Banditt
Well-Known Member
what about promix or coco? Come on man....Molasses has its place.
Molasses doesnt do anything
- Thread starter 1weedz4
- Start date
what about promix or coco? Come on man....Molasses has its place.
T Ray
Well-Known Member
Well my medium is Subcool's supersoil (which includes using bud candy and sucanat (sugars) ) and his shit seems to get pretty good results considering his pic's are virtually in any respected marijuana mag. I personally have seen the results and you can check them on my profile page albums and again tell me that my medium is bad. Too funny. Put your foot back in your mouth bud.
homebrewer
Well-Known Member
http://farmingsweetbay.wordpress.com/2011/03/26/unsustainable-chemical-fertilizer-ideology-and-reality-collide/
www.metafro.be/leisa/1990/6-3-8.pdf
The blanket statement that 'chemical fertilizers' kill microbial life is not true. Certainly in some cases and situations where too much is used, but you'll also kill the plant too.
T Ray
Well-Known Member
Another source here that back's up his claims with extensive research and explanations of each claim.
Read the whole article and check the sources b/c I think he's done a little more research and analysis on the subject than you my friend. And he seems to think that sugars are definitely beneficial and backs up his claims with sources. I tend to only listen to people who have proof to back up their claims son.
From http://home.roadrunner.com/~krisjohnson/Garden/GardeningforMaximumNutrition.htm
Read the whole article and check the sources b/c I think he's done a little more research and analysis on the subject than you my friend. And he seems to think that sugars are definitely beneficial and backs up his claims with sources. I tend to only listen to people who have proof to back up their claims son.
T Ray
Well-Known Member
I never said all synthetic fertilizers. I said "Jeff Lowenfel's has wrote many many times that the synthetic salts/fertilizers kills the micro's."
And yes it is true it says it in your source that said
And it doesn't say anything about them being harmful b/c "too much is used". It just says that "THEY DO HURT SOIL ECOLOGY."
Brick Top
New Member
[FONT=VERDANA,ARIAL,HELVITICA][FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica][FONT=VERDANA,ARIAL,HELVITICA][FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica][FONT=VERDANA,ARIAL,HELVITICA][FONT=VERDANA,ARIAL,HELVITICA][FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica][FONT=VERDANA,ARIAL,HELVITICA][FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica]
[FONT=VERDANA,ARIAL,HELVITICA] Frequently we see statements in the lay literature about chemical fertilizers killing soil microbes or, worse yet, statements indicating these management inputs "sterilize" the soil. Statements such as these should be viewed with much skepticism! Remember that as we learned in FAQ #1, the soil can contain tons of microbes. Short of incineration its hard to imagine a stress in a soil that would lead to complete extermination of the microbial populations. It is true that some inputs, e.g., anhydrous ammonia, cause reductions in microbial numbers in the immediate vicinity of the application. After all, ammonia is a toxic gas. However, it quickly equilibrates with the soil solution in the form of ammonium ions and the toxicity subsides. Certain pesticides have been shown to cause similar transient reductions in selected microbial population. But remember, in some cases the microbes simply view these chemicals as food and degrade them fairly quickly.
