. Calcium used in new root growth, so vitamino/b-52 is kickstarting that transportation of calcium and magnesium=better cloning, etc.
Make sense to anybody else? care to clarify?
Scotch
hotrodharley
Well-Known Member
Thanks, Scoob! Green Light and Dr. Earth are now on my "Buy" list. B-52 is not.
hotrodharley
Well-Known Member
Thanks, Scoob! Green Light and Dr. Earth are now on my "Buy" list. B-52 is already in the clip.
iSmokealottaweed
Active Member
Here's a good link that gives a full breakdown on B-52 from AN. The most detailed info i've seen on it so far.
This is also a quote from the link below.
"When transplanting, dip roots in B-52 to reduce stress and speed up recovery from transplanting. Mix at 3mL / L and soak the roots for 10 - 15 mins. "
Also works well as a foliar spray
Check it out: http://www.an-europe.com/advancepedia/hydroponics-nutrients/b52.html
This is also a quote from the link below.
"When transplanting, dip roots in B-52 to reduce stress and speed up recovery from transplanting. Mix at 3mL / L and soak the roots for 10 - 15 mins. "
Also works well as a foliar spray
Check it out: http://www.an-europe.com/advancepedia/hydroponics-nutrients/b52.html
connoisseurde420
Well-Known Member
okay my input here is that b52 is 5-6 different b vitamins instead of just one like vitamino. read up on amino acids they do a ton of things that make the plant use light more efficiently ie more growth. in advanced bigbud is their amino and b52 is their b vitamins. the organic b has only one b1 vitamin in it like vitamino
amino info: http://www.priyachem.com/effect.htm
interesting discussion about b viatmin i use b52 in my soil never foliar with it but i can contest that my leaves were flat before using it and pointing upwards next day..... so i know there was some positive effect on the plants.
amino info: http://www.priyachem.com/effect.htm
interesting discussion about b viatmin i use b52 in my soil never foliar with it but i can contest that my leaves were flat before using it and pointing upwards next day..... so i know there was some positive effect on the plants.
treeburner
Member
Well, I haven't done a side by side, but I have used B-52 and found it to be pretty awesome. Stronger plants, heavier harvests. To me, that's enough proof.
Gotta say though, I'd be interested in finding out more from other growers. I love side by side tests!
(Mostly since I don't have to do them. LOL)
YES YES YES!!!!!!!!!!
I agree with this completely!!!
AN are and have been a top nutients maker and supplier,there is a reason for that,as above they test test test,
this sounds really bad but i dont mean it like that,but every time i hear someone say AN is not good is nearly 100% because of the price,not because they havent had results, that tells me that either they cant afford it but would love to be able to.and the few that have bought it and said they had no results thati know never even gave it time to work,
all this makes me sound like i have been useing it for years but that is not the case,this is only the second grow iv used AN but there is no doupt that it has worked and not just a little,
so if you dont buy cos they are so expensive then think about how much your plant mean to you and if they mean enough then you might want to try,and remember if it doesnt work send it back!! simple,,but i bet that not many will send it back
as above said above
YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR!!!!!
by the way i have done a side by side on the first grow and iv never looked back since the roots colour size everything was better overall,
tho i have to say that was with the bigger yeilds system not just b 52
budman111
Well-Known Member
What is it that you "like" about it?
Uncle Pirate
Active Member
B vitamins are snake oil, period.
http://www.puyallup.wsu.edu/~Linda Chalker-Scott/Horticultural Myths_files/Myths/Vitamin B1.pdf
http://www.puyallup.wsu.edu/~Linda%20Chalker-Scott/Horticultural%20Myths_files/index.html
Linda Chalker-Scott, Ph.D., Extension Horticulturist and Associate Professor,
Puyallup Research and Extension Center, Washington State University
The Myth of Vitamin Stimulants:
"Vitamin B-1 reduces transplant shock by stimulating new root growth"
The Myth
Ever seen this advertisement? “[Product X, which contains vitamin B-1] stimulates the quick formation
of new root hairs and revitalizes the delicate feeder roots that are often damaged in transplanting. [Product
X] is especially designed to hasten the development of bareroot roses, shrubs, shade trees and bedding
plants that have been moved to new locations. Ithelps plants become established quickly and ensures
vigorous growth.” Another adds a little scientific terminology to convince you: “Vitamin B-1 (plus minor
elements and chelating agents) is great for root growth and helps reduce transplant shock.” Or how about
this one? “The combination of Vitamin B-1 withessential micro nutrients forms a highly effective
mixture...and lessens the chances of transplant shock and plant stress.”
