Cytokinins (6-BAP) & Auxins (IAA)

Guile

Active Member
Has anyone experimented with this combination of hormones?

I have read that the ideal relative concentrations are significant to outcome however I have not read much about the overall ratio relationship.
Lower than 50% Auxins (IAA) is my only loose guideline with a notation that high levels of IAA can be damaging to the plant.

I'm also curious about Gibberellic Acid (GA) does it cause excessive stretch? if so would the Cytokinins (6-BAP) counteract it at all?

From what I've read a combination of these 3 hormones should yield large dense fast maturing buds.. Seems its just ratio and concentration that need to be sorted out.

Any insight would be valuable and appreciated.
 

Guile

Active Member
Work with me here guys..

How about using "Water soluble IBA salts" (a naturally occurring Auxin) in conjunction with "Fresco" (containing equal parts 6-BA & GA4/7)? That would give us all 3 hormones in a 2 part solution.. (have a feeling that the GA would have to be decreased if the current ratio leads to too much stretching) You could add some Fulvic acid ("Diamond Nectar") to the mix for good measure and BAM! your plants are juicing like "Arnold" back in the day..

I'm sure that used in conjugation with each other at the recommended ratios of biweekly foliage feeding would yield amazing results assuming that the IBA does not stall flowering. (I believe I had read somewhere that it might, however it naturally occurs in many plants, and I have personalty taken a clone from a plant already into flowering and continued its flowering through the rooting period. The yield was obviously low however the small bud reached maturity in a reasonable length of time)
 

Guile

Active Member
Looks like "Fresco"s ratios are a bit off for what I want to do.. From my most recent research the ratio of 6-BAP & GA should be more like 10:1 (favoring the 6-BAP) with equal amounts of Fulvic Acid and IBA salts (favoring Fulvic acid respectively).

I talked to a some experts today, one even had a degree in bio engineering (maybe they all did?). All seemed a little skeptical about the ultimate outcome of combining these hormones and nutrients. Predominantly concerns that the IBA would stunt/stall the flowering of the plants (keep in mind that IBA is naturally found in many different plants throughout many stages of life), otherwise IBA and Gibberellic Acid promote vertical growth through cellular division or elongation causing lanky plants (however 10 times as much BAP is being used and it stunts vertical growth and promotes side branching)..
Everyone seemed to agree that it would have a significant influence on root development. I figure that root mass has a direct and proportionate relationship to total plant mass. At very least it would be the best rooting solution yet.

Taking that direction and running with it.. adding stuff like KoolBloom, Hygrozyme, and Superthrive (in relatively low concentrations) could yield something you could put in your reservoir, soak rooting cubes in, and/or foliage feed your cuttings with. These additions would likely benefit a plant latter on in its life cycle too (still leaving the door open for use as a flower enhancer).
 

Guile

Active Member
I figure a concentration of :

Thiamine Mononitrate (Vit. B1) 1ppm?
IBA (Auxin) 10ppm
Gibberellic Acid (GA) 10ppm
Phosphate 25ppm (65ppm Dicalcium phosphate powder, pet supplement)
Magnesium 25ppm (45ppm Magnesium oxide powder, human supplement)
Calcium 50ppm (Provided by the Dicalcium phosphate at least in part I think, otherwise calcium carbonate can be added)
Benzylaminopurine (Cytokinins)100ppm
Fulvic acid 100ppm (130ppm FULVITAL WSP 80 plant supplement)

Seems like it should work for foliage feeding. Though there has been some doubt placed in my mind about the effectiveness of Fulvic acid. It seems that most Fulvic acid products on the market are aquatic plant extracts containing only 3-4% available Fulvic acid, the impression I'm under leads me to believe that the other 95+% (containing plant hormones and nutrients) is likely whats responsible for most the benefits associated with these products..
I have found a distributor of 85% pure Fulvic acid that I would like to try, containing 85% less "other things" I think the ultimate test would be to tun 2 test batches of the solution listed above, one omitting the Fulvic acid.

Also the Gibberellic Acid (GA) my not be necessary on naturally stretchy/lanky plants, so that could be omitted too .

What are some other good common sources of consistently pure Phosphate, Magnesium, Calcium, and BI that would be suitable for such an application?
 