[FONT=VERDANA,ARIAL,HELVITICA][FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica][FONT=VERDANA,ARIAL,HELVITICA][FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica][FONT=VERDANA,ARIAL,HELVITICA][FONT=VERDANA,ARIAL,HELVITICA][FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica][FONT=VERDANA,ARIAL,HELVITICA][FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica][FONT=VERDANA,ARIAL,HELVITICA]Organic fertilizers circumvent the criticisms leveled at "synthetic" fertilizers but it should not be forgotten that plants take up nitrogen in the form of ammonium (NH4+) or nitrate (NO3-) ions regardless of whether it was mineralized from an organic source or applied as in inorganic fertilizer like ammonium nitrate. An advantage of using organics, where practical, is that nutrients are liberated slowly as the microbes mineralize the organic materials. Thus there is low risk for fertilizer burn on plants and less risk for environmental problems due to runoff and leaching. Another potentially negative effect of long-term use of ammonia-based fertilizers is soil acidification due to ammonia oxidation by the nitrifying bacteria. Soil pH can drop below 5.0 after prolonged use of ammonia-based fertilizers and this can cause marked reductions in populations of bacteria and actinomycetes and simultaneous increases in the relative abundance of fungi. Such changes might favor the development of certain fungal plant pathogens. On the other hand, the potato scab disease is reduced by the low pH because the actinomycete which causes it is eliminated. These changes are easily reversed with applications of lime to the soil. Thus we see qualitative changes in the soil populations due to some management inputs but this is a long way from "sterilizing" or "killing" the soil.[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=VERDANA,ARIAL,HELVITICA][FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica][FONT=VERDANA,ARIAL,HELVITICA][FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica][FONT=VERDANA,ARIAL,HELVITICA][FONT=VERDANA,ARIAL,HELVITICA][FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica][FONT=VERDANA,ARIAL,HELVITICA][FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica][FONT=VERDANA,ARIAL,HELVITICA][FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica]
[FONT=VERDANA,ARIAL,HELVITICA] Considerable research has been done on applying various microbes as inoculants for various purposes including their use as agents to control plant diseases, (including turfgrass pathogens; Nelson, 1997a), to stimulate plant growth (the so-called plant-growth-promoting rhizobacteria; PGPR) and more recently their use in various forms of bioremediation processes. Perhaps the most outstanding example of beneficial use of a soil bacterium is the practice of inoculating legumes with bacteria such as Rhizobium and Bradyrhizobium. Some crops are nearly self-sufficient in meeting their nitrogen requirements through this process. The process is so successful because the plant essentially selects the bacterium and builds a habitat, the root nodule, where conditions for nitrogen fixation are optimized. However, even with this remarkable symbiosis there are failures for one reason or another. Thus one of the nagging problems of using organisms as inoculants is the tendency for erratic control of pests or failure to observe any benefit from inoculation. Reasons for inconsistencies in response to inoculation can be manifold. What are some biological reasons for the failure of these types of products? There are many reasons why introduced bacteria do not become established when added to the soil in very low numbers. Some biological factors are listed in Table 4. Here we see a number of problems that an introduced microbe must overcome in order to establish itself among the normal population. These include inhibition by toxins, predation by other soil microbes such as the protozoa and a bacterium called Bdellovibrio, lysis by viruses called bacteriophages, and a simple inability to compete with the native organisms.
Table 4. Some biotic factors responsible for the elimination of introduced microbes:
Table 5. Some abiotic factors responsible for the elimination of introduced microbes:
From the above discussion, one can see that there are many factors, both biotic and abiotic, that can come together to foil our attempts to use beneficial microbes in practical applications. It is because of these inconsistencies that biological alternatives are often met with reluctance by users. There is a greater comfort factor in using a chemical formulation that delivers more consistent results when applied as directed. However, as research progresses and we gain a clearer understanding of the characteristics that make an organisms successful in the soil or rhizosphere environment it is likely that we will see the development of useful microbial products for a number of purposes including increasing plant growth, protecting crops from disease, organisms for use in bioremediation or for enhancing the cleanup of pesticides in rinsates etc. However, one thing will be reasonably certain, those that come to the forefront will be based on sound biological principles and will be backed up by substantial research demonstrating the efficacy of the product in meeting the claims of the manufacturer. In the meantime a few pointers for testing new products should be considered (see Table 6). Testing new products is an expensive proposition. However, without well-designed, replicated field trials useful information about the effectiveness of a product cannot be developed. After all, the proof is in the performance of the product under normal user conditions whether it be for turfgrass management, agricultural production or some other specific application. Microbes can and do indeed accomplish wonderful things. However, our abilities to harness and successfully manipulate beneficial microbes remains a "work in progress".