Aren’t you convinced that if you don’t use products with Vitamin B-1 your transplants will suffer?
Apparently administrators at one large universityare. Under their “Typical Tree Protection and
Relocation Specifications” is the following: “48 hours prior to cutting, an application of vitamin B-1
shall be administered to the rootball of the tree.” If a university requires this practice, it must be
legitimate, right?
The Reality
Applying vitamin B-1, or thiamine, to root systems ofwhole plants does not stimulate root growth. This
is a myth that refuses to die, though it has been repeatedly refuted in the scientific literature. To
understand why, it helps to think about this in a historical perspective.
Many decades ago the plant growth regulators called auxins were isolated and characterized. Auxins
were found to stimulate cell elongation in both root and shoot tissues. Commercial preparations were
developed that contained auxin and vitamin B-1 among other ingredients. Research in 1949 found
improved root development in plants treated with one of these preparations (Transplantone, which
contains both auxin and thiamine), but noted the importance of auxins in this response. Further research
throughout the last half of the 20th
century investigating the application of auxins to root systems
suggested that auxins may stimulate root growth, but that vitamin B-1 on its own does not.
So what does work for stimulating root growth and reducing transplant shock? A review of the historical
and current literature suggests the following:
Indole butyric acid (IBA) is one of the most common auxin formulations especially in tissue culture. In
cuttings, it has been found to increase the number of roots, to increase rooting percentage, to increase
both parameters, or to do neither. IBA has had some success in root regeneration in transplanted trees; it
may help redirect resources to the roots by suppressing crown growth.
Naphthylacetic acid (NAA) is also a commonly used auxin and often the active ingredient in commercial
preparations. NAA tends to be toxic to seedling root development, as it inhibits primary root growth and
enhances lateral root growth. This latter activitymay account for NAA’s success in regenerating roots of
transplanted and root-pruned trees. Like IBA, NAA apparently suppresses crown growth, which also may
redirect resources to the roots.
http://www.puyallup.wsu.edu/~Linda Chalker-Scott/Horticultural Myths_files/Myths/Vitamin B1.pdf
http://www.puyallup.wsu.edu/~Linda%20Chalker-Scott/Horticultural%20Myths_files/index.html
Linda Chalker-Scott, Ph.D., Extension Horticulturist and Associate Professor,
Puyallup Research and Extension Center, Washington State University
The Myth of Vitamin Stimulants:
"Vitamin B-1 reduces transplant shock by stimulating new root growth"
The Myth
Ever seen this advertisement? “[Product X, which contains vitamin B-1] stimulates the quick formation
of new root hairs and revitalizes the delicate feeder roots that are often damaged in transplanting. [Product
X] is especially designed to hasten the development of bareroot roses, shrubs, shade trees and bedding
plants that have been moved to new locations. Ithelps plants become established quickly and ensures
vigorous growth.” Another adds a little scientific terminology to convince you: “Vitamin B-1 (plus minor
elements and chelating agents) is great for root growth and helps reduce transplant shock.” Or how about
this one? “The combination of Vitamin B-1 withessential micro nutrients forms a highly effective
mixture...and lessens the chances of transplant shock and plant stress.”
Aren’t you convinced that if you don’t use products with Vitamin B-1 your transplants will suffer?
Apparently administrators at one large universityare. Under their “Typical Tree Protection and
Relocation Specifications” is the following: “48 hours prior to cutting, an application of vitamin B-1
shall be administered to the rootball of the tree.” If a university requires this practice, it must be
legitimate, right?
The Reality
Applying vitamin B-1, or thiamine, to root systems ofwhole plants does not stimulate root growth. This
is a myth that refuses to die, though it has been repeatedly refuted in the scientific literature. To
understand why, it helps to think about this in a historical perspective.
Many decades ago the plant growth regulators called auxins were isolated and characterized. Auxins
were found to stimulate cell elongation in both root and shoot tissues. Commercial preparations were
developed that contained auxin and vitamin B-1 among other ingredients. Research in 1949 found
improved root development in plants treated with one of these preparations (Transplantone, which
contains both auxin and thiamine), but noted the importance of auxins in this response. Further research
throughout the last half of the 20th
century investigating the application of auxins to root systems
suggested that auxins may stimulate root growth, but that vitamin B-1 on its own does not.