Guile

Active Member
On the other hand... A simple solution of:
75ppm IAA (Auxin: Indole Acetic Acid) keep in mind that too much IAA can cause hermaphrodisum in Marijuana plants but I think it will benefit the flowering tips more than IBA if I have gotten (or can get) the ratios right.
and 175ppm BAP (Cytokinins)
in clean/distilled water

That would be mixed 2:1 with whatever is in your reservoir (like GH Flora series, including Diamond Nectar, KoolBloom, with some Hygrozyme & SuperThrive for root health).
Just 5oz your current nutrient solution and 10 oz "hormone stack" would fill your 1 pint spray bottle (or double for quarts).

Funny how the ultimate evolution of an idea often brings it full circle?

I could almost guarantee positive results biased solely on regular foliage feeding with a 1/3 solution of your reservoir contents (assuming it meats your plants needs to start with). I have read of increases as much as 100% in final yield. (though not sure I would expect quite that much even with the use of hormones but half would still be worth while)
 

Joedank

Well-Known Member
I spray with a soluble kelp , humic and fulvic all individuals bought in bulk on kelp for less a spray of braggs liquid aminos and away grow I use it to feed microbes in my Rez too ;)..
A little reading on hormones for ya
ABSTRACT: Several types of plant biostimulants exist but plants generally are capable of producing those they need. In many instances, however, it has been demonstrated that their external additions by foliar spray or to roots has provided added benefits to plants. The scientific studies in this field have been going on for close to 70 years but there are still unknowns and commercialization has been relatively minor. Growth inhibitors are about as important as growth stimulators. Some plant residues like seaweed, kudsu, and yucca are believed to be good sources of some biostimulants. Processed humic acid is marketed with some claims of stimulation. The on going debate about whether compost is more valuable than uncomposted materials involves the possibility that some microbes produce biostimulants in the composting process. There is some reason to expect that use of materials by soil application that contain biostimulants can often be a best management practice to interact favorably with other such products to improve the efficiency of crop production. More research is needed.

Among the legal definitions of the California Department of Food and Agriculture is one for Auxiliary Soil and Plant Substances: " any chemical or biological substance or mixture of substances distributed in this state to be applied to soil, plants, or seeds for soil corrective purposes; of which is intended to improve germination, growth, yield, product quality, reproduction, flavor, or other desirable characteristics plants; or which is intended to produce any chemical, biochemical, biological, or physical change in soil. Does not include commercial fertilizers, agricultural minerals, soil amendments, or manure's. This category includes all of the following: Synthetic polyelectrlytes, lignin or humus preparations, wetting agents, to promote water penetration, bacterial inoculants, microbial products, soil binding agents, and biotics. Biotics are all materials for which claims are made relating to organisms, enzymes, or organism by-products."

Several different types of products are included in this list. Only those which are considered as biostimulants are the subject of this paper. This brief discussion is an introduction only to a broad field of study which has resulted in some but not enormous technologies. a more comprehensive review in the near future is warranted especially since one of the goals of biotechnology is to produce biostimulants to enhance plant growth. Microbes and enzymes are not considered in this report. By and large, foliar applications of substances which may stimulate growth or fruiting are not specifically considered at this time. Of concern mostly are those that may be applied in soil or both ways.

Many reports exist where claims are made for certain natural products like kelp (Smitte 1991), kudsu, and yucca to have stimulating effects on plants when applied to soil usually in very small quantities. humus products derived from alkaline solutions of lingites often with some oxidation are claimed to have similar effects. Some composts are believed to contain biostimulants which is a basis for claiming that adding composts to soil is better than adding non composted materials. when stimulation occurs, it is the result of some specific compound usually identifiable. Usually plants, but differentially, are able to synthesize needed "phytohormones". Some specific categories are gibberellins, cytkinins, and auxins. "Roots" is a popular product that claims biostimulation which is partly caused by the iron which it contains(Schmidt 1990).

The gibberellins have been known, researched, and used on a limited commercial scale since the 1920s (Stowe and Yamaki 1957) or about 70 years. This parallels the pattern for many other technologies (fertilizers and water-soluble polymers in agriculture) when many decades go by before general acceptance.

"Biostimulants are materials that promote plant growth when applied in small quantities. They also help plants withstand harsh environments. The best biostimulants that we have encountered for enhancing turfgrass growth are cytokinins (plant-synthesized growth regulators) and cytokinin-like materials.

Although researchers knew as early as 1913 that plants produced a cell division-stimulating substance, it took until 1955 to identify it as a cytokinin. In 1963, scientists isolated zeatin from corn. It was the first example of a naturally occurring cytokinin.