Table 6. Testing Microbial Fertilizers and Soil Activators (Biostimulants)
[FONT=VERDANA,ARIAL,HELVITICA]David A. Zuberer[/FONT] - [FONT=VERDANA,ARIAL,HELVITICA]soil microbiologist at Texas A&M University[/FONT]
http://organiclifestyles.tamu.edu/soil/microbeindex.html
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=VERDANA,ARIAL,HELVITICA][FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica][FONT=VERDANA,ARIAL,HELVITICA][FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica][FONT=VERDANA,ARIAL,HELVITICA][FONT=VERDANA,ARIAL,HELVITICA][FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica][FONT=VERDANA,ARIAL,HELVITICA][FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica][FONT=VERDANA,ARIAL,HELVITICA]Organic fertilizers circumvent the criticisms leveled at "synthetic" fertilizers but it should not be forgotten that plants take up nitrogen in the form of ammonium (NH4+) or nitrate (NO3-) ions regardless of whether it was mineralized from an organic source or applied as in inorganic fertilizer like ammonium nitrate. An advantage of using organics, where practical, is that nutrients are liberated slowly as the microbes mineralize the organic materials. Thus there is low risk for fertilizer burn on plants and less risk for environmental problems due to runoff and leaching. Another potentially negative effect of long-term use of ammonia-based fertilizers is soil acidification due to ammonia oxidation by the nitrifying bacteria. Soil pH can drop below 5.0 after prolonged use of ammonia-based fertilizers and this can cause marked reductions in populations of bacteria and actinomycetes and simultaneous increases in the relative abundance of fungi. Such changes might favor the development of certain fungal plant pathogens. On the other hand, the potato scab disease is reduced by the low pH because the actinomycete which causes it is eliminated. These changes are easily reversed with applications of lime to the soil. Thus we see qualitative changes in the soil populations due to some management inputs but this is a long way from "sterilizing" or "killing" the soil.[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=VERDANA,ARIAL,HELVITICA][FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica][FONT=VERDANA,ARIAL,HELVITICA][FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica][FONT=VERDANA,ARIAL,HELVITICA][FONT=VERDANA,ARIAL,HELVITICA][FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica][FONT=VERDANA,ARIAL,HELVITICA][FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica][FONT=VERDANA,ARIAL,HELVITICA][FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica]
Table 4. Some biotic factors responsible for the elimination of introduced microbes:
- Microbially produced toxins
- Predatory protozoa
- Lysis by bacteriophage (bacterial viruses)
- Lysis by Bdellovibrio bacteriovorus
- Lysis by microbial enzymes
- Inability of introduced microbe to compete
Table 5. Some abiotic factors responsible for the elimination of introduced microbes:
- High or low pH
- High concentrations of Mn, Al, etc.
- Extreme heat or cold
- Many others
From the above discussion, one can see that there are many factors, both biotic and abiotic, that can come together to foil our attempts to use beneficial microbes in practical applications. It is because of these inconsistencies that biological alternatives are often met with reluctance by users. There is a greater comfort factor in using a chemical formulation that delivers more consistent results when applied as directed. However, as research progresses and we gain a clearer understanding of the characteristics that make an organisms successful in the soil or rhizosphere environment it is likely that we will see the development of useful microbial products for a number of purposes including increasing plant growth, protecting crops from disease, organisms for use in bioremediation or for enhancing the cleanup of pesticides in rinsates etc. However, one thing will be reasonably certain, those that come to the forefront will be based on sound biological principles and will be backed up by substantial research demonstrating the efficacy of the product in meeting the claims of the manufacturer. In the meantime a few pointers for testing new products should be considered (see Table 6). Testing new products is an expensive proposition. However, without well-designed, replicated field trials useful information about the effectiveness of a product cannot be developed. After all, the proof is in the performance of the product under normal user conditions whether it be for turfgrass management, agricultural production or some other specific application. Microbes can and do indeed accomplish wonderful things. However, our abilities to harness and successfully manipulate beneficial microbes remains a "work in progress".