So what does work for stimulating root growth and reducing transplant shock? A review of the historical
and current literature suggests the following:
Indole butyric acid (IBA) is one of the most common auxin formulations especially in tissue culture. In
cuttings, it has been found to increase the number of roots, to increase rooting percentage, to increase
both parameters, or to do neither. IBA has had some success in root regeneration in transplanted trees; it
may help redirect resources to the roots by suppressing crown growth.
Naphthylacetic acid (NAA) is also a commonly used auxin and often the active ingredient in commercial
preparations. NAA tends to be toxic to seedling root development, as it inhibits primary root growth and
enhances lateral root growth. This latter activitymay account for NAA’s success in regenerating roots of
transplanted and root-pruned trees. Like IBA, NAA apparently suppresses crown growth, which also may
redirect resources to the roots.
budman111
Well-Known Member
been telling them this for years.
ru4r34l
Well-Known Member
Have you tried B-vitamins in your grow room to make this claim?
A single article with no direct research on B vitamins does not constitute a myth has been revealed
no matter the author or the qualifications.Here is opposing research that is ongoing right now that claims B vitamins do in fact have a life cycle and requirements in a plant physiology.
and here's some more links to opposing research
- https://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/offices/research/documents/local/events/downloads/fd/Alison_Smith.pdf
- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1176421/
- http://ozelacademy.com/OJAS_v2n2_4.pdf
Same question to you, have you tried B-vitamins in your grow room to make this claim?
Now I have used AN's B-52 product in side by side grows and have come to my own conclusion that is not necessary as I do not see a noticable difference from the plants grown with the addition of b vitamins, also since removing B-52 from my nutrients there has been no noticeable change in quality/harvest.
Food for thought?
regards,
Uncle Pirate
Active Member
Yes, I've tried different B-1 products over the years and it never made any difference. Not even a little. I should have said b1 products are snake oil, not b1 (thiamine) itself. The quoted section you provided, simply states the effects of (naturally occurring, not supplemented) B1 in a plant. One link cited Casimir Funk in 1912, 100 years ago (bunk).
And another link you provided experimented by spraying (concentrated) thiamine on the leaves of rice shortly before inoculating with a particular disease through the leaves. This is not from adding superthrive or b52 or any other product to the water to be taken in by the roots. It was an extremely controlled experiment using equipment and chemicals and certain diseases. Also, the effects of the sprayed thiamine were short lived. Also, they used 50 nm of thiamine to spray which is extremely concentrated compared to the amount you'll get in a dose of superthrive or b52 (both of which are fed to roots, not foliar fed). None of the links supported root stimulation. I still say Superthrive, B52 and related products are snake oil.
From your link
"
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Plant Materials and Chemical Treatments
The rice (Oryza sativa) cultivars Hwacheong and Nakdong were grown in a greenhouse, as described (Kim et al., 2001b). The tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum) cultivar Samsun NN and the cucumber (Cucumis sativus) cultivar Sunmi Baekdadaki were grown in a greenhouse at 25°C to 30°C under natural light. Seeds of the Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana ecotype Col-0) and mutants (npr1, etr1, and jar1) in this line were obtained from The Arabidopsis Information Resource (TAIR). Transgenic Col-0 containing the nahG gene was kindly provided by Dr. X. Dong (Duke University, Durham, NC). Arabidopsis plants were grown in a growth chamber at 22°C and 65% to 70% relative humidity, with 16 h of illumination daily. Four- to 5-week-old rice, cucumber, and Arabidopsis plants and 2-month-old tobacco plants were used for chemical treatments. The plants were sprayed with 250 μg mL[SUP]−1[/SUP] Tween 80 (mock) or 50 mm thiamine, 1 mm TMP, or 1 mm TPP (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis) supplemented with 250 μg mL[SUP]−1[/SUP] Tween 80 at 4 h prior to pathogen inoculation, unless stated otherwise. The calcium ion inhibitor LaCl[SUB]3[/SUB], which blocks plasma membrane calcium channels, was used in an aqueous solution. Four hours after spraying of Arabidopsis Col-0 plants with 50 mm thiamine, 1 mm LaCl[SUB]3[/SUB] was infiltrated into the leaves using a needleless syringe.