By 1969, they were experimenting with topical applications of seaweed-extracted cytokinin on various plants. From this work weâve learned that besides enhancing cell division, cytokinins: enable cells to differentiate into various plant organs, retard plant senescence or aging, stimulate chloroplast formation, help seeds break dormancy, and enhance flowering in some species.

Along with this work, researchers learned in 1972 that some systemic fungicides, such as triazoles, have cytokinin-like properties. Two of these are turf fungicides: propiconazole (Banner) and triadimefon (Bayleton)." (Schmidt 1990)

CLAIMS FOR SEAWEED
Seaweed extract is being marketed and supposedly has special benefits when supplied with iron (Nabati et al. 1994). The following comments are extracted from a gardening article on use of seaweed (there are various species of seaweed which may differ in composition that influences biostimulation.(Smite 1991): "Seaweed is a rootless plant in the Fucus family that floats freely or clings to rocks by holdfasts (root-like or disk shaped plant parts that attach seaweed to rocks but donât absorb nutrients). Seaweed photosynthesizes the sunlight that reaches it through shallow water and it absorbs nutrients from sea water through its leaves. Since the ocean receives runoff from the entire earth, it contains all known minerals, trace elements, and vitamins. This primal supermarket supplies a more complete diet for sea plants than any plot of rich soil or fertilizer provides for land plants. Seaweed contains 60 or more minerals and several plant hormones. It is not however a complete fertilizer. It has a fair amount of nitrogen and potash, but very little phosphorus, a major plant nutrient.

Only a few seaweeds are harvested commercially. Norwegian kelp (Ascophyllum nodosum), a brown algae is the seaweed most used in gardening. Norwegian kelp is gathered off the coasts of England, Ireland, Norway, and both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts of North America where it is called rockweed. Gulfweed (Sargassum), a floating sea plant, is harvested off the coast of North Carolina. Giant kelp(Macrcystis) is collected in the Pacific Northwest.

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 or more 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 rate of cell division and elongation in those plants. The hormones also increase root growth when applied to the soil as meal or when seaweed extract is used as a root dip.

In recent turf tests at Virginia Polytechnic Institute in Blacksburg, plots sprayed with seaweed extract had 67% to 175% more roots than untreated plots. Plots treated in fall showed a 38% increase in spring growth over untreated plots and showed 52% more roots.

In tests at South Carolina's Clemson University, seeds soaked in liquid seaweed extract showed rapid germination, and the resulting seedlings had increased root mass and stronger plant growth than 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 flower buds."(Smitte 1991)

Many books and reviews have been made on plant growth regulators even by the early 1960âs (Thimann 1963). There are at least four major groups. Thimann discussed three of them thirty years ago.

"Unlike the animal hormones, each of which has its target organ or tissue, the most obvious property of the plant growth substances is not only that their functions are multiple but they overlap. For any given process their actions may be similar or opposed, or synergistic, or entirely different. For instance, kinetin reacts with auxin to produce callus growth, it opposes auxin in lateral bud development, resembles auxin in inhibiting root elongation, does strongly what auxin does only weakly in promoting protein synthesis, and acts the same way as auxin to cause cell division; in the last case, however, auxin action may be dependent on endogenous kinins already present, so that this action may fall into the first category.

Finally, it differs completely from auxin in not being readily transported. Similarly, gibberellin acts like auxin in promoting elongation of etiolated stems and formation of parthenocarpic fruit (though it generally delays fruit-set), reacts with auxin in producing elongation of isolated green stems, acts more powerfully than auxin on elongation of intact stems, does what auxin cannot do in causing flowering of long-day plants on short-day photoperiods, and the elongations of monocotyledonous leaves and leaf sheaths. Yet it acts in the opposite direction to auxin on root formation by cuttings and leaves and apparently also on the tensile properties of pea stems. Auxin favors formations of pistillate flowers, gibberellin of staminate. Generally, all gibberellins act in the same way as one another, and the same is qualitatively true for auxins, with certain exceptions.