Table 6. Testing Microbial Fertilizers and Soil Activators (Biostimulants)
- Testimonials should be viewed with skepticism. Ask to see original data.
- Test products in replicated plots with valid statistical designs
- Test products across multiple soil types
- Test products across locations, climate, etc.
- Minimally: test product in strips in fields and measure yields, turf performance, etc.
[FONT=VERDANA,ARIAL,HELVITICA]David A. Zuberer[/FONT] - [FONT=VERDANA,ARIAL,HELVITICA]soil microbiologist at Texas A&M University[/FONT]
http://organiclifestyles.tamu.edu/soil/microbeindex.html
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
T Ray
Well-Known Member
homebrewer
Well-Known Member
Forgive me for clarifying but unless stated otherwise, these statements are broad and generalizing....
Samwell Seed Well
Well-Known Member
i like this stuff, good soils or not molasses or not
View Full-Size Image
Root Bloom Mycorrhizae 4.2oz jar $25.00
Ask a question about this product Root Bloom Premium Endomycorrhizae and Bacterial Inoculant - The goods and no fluff.
Pure Endos
Most other blends available are a mix of endos and ectos (and are predominately ectos). 85% of plant species form a relationship with endomycorrhizae, whereas only 10% form a relationship with Ectomycorrhizae (and most of these are trees). Root Bloom offers you the option to inoculate your short-crop annuals with what they need, and not waste your money on the wrong organisms!
To Trichoderma or Not To Trichoderma?
Trichoderma is an omni-present organism in most soils naturally. And where it has been shown to do many beneficial things in relationship to plants, it has also been shown to eat indiscriminately pathogenic and beneficial fungi alike. So why would anyone choose to inoculate mycorrhizae at the same time as Trichoderma? Its like releasing bunnies and bloodhounds at the same time... not a spectacle I care to imagine. If you have a soil borne fungal pathogen, by all means let loose the hounds, otherwise, keep them on a leash.
Bacteria
Ten plant-growth promoting rhizobacteria have been added to make this inoculant truly beneficial.
ROOT BLOOM CONTAINS:
Endomycorrhizae -
Glomus intraradices (55 prop/gm) Glomus mosseae (55 prop/gm) Glomus aggregatum (55 prop/gm) Glomus etunicatum (55 prop/gm) Glomus clarum (5.5 prop/gm) Glomus monosporum (5.5 prop/gm) Glomus brazilianum (5.5 prop/gm) Glomus deserticola (5.5 prop/gm) Gigaspora margarita (6.5 prop/gm)
Bacteria -
-Bacillus pumilis - 2,300,000 CFU/gm -Bacillus coagulans - 2,300,000 CFU/gm -Bacillus megaterium - 2,300,000 CFU/gm -Bacillus licheniformis - 2,300,000 CFU/gm -Bacillus azotoformans - 2,300,000 CFU/gm -Bacillus thuringiensis - 2,500,000 CFU/gm -Paenibacillus polymyxa - 2,300,000 CFU/gm -Paenibacillus durum - 2,300,000 CFU/gm -Azotobacter chroococcum - 2,500,000 CFU/gm -Pseudomonas aureofaceans - 2,200,000 CFU/gm
Yeast -
-Sacchromyces cervisiae - 2,200,000 CFU/gm
http://www.beneficialbiologics.com/index.php?page=shop.product_details&flypage=flypage.tpl&product_id=4&category_id=1&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=3
View Full-Size Image
Root Bloom Mycorrhizae 4.2oz jar $25.00
Ask a question about this product Root Bloom Premium Endomycorrhizae and Bacterial Inoculant - The goods and no fluff.
Pure Endos
Most other blends available are a mix of endos and ectos (and are predominately ectos). 85% of plant species form a relationship with endomycorrhizae, whereas only 10% form a relationship with Ectomycorrhizae (and most of these are trees). Root Bloom offers you the option to inoculate your short-crop annuals with what they need, and not waste your money on the wrong organisms!
To Trichoderma or Not To Trichoderma?