Pathogen Maintenance and Inoculation
The effects of thiamine on disease progress were examined to evaluate its disease inhibitory activity. Magnaporthe grisea strain KJ201 and Xanthomonas oryzae pv oryzae strain KXO21, the causal agents of rice blast and bacterial leaf blight, respectively, were propagated and inoculated onto leaves of the rice cultivars Hwacheong and Nakdong, as described (Kim et al., 2001b). The disease severities and the lesion lengths were assessed according to the rating scale of the International Rice Research Institute (198
. PMMoV was maintained and inoculated on tobacco leaves as described by Ahn et al. (2002), and in planta propagation of PMMoV was measured by northern-blot hybridization analysis using a reverse transcription (RT)-PCR product of the viral RNA as the probe. Colletotrichum lagenarium, the causal pathogen of cucumber anthracnose, was propagated on green bean agar (Goode, 1958) and inoculated on cucumber plants as described by Raupach and Kloepper (199. Seven days after pathogen challenge, the second and third leaves of each plant were assessed for anthracnose disease, the percent of the leaf area that was diseased was recorded, and the leaf was photographed. Pst DC 3000 was cultivated on the King's medium B containing 50 μg mL[SUP]−1[/SUP] rifampicin for 2 d at 28°C. To inoculate Arabidopsis with Pst DC 3000, bacterial cells were retrieved from medium containing 10 mm MgCl[SUB]2[/SUB] and 250 μg mL[SUP]−1[/SUP] Tween 80, and the concentration was adjusted to 10[SUP]7[/SUP] CFU mL[SUP]−1[/SUP]. At least 20 plants of the Arabidopsis ecotype Col-0 or mutants in this line were inoculated by spraying with the bacterial suspension until all of the leaves were covered with fine droplets. The inoculated plants were kept in a dew chamber for 16 h at 25°C and 100% relative humidity and then transferred to a growth chamber with a 16:8-h light:dark regime at 25°C and 80% relative humidity. The disease severity was assessed at 3 d after inoculation by determining the CFU within 0.1 g (fresh weight) of Arabidopsis leaves from five plants through plating appropriate dilutions on King's B medium containing 50 μg mL[SUP]−1[/SUP] rifampicin.
Effect of Thiamine on Pathogen Growth
Mycelial blocks (0.6 cm in diameter) of M. grisea strain KJ201 were cultured on potato dextrose agar supplemented with 0, 5, 10, 20, or 50 mm thiamine at 25°C for 7 d, after which the diameters of the fungal colonies were measured. X. oryzae pv oryzae strain KXO21 was cultured in 50 mL of nutrient broth containing equal concentrations of thiamine on a shaker at 150 rpm and 28°C for 48 h. The cultures were started by adding 500 μL of sterile distilled water or bacterial inoculum (4.8×10[SUP]5[/SUP] CFU). The populations of bacteria in the suspension cultures were estimated by counting the CFU after appropriate dilution on peptone-Suc agar. Five replicates were performed for each pathogen and thiamine concentration.
Determination of the Duration of the Control Period
To estimate the length of the control effect by thiamine, the rice cultivar Hwacheong was inoculated with conidial suspensions of M. grisea strain KJ201 at 4 h, 3 d, 7 d, and 15 d after spraying with thiamine, and the disease progress was evaluated as described above.
Systemic Translocation of Thiamine-Mediated Defense Signals
To investigate the systemic translocation of defense responses induced by thiamine treatment, rosettes sprayed with 50 mm thiamine and mock-treated upper cauline leaves were harvested from the same plant at 24 h after treatment in the presence or absence of Pst DC 3000 inoculation. The stems and cauline leaves were completely covered with plastic wrap while the rosette leaves were sprayed with thiamine, and the plastic was not removed until the chemical droplets had dried completely. The expression of the PR-1 gene in the rosette and cauline leaves was assayed using northern-blot hybridization analysis.