The multiple actions of auxin have often been discussed. Here it needs only be mentioned that the growth inhibiting actions are probably at least as important as the growth promoting ones. The inhibition of lateral bud development is of major importance in integrating the plant body, and and parallel phenomena to it are found in ferns and mosses. Thus auxins should not necessarily considered only as growth promoting substances."(Thimann 1963)

In the 1960s we made some studies with humates derived from leonardite (Wallace and Khadr 1966). Some interesting results were observed but caution was used in the interpretation. " an unfortified humus product seemed to have auxin-like effects in plants in that it increased periodicity of root pressure exudation and hastened time of flowering. there are many reports that indicate the value of soil organic matter in crop production is not confined to supplying plant nutrients, to increasing the availability of plant nutrients, or to improving the physical properties of soil. There is no doubt that a large number of components of the soil organic matter can be absorbed by plant roots from the soil and translocated to other parts of the plants. The relationship of molecular weight to this type of absorption is unknown, but it is known that nucleic acids can be synthesized in some cells and translocated to others. Recent work has shown that quinone groups in humic substances stimulate some plant enzyme systems related to respiration.

Many low-molecular weight compounds that are products of decomposition of organic matter have been observed to promote plant growth. Creatinine is an example. B-indoleacetic acid, which has a powerful effect in stimulating root growth. These substances include vanilin, benzoic acid, some aldehydes, and dihydroxystearic acid. Many workers seriously doubt that humus-like materials or breakdown products from them can have auxin-like effects in soils." (Wallace and Khadr 1966).

SOME RECENT REPORTERS ON BIOSTIMULANTS
Chen et al. 1994: The properties of humic substances originating from composts were studied and compared to soil derived humic materials. A small fraction of lower molecular weight components of humic substances can be taken up by plants. These components are considered to increase cell membrane permeability and to exhibit hormone-like activity. In soils, addition of compost was found to stimulate growth beyond that provided by mineral nutrients. Addition of composts to container media mixes resulted in significant yield increase which was attributed to humic substances. Water extracts obtained from composts exhibited auxin-like activity.

Albuzio et al. 1944: The addition of a molecular size fraction compatible with direct uptake by roots and translocation to the vegetative compartments, induced sharp enhancement in chlorophyll contents. Apparently, low molecular size compounds are able to enter the roots, be translocated to the leaves and be metabolically significant.

Schmidt et al. 1991: By 1969 experiments with applicants of seaweed extracted cytokinis were being conducted on various plants. From 1972 triazole fungicides were shown to have biostimulant properties. In the mid 1980âs, extracted seaweed, benzyladenine (synthetic cytokinin) and selected triazole systemic fungicides were shown to stimulate turfgrasses. Various studies with cool season turfgrass have shown that biostimulant application improved photosyntesis, reduced senescence effect, increased leaf and shoot numbers, improved leaf water potential, and enhanced shoot and root mass. Cytokinis with iron helped warm season grasses retain color in the fall and stimulate spring green up. Recent research documented that biostimulants conditioned turfgrass to tolerate drought and salinity irrigation.

Yan and Schmidt 1992: Plant growth regulator like propiconazole and 1H-1, 2, 4-triazole and fortified seaweed extract increased the salt tolerance of perennial ryegrass by adjustment of cell membrane composition.

Ono et al. 1993: Promain (GA4 + GA7 + N-(phenylmethyl)-1H-purine-6-amine) at 50 mg/L, was the most beneficial in enhancing seed germination.

Mate and Katalin1993: The chlormequat + ethepon + microelements treatment beyond the height reduction also increase the yield. Plant growth regulators used alone had no effect on yield.

Russo 1991: Yale Univ., New Haven, CT USA. A thesis on the action of "Roots".

Basnizki and Goldschmidt 1994: Under field conditions, GA3 rep;aced the cold requirements of line ÎHU 271â, thereby enabling the start of flowering during autumn. Another clone flowered without GA3 treatment.

Suzuki 1992: A review discussing use of growth retardants.

Hood 1994: The Cytokin treatment significantly increased lint yield over the other treatments 1992. There were no statistically significant differences between the non-treated check and any treatment in 1993.

Balyan et al. 1994: Triacontanol increased the plant height, number of leaves and leaf length. It had a positive effect on herbage yield, which was increased by 21.35 percent over control.

Perez et al. 1994: The best treatments were mixtures with endosulfan, befenthrin of profenfos. There was a significant improvement in yield and fiber quality.

Takahashi and Yamaguchi 1994: Plant growth-regulating agents containing kojic acid and/or its salts applied tostems and leaves of fruit and vegetable plants accelerated their fruit maturity.

Beltrano et al. 1994: A humic substance obtained from the feces of the earthworms at a concentration of 1 mg carbon per liter cause root development from leaf explants that appears to be similar to indole acetic acid induced activity, while the control did not develop roots. Humate induced longer roots than those grown in indole acetic acid but with fewer hair roots.

