AFN Myth Busters 2017

Keep it up guys! And I'd like to see you not only pose a question, I'd like to see you provide us with answers also where possible. I spend a lot of time looking into things and certainly don't have all the answers. So give me a hand!

And thank you to all taking an interest!

:cheers::smokeout::smokeout::thanks::thanks:
 
Keep it up guys! And I'd like to see you not only pose a question, I'd like to see you provide us with answers also where possible. I spend a lot of time looking into things and certainly don't have all the answers. So give me a hand!

And thank you to all taking an interest!

:cheers::smokeout::smokeout::thanks::thanks:
Hey my friend
I will do a test with one pollination plant and feed her till the end to see if the seeds take longer to germ.
cu tobe
 
Do you have a link to a study, I would be interested in reading this recent development.

Though not conclusive, it seems that though plants do not need a dark period, recent studies seem to point to better production with a brief " night period" I believe the study used 2-4 hours. More research is needed but this is pointing in that direction.
Mythbusting here consists of doing a serious hunt for scientific information. I rarely accept anecdotal "evidence" unless data has been very well collected and documented. Most myths are exactly that, myths are always based on assumptions, and we all know about what to "assume" means........
 
Just want to add something about sugars you guys happy feeding your plants with them. Carboload, Bud candy etc...

The notion that giving sugars to healthy growing plants will somehow improve their growth rate or help balance nutrient status is a completely unproven conjecture. Don’t be fooled; sugar fed to plants does not increase the soluble sugar inside plant tissues nor will it increase trichome density or resin production.
It is pseudoscientific nonsense to make such claims. There are no scientific studies that prove this is true and so no other agricultural crops are fed sugars by their growers. One example disproving this idea is shown here:http://cropwatch.unl.edu/research-sugar-application-crops
Any sugar that enters the rhizosphere will be food for bacteria and fungi, and not the plants. Just like sugars used in microbiological petri plate culture, when adding molasses or glucose to the fertigation water one is only feeding the microbes in the soil. One might consider this as beneficial, especially if this boosts the growth of beneficial plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR), but even boosting microbe growth has negative side effects.
A direct consequence of feeding sugars to the rhizosphere is a drastic drop in soil pH. Bacteria and fungi will grow many times faster when given extra sugars, but then their boosted life-cycles and excessive growth will acidify the soil.
This can be proven easily by adding sugar or molasses to a compost tea; overnight the pH will drop a whole point or more as the microbes go through a surge in growth and exude organic acids as by-products of their life cycle. Sugars might even encourage pathogens to grow instead of beneficial PGPR. A healthy rhizosphere pH has a wide range of 5.2 – 6.1, but sugars will make it plummet to 4.2.
There is science to enlighten us on this topic, and one review article is found here: http://jxb.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/12/02/jxb.err379.full
If they could enter plants through their roots, more sugars would be a negative feedback signal to stop synthesizing sugars. If plants were sensitive to sugars fed to their roots their cellular metabolic pathways would be flung out of control. Luckily roots are not able to uptake a flood of sugars; healthy growth results from trying to maintain metabolic homeostasis and having gradients of sugars moving around the plant in response to the growing environment.

Trichomes are shiny and transparent due to their composition being mostly silicates and carbonates. They look like crystals but they are not sugar crystals, and nothing about cannabis cultivation is enhanced by adding glucose, molasses or “sweet nectar” of any kind to the fertigation regimen.
 
What about the seemingly common practice/belief that young plants, even when grown soilless or hydroponically, simply should not be fed a basic/minimal balanced mix of nutrients, including not getting base nutrients, for the first 2, 3 even 4 weeks (vs. giving just water or maybe adding root stimulants and additives)? Has this carried over from traditional planting in soil and outdoors growing where the soil can usually provide enough early nutrients?

In my mythical view and in practice, seeds come into the world in a moderately nutrient-rich environment. I presume in nature that seeds have no problem adopting to basic good nutrition, no problem growing in what their parents just grew in, that seeds don't have problems when they happen to sprout in nutrient-rich/fertile media. My seeds sprout into their final pots in coco charged at 1/2 full dose (what they get in late veg growth). Sometimes with this method (and as with any sprouting and early growth), there are seeds that don't adapt well and quickly enough; and they get culled.

Obviously, our plants will generally grow well for the first few weeks whether you feed them or not. But what is really best? Any comparative studies out there concerning optimal initial and early nutrient levels?
 
Excellent! Another MYTH busted!

:slap:

Just want to add something about sugars you guys happy feeding your plants with them. Carboload, Bud candy etc...

The notion that giving sugars to healthy growing plants will somehow improve their growth rate or help balance nutrient status is a completely unproven conjecture. Don’t be fooled; sugar fed to plants does not increase the soluble sugar inside plant tissues nor will it increase trichome density or resin production.
It is pseudoscientific nonsense to make such claims. There are no scientific studies that prove this is true and so no other agricultural crops are fed sugars by their growers. One example disproving this idea is shown here:http://cropwatch.unl.edu/research-sugar-application-crops
Any sugar that enters the rhizosphere will be food for bacteria and fungi, and not the plants. Just like sugars used in microbiological petri plate culture, when adding molasses or glucose to the fertigation water one is only feeding the microbes in the soil. One might consider this as beneficial, especially if this boosts the growth of beneficial plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR), but even boosting microbe growth has negative side effects.
A direct consequence of feeding sugars to the rhizosphere is a drastic drop in soil pH. Bacteria and fungi will grow many times faster when given extra sugars, but then their boosted life-cycles and excessive growth will acidify the soil.
This can be proven easily by adding sugar or molasses to a compost tea; overnight the pH will drop a whole point or more as the microbes go through a surge in growth and exude organic acids as by-products of their life cycle. Sugars might even encourage pathogens to grow instead of beneficial PGPR. A healthy rhizosphere pH has a wide range of 5.2 – 6.1, but sugars will make it plummet to 4.2.
There is science to enlighten us on this topic, and one review article is found here: http://jxb.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/12/02/jxb.err379.full
If they could enter plants through their roots, more sugars would be a negative feedback signal to stop synthesizing sugars. If plants were sensitive to sugars fed to their roots their cellular metabolic pathways would be flung out of control. Luckily roots are not able to uptake a flood of sugars; healthy growth results from trying to maintain metabolic homeostasis and having gradients of sugars moving around the plant in response to the growing environment.

Trichomes are shiny and transparent due to their composition being mostly silicates and carbonates. They look like crystals but they are not sugar crystals, and nothing about cannabis cultivation is enhanced by adding glucose, molasses or “sweet nectar” of any kind to the fertigation regimen.
 
Back
Top