RNA Extraction and Northern-Blot Hybridization Analysis
Total RNA was extracted from inoculated and/or thiamine-treated plants and control plants using the lithium chloride precipitation method (Davis and Ausubel, 1989). For hybridization analysis, 15 μg of total RNA were separated electrophoretically in denaturing formaldehyde-agarose gels (8% formaldehyde, 0.5× MOPS, 1.5% agarose) and blotted onto Hybond-N+ membrane (Amersham Pharmacia Biotech, Buckinghamshire, UK) by capillary transfer. RNA gel blots were hybridized and washed as described (Kim et al., 2001b) and exposed to x-ray film (Agfa-Gevaert N.V., ISO 9001, Mechelen, Belgium). DNA probes were labeled with [[SUP]32[/SUP]P]dCTP using random primer labeling (Boehringer Mannheim, Tutzing, Germany). The tobacco PR-1a, PAL, and HMGR genes and the cucumber acidic peroxidase (POX) gene were kindly provided by Dr. Doil Choi at the Korea Research Institute of Bioscience and Biotechnology and Dr. Hiroshi Ishii at the National Institute of Agro-Environmental Sciences, Japan.
And another link you provided experimented by spraying (concentrated) thiamine on the leaves of rice shortly before inoculating with a particular disease through the leaves. This is not from adding superthrive or b52 or any other product to the water to be taken in by the roots. It was an extremely controlled experiment using equipment and chemicals and certain diseases. Also, the effects of the sprayed thiamine were short lived. Also, they used 50 nm of thiamine to spray which is extremely concentrated compared to the amount you'll get in a dose of superthrive or b52 (both of which are fed to roots, not foliar fed). None of the links supported root stimulation. I still say Superthrive, B52 and related products are snake oil.
From your link
"
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Plant Materials and Chemical Treatments
The rice (Oryza sativa) cultivars Hwacheong and Nakdong were grown in a greenhouse, as described (Kim et al., 2001b). The tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum) cultivar Samsun NN and the cucumber (Cucumis sativus) cultivar Sunmi Baekdadaki were grown in a greenhouse at 25°C to 30°C under natural light. Seeds of the Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana ecotype Col-0) and mutants (npr1, etr1, and jar1) in this line were obtained from The Arabidopsis Information Resource (TAIR). Transgenic Col-0 containing the nahG gene was kindly provided by Dr. X. Dong (Duke University, Durham, NC). Arabidopsis plants were grown in a growth chamber at 22°C and 65% to 70% relative humidity, with 16 h of illumination daily. Four- to 5-week-old rice, cucumber, and Arabidopsis plants and 2-month-old tobacco plants were used for chemical treatments. The plants were sprayed with 250 μg mL[SUP]−1[/SUP] Tween 80 (mock) or 50 mm thiamine, 1 mm TMP, or 1 mm TPP (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis) supplemented with 250 μg mL[SUP]−1[/SUP] Tween 80 at 4 h prior to pathogen inoculation, unless stated otherwise. The calcium ion inhibitor LaCl[SUB]3[/SUB], which blocks plasma membrane calcium channels, was used in an aqueous solution. Four hours after spraying of Arabidopsis Col-0 plants with 50 mm thiamine, 1 mm LaCl[SUB]3[/SUB] was infiltrated into the leaves using a needleless syringe.