Trichoderma is an omni-present organism in most soils naturally. And where it has been shown to do many beneficial things in relationship to plants, it has also been shown to eat indiscriminately pathogenic and beneficial fungi alike. So why would anyone choose to inoculate mycorrhizae at the same time as Trichoderma? Its like releasing bunnies and bloodhounds at the same time... not a spectacle I care to imagine. If you have a soil borne fungal pathogen, by all means let loose the hounds, otherwise, keep them on a leash.
Bacteria
Ten plant-growth promoting rhizobacteria have been added to make this inoculant truly beneficial.
ROOT BLOOM CONTAINS:
Endomycorrhizae -
Glomus intraradices (55 prop/gm) Glomus mosseae (55 prop/gm) Glomus aggregatum (55 prop/gm) Glomus etunicatum (55 prop/gm) Glomus clarum (5.5 prop/gm) Glomus monosporum (5.5 prop/gm) Glomus brazilianum (5.5 prop/gm) Glomus deserticola (5.5 prop/gm) Gigaspora margarita (6.5 prop/gm)
Bacteria -
-Bacillus pumilis - 2,300,000 CFU/gm -Bacillus coagulans - 2,300,000 CFU/gm -Bacillus megaterium - 2,300,000 CFU/gm -Bacillus licheniformis - 2,300,000 CFU/gm -Bacillus azotoformans - 2,300,000 CFU/gm -Bacillus thuringiensis - 2,500,000 CFU/gm -Paenibacillus polymyxa - 2,300,000 CFU/gm -Paenibacillus durum - 2,300,000 CFU/gm -Azotobacter chroococcum - 2,500,000 CFU/gm -Pseudomonas aureofaceans - 2,200,000 CFU/gm
Yeast -
-Sacchromyces cervisiae - 2,200,000 CFU/gm
http://www.beneficialbiologics.com/index.php?page=shop.product_details&flypage=flypage.tpl&product_id=4&category_id=1&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=3
zvuv
Active Member
I'm very uncomfortable with arguments like this. Frankly, I find them somewhat dishonest.( I mean no disrespect to the person who posted this quote ) Taking an extreme case and pretending it's relevant to general use is just rhetoric not information. Have you seen what large quantities of salt can do to the human body? Check out the bacon in your fridge. Have you seen what large quantities of water can do to a human being, or a slug, or a MJ plant?
Salts like germs are everywhere and like germs, sometimes they are harmful and sometimes they are beneficial. The fluids in a slug's body contain salts, just as they do in yours and I would guess (though I dont know enough botany to be sure) that most of the fluids in an MJ plant contain dissolved salts.
Jogro
Well-Known Member
While I definitely agree with your conclusions that if you're using chemical nutrients, you have no added need for molasses, and that the role for molasses (if any) is in purely organic soil grows, I have to disagree with the first parts here.
First of all, any beneficial microbes present in soil should "eat" the organic nutrients in the soil all by themselves. That's what they "do". . .and its why they live in the soil to begin with.
Since ordinary soil doesn't contain any molasses or any other sugary substance like it, it should be self-evident that if beneficial soil microbes would die without molasses, they'd never be there to begin. After all, if this were true, any microbes in the soil would have died off before you got there with your molasses!
Empirically, plenty of people do excellent organic gardening without molasses, and in fact its probably true that MOST organic gardening does NOT use molasses.
If your organic soil were really nutrient or especially trace-mineral poor, then of course adding molasses is going to help. Again, molasses is especially mineral rich, and that is potentially a great reason to use it. But you might see the same benefit with other nutrient rich organic material or fertilizer. Ultimately if you're looking at molasses as a primary fertilizer, it comes down to what nutrients you have locked away in your soil already, and in what quantity. If you've got plenty of compost and other organic material in there, molasses probably won't do much.
On chemical fertilizers killing microbes, while I won't dispute that *some* chemical fertilizers might kill *some* microbes under certain conditions, as a blanket statement, that's definitely false.
Put differently, I can say with absolute certainty that typical nitrate/urea based chemical fertilizers in your soil will DEFINITELY NOT make it sterile (ie kill every microbe), at least not at any concentration of fertilizer that also won't kill whatever you're trying to grow in that soil. Yes, if you're trying to grow organically, then you shouldn't add chemical fertilizers too. That the two are by definition mutually exclusive is hopefully obvious.
Lastly, the effect of adding molasses to soil may will be faster growth/metabolism of beneficial bacteria in the soil. In turn, either more bacterial metabolism, or a higher bacterial load (or both) may cause more breakdown of OTHER organic compounds the soil, with a net effect of more nutrients available to your plants. That's a little different than using molasses as a primary fertilizer. I can't disagree that this "boosting" effect may work, especially for extracting more nutrients out of borderline soil, but again, its going to come down to what nutrients you've got in there already, and in what form.
Brick Top
New Member
If you go to Jeff Lowenfels' website he is referred to as a gardener and writer. He attended Harvard and majored in geology, which is impressive on it's own, but nowhere I could find does it mention him having credentials like him being a soil biologist. Maybe you should research what soil biologists have to say on the subject. I have to believe a soil biologist would know more about soil than a gardener/writer.
Jogro
Well-Known Member
I agree with this in spirit, though you have to take a big step back here and put things in perspective.
The point of molasses is to be used as an adjunct for organic soil grows. The implication here is that you're growing outside, in actual dirt, in your field or garden. Sure, if your soil is already rich in nutrients, you shouldn't need to add any more.
But that might not be the case. You may not have the ability to change the medium, and you certainly can't do it after your plants are already in it and several months old! If you need more organic nutrients, ideally you'd want to use compost, manure, or some other organic fertilizer, but maybe you don't have any around, or maybe its too late in the season to plow in some more, or just impractical for some reason, etc.
So adding molasses could work as a quick boost. To some extent it will act as a mineral-rich fertilizer all by itself, and to some extent it might give a little boost to soil bacteria so they can extract out a little more nutrients from organic material/compost that are already in there. If it helps nitrogen-fixing bacteria increase in number or grow faster, well, then they'll fix that much more nitrogen while the molasses is around.
But molasses as some kind of miracle "bloom booster" for non-organic grows (let alone non-soil based ones)? I just don't see it.
T Ray
Well-Known Member
Well if you continued to read enough about him you would see he was "inspired and informed" by Elain Ingham. And here are her credentials....let me know if these qaullify. It's not like he just came up with this information out of the blue. The man has "the longest-running weekly garden columnist in the United States. "
http://www.oregonlive.com/hg/index.ssf/2010/04/garden_writer_jeff_lowenfels_c.html
http://www.elaineingham.com/
And just for good measure here is some info where she is saying to use molasses and the reason's why:Dr. Elaine R Ingham
Dr. Elaine Ingham brews a tea not meant to be soothing to the human palate but rather nourishing to the soil and backed by years of academic research. Known the world over as an expert speaker on the benefits of sustainable soil science, Dr. Ingham's recipe for compost tea offers everyone from commercial farmers and serious growers to backyard garden or lawn greenthumbs a chemical-free way to improve soils and plant growth. Her work in the area of soil tests has advanced knowledge of the nutrient cycle and its impact on organic vegetable gardening.
The internationally respected soil microbiologist started her academic career at St. Olaf College in Northfield, MN, graduating with a double major in biology and chemistry in 1974. She then received her Master of Science in Microbiology from Texas A&M in 1977 and her doctoral degree in Microbiology from Colorado State University in 1981. Dr. Ingham then took a post-doctoral fellowship at Colorado State University's Natural Resource Ecology Lab.
After a Research Associate Fellowship at the University of Georgia, Dr. Ingham joined Oregon State University faculty in the departments of Forest Science and Botany and Plant Pathology. She now divides her time between Oregon and Australia, working as an Assistant-Associate Professor at Oregon State and a Professor at Southern Cross University in Australia. The focus of her academic work continues to be which beneficial and harmful organisms are present in plants and soil and how to manage these organisms - the beneficial bacteria, protozoa,fungi and Nematodes - to grow plants and maintain soil fertility without using inorganic chemicals.