Pathogen Maintenance and Inoculation
The effects of thiamine on disease progress were examined to evaluate its disease inhibitory activity. Magnaporthe grisea strain KJ201 and Xanthomonas oryzae pv oryzae strain KXO21, the causal agents of rice blast and bacterial leaf blight, respectively, were propagated and inoculated onto leaves of the rice cultivars Hwacheong and Nakdong, as described (Kim et al., 2001b). The disease severities and the lesion lengths were assessed according to the rating scale of the International Rice Research Institute (198
. PMMoV was maintained and inoculated on tobacco leaves as described by Ahn et al. (2002), and in planta propagation of PMMoV was measured by northern-blot hybridization analysis using a reverse transcription (RT)-PCR product of the viral RNA as the probe. Colletotrichum lagenarium, the causal pathogen of cucumber anthracnose, was propagated on green bean agar (Goode, 1958) and inoculated on cucumber plants as described by Raupach and Kloepper (199. Seven days after pathogen challenge, the second and third leaves of each plant were assessed for anthracnose disease, the percent of the leaf area that was diseased was recorded, and the leaf was photographed. Pst DC 3000 was cultivated on the King's medium B containing 50 μg mL[SUP]−1[/SUP] rifampicin for 2 d at 28°C. To inoculate Arabidopsis with Pst DC 3000, bacterial cells were retrieved from medium containing 10 mm MgCl[SUB]2[/SUB] and 250 μg mL[SUP]−1[/SUP] Tween 80, and the concentration was adjusted to 10[SUP]7[/SUP] CFU mL[SUP]−1[/SUP]. At least 20 plants of the Arabidopsis ecotype Col-0 or mutants in this line were inoculated by spraying with the bacterial suspension until all of the leaves were covered with fine droplets. The inoculated plants were kept in a dew chamber for 16 h at 25°C and 100% relative humidity and then transferred to a growth chamber with a 16:8-h light:dark regime at 25°C and 80% relative humidity. The disease severity was assessed at 3 d after inoculation by determining the CFU within 0.1 g (fresh weight) of Arabidopsis leaves from five plants through plating appropriate dilutions on King's B medium containing 50 μg mL[SUP]−1[/SUP] rifampicin.Effect of Thiamine on Pathogen Growth
Mycelial blocks (0.6 cm in diameter) of M. grisea strain KJ201 were cultured on potato dextrose agar supplemented with 0, 5, 10, 20, or 50 mm thiamine at 25°C for 7 d, after which the diameters of the fungal colonies were measured. X. oryzae pv oryzae strain KXO21 was cultured in 50 mL of nutrient broth containing equal concentrations of thiamine on a shaker at 150 rpm and 28°C for 48 h. The cultures were started by adding 500 μL of sterile distilled water or bacterial inoculum (4.8×10[SUP]5[/SUP] CFU). The populations of bacteria in the suspension cultures were estimated by counting the CFU after appropriate dilution on peptone-Suc agar. Five replicates were performed for each pathogen and thiamine concentration.
Determination of the Duration of the Control Period
To estimate the length of the control effect by thiamine, the rice cultivar Hwacheong was inoculated with conidial suspensions of M. grisea strain KJ201 at 4 h, 3 d, 7 d, and 15 d after spraying with thiamine, and the disease progress was evaluated as described above.
Systemic Translocation of Thiamine-Mediated Defense Signals
To investigate the systemic translocation of defense responses induced by thiamine treatment, rosettes sprayed with 50 mm thiamine and mock-treated upper cauline leaves were harvested from the same plant at 24 h after treatment in the presence or absence of Pst DC 3000 inoculation. The stems and cauline leaves were completely covered with plastic wrap while the rosette leaves were sprayed with thiamine, and the plastic was not removed until the chemical droplets had dried completely. The expression of the PR-1 gene in the rosette and cauline leaves was assayed using northern-blot hybridization analysis.
RNA Extraction and Northern-Blot Hybridization Analysis
Total RNA was extracted from inoculated and/or thiamine-treated plants and control plants using the lithium chloride precipitation method (Davis and Ausubel, 1989). For hybridization analysis, 15 μg of total RNA were separated electrophoretically in denaturing formaldehyde-agarose gels (8% formaldehyde, 0.5× MOPS, 1.5% agarose) and blotted onto Hybond-N+ membrane (Amersham Pharmacia Biotech, Buckinghamshire, UK) by capillary transfer. RNA gel blots were hybridized and washed as described (Kim et al., 2001b) and exposed to x-ray film (Agfa-Gevaert N.V., ISO 9001, Mechelen, Belgium). DNA probes were labeled with [[SUP]32[/SUP]P]dCTP using random primer labeling (Boehringer Mannheim, Tutzing, Germany). The tobacco PR-1a, PAL, and HMGR genes and the cucumber acidic peroxidase (POX) gene were kindly provided by Dr. Doil Choi at the Korea Research Institute of Bioscience and Biotechnology and Dr. Hiroshi Ishii at the National Institute of Agro-Environmental Sciences, Japan.
Uncle Pirate
Active Member
budman111
Well-Known Member
Yes, i tried the superthrive and it was uselessly not needed it did nothing and i poured it away outside.
Nothing beats knowledge, a good heatmat, a healthy mother/seedlings and good genetics with proper light.
Here is some advice from Robert Cox, Horticulture Agent, Colorado State University and states an obscure study in the 1930's provided the basis for such claims that the vitamin B1 is for marketing purposes rather than actual effect.
http://www.colostate.edu/Depts/CoopExt/4DMG/Garden/beware.htm