Currently, in addition to lecturing at symposia around the world, Dr. Ingham is President and Director of Research for Soil Foodweb, Inc. This commercial enterprise, with five labs around the globe including locations in the USA and Australia, developed out of her very successful soil sample analysis service offered at Oregon State University. She also sits on several boards and scientific organizations, publishes scientific papers, and contributes to magazines and other periodicals.
Dr. Ingham has authored several books, including The Field Guide for Actively Aerated Compost Tea (AACT), Compost Tea Quality: Light Microscope Methods, and The Compost Tea Brewing Manual, now available in its 5th edition and considered to be the authoritative manual on making, applying, and assessing compost tea. She also co-authored Soil Biology Primer with Andrew R. Moldenke and Clive A. Edwards.
And a quote she says about chemical fertilizers and some information on sugars, carbs and proteins.
http://www.finegardening.com/how-to/articles/brewing-compost-tea.aspx
So if he got his info from her and she has the credentials that she does, I would say that it's pretty reliable info backed up with scientific data.
So does she qualify to your high standards there, MR. KNOWITALL...errrr...I mean BrickTop?
Brick Top
New Member
209whitebread
Active Member
wat the hell does that mean
Jogro
Well-Known Member
+1 to that.
Being devil's advocate here, in general, arguments by authority often aren't very helpful.
Having great credentials doesn't necessarily make you right, nor does lacking them necessarily make you wrong.
I'm sure you've heard that old expression "Something so stupid, only an academic can believe it".
People with excellent credentials can and often do disagree with one another, and can simply be wrong.
You even get Nobel Prize winners who disagree, or who can say some pretty questionable or even provably wrong things from time to time.
On the topic of molasses, its not exactly like organic gardening is something new. . .its only been the primary method of human farming for most of recorded history!
While fundamentally no different than growing any other flowering plant, growing cannabis is unique because much (if not most) of it is grown indoors under artificial lights. That's a sort of "special circumstance". What may be appropriate for growing tomatoes or peppers in your backyard can't be applied to growing hydro weed in your closet.
If your particular professional perspective is on ordinary outdoor/backyard type gardening, then much of your experience is just not going to apply to a big segment of cannabis gardeners. For example, Dr. Ingham (referenced earlier) mentioned how chemical fertilizers might kill off soil nematodes. If you're gardening in pots with Miracle Gro, why should you care if the microscopic worms in your soil die (assuming there were any in there to begin with. . .which there probably weren't)? Its irrelevant.
Getting back to the original question, "is there any benefit to molasses?". I think the answer is, that like any other particular supplement, there might be. . .under certain circumstances. . .if used correctly.
If you're not growing in soil, then presumably you're using some other kind of fertilizers and supplementation. So long as you are doing so correctly, there should be no benefit from molasses, and there may even be drawbacks.
If you're growing indoors or even outdoors in soil with synthetic fertilizers, same thing. Unless your fertilizer regimen has some deficiencies in it, you should probably expect no benefit from adding molasses.
If you're growing organically, and already have rich soil with good mineral content and/or are fertilizing regularly and properly, again you'll probably see no benefit from adding molasses, though it probably won't hurt.
I think its only in the specific circumstance of growing organically in soil, where your nutrient or mineral content might be borderline, that you might expect to see a benefit. If you're not sure about those things, then yes, molasses may help. Along those lines, its certainly reasonable to include molasses as part of an organic fertilizer regimen (ie with compost, manure, guano, fish emulsion, whatever).
T Ray
Well-Known Member
I am not saying to add the molasses all the time. I am simply saying that adding sugars/molasses/carbs towards the end of your flower period is beneficial in organic's (which is my method of growing) to give a quick boost to the micro's to feed your plant. I personally don't even use molasses, I use bud candy and sucanat (sugars/carbs). And I only use water other than that (no bottles/sprays) because all the food is available in the soil.