REFERENCES:
Albuzio, A., G. Concheri, S. Nardi, and G. DellâAgnola. 1994. Effect of humic fractions of different molecular size on the development of oat seedlings grown in varied nutritional condition. Humic Subst. Global Environ. Implic. Hum. Health, Proc. Int. Meet. Humic Subst. Soc., 6th 1992; 199-204. Chem. Abstracts 121:229751 (1994)
 

Guile

Active Member
Joedank :

Thank you for your contribution, I was hopping to provoke some research and discussion on this subject. I am finding many short papers on the topic but have gleaned little insight in what would seem a valuable aria to understand. This material has brought some things to light that I had otherwise been in the dark about. I'm hoping that others too will have looked into or even experimented some with these hormones might offer me their insight.

Do all Auxins really behave the same way? I only ask because most of what I read about Auxins relates to their use as a herbicide (Agent Orange.) and I never see IAA being sold as a rooting hormone, its usually NAA and IBA that serve that role. IBA tends to be associated with cell growth and division during new root development However I had read that IAA is more closely associated with cell growth and division at the growing tips of the plant.
Have I misunderstood what I have been reading? or does IBA work at least as well if not better than IAA in all regards (especially with root development)? In high enough concentrations would IBA cause hermaphrodisum in marijuana plants (like with IAA) or become a defoliant (like 2,4,5-T and/or 2,4-D, )?

Triacontanol sounds well worth experimenting with too, in what I read its used at concentrations of 1-10ppm with notable results (by improving photosynthesis, promoting cell growth and division). Has anyone experimented with this one?

I recently found a distributor that sells these hormones in small quantitys. I have purchased 5-10 grams each of Triacontanol, IAA BAP, IBA, GA, and Fulvic Acid to experiment with. Fortunately my tables are set up in rows of 4x4 so I could tun one whole row to each hormone and each row at up to 4 different concentrations (though containing over-spray might be a challenge potentially limiting me to test entire tables at a time). I also picked up a gallon of "Europonics FocilFuel" as an example of the aquatic plant derived 3% fulvic acid. (which I believe is basically kelp/seaweed compost)

Are there any good resources in identifying the full scope of these homerooms influences and how they will interact with each-other?
 

potpimp

Sector 5 Moderator
Good grief what a great thread!! This needs to be moved to the Advanced Cultivation forum where it can get some airtime!! I can move it there (with permanent redirects) if you want.
 

Guile

Active Member
Potpimp:
By all means please do feel free to move the thread to its appropriate location.
I would love to hear from other growers that may have looked into or even experimented with some of these hormones.
 

Guile

Active Member
I recently received my order of 6-BAP, Fulvic Acid, Triacontanol, and IAA.
Based on the suppliers recommendations it seems like the Ideal ratio is something like:

500-3000ppm 6-BAP,
200-500ppm Fulvic Acid
50-150ppm IAA
1-10ppm Triacontanal

However I have run into a problem keeping all these hormones in suspension, the result seems to be that the hormones are not being absorbed by the leaves of the plant, instead accumulating as white specks on the plant once the water is absorbed/evaporates.

I believe I may try again after ordering some more exotic solvents than what I generally keep around the house (Polysorbate 20)
 

Guile

Active Member
PotPimp:

Would you have any recommendations? I'm at a bit of a loss here to be honest with you, this is my first experiment with phytohormones (other than rooting hormones obviously) and I'm really not clear on what I can get away with..

Oh, and by the way.. The distributor of the hormones I ordered stated that IBA can be used in place of the IAA (Auxin) at the same ratios/concentrations listed above.. (if anyone is using this info for their own personal reference).

I should probably also make note that the solution I had prepared contained:

1250ppm 6-BAP
100ppm IAA
10ppm Triacontanal

The resulting solution became cloudy in appearance when the PH was adjusted to compensate for the alkalinity caused by the Sodium Hydroxide (used to prepare the 6-BAP for solution). These particles precipitate out in a matter of hours when allowed to stand undisturbed.

This solution was sprayed on several plants (of different verity's) over a week ago resulting in noticeable curling of a few plant leaves (less than half but a notable amount). From what I understand this is a symptom indicates an excessive amount of IAA, obviously this could be a product of the poor state of my solution, however It might be wise to reduce its concentration for latter tests (otherwise substitute the IAA with IBA as mentioned by the distributor, or perhaps a 50/50 combination of the 2).
 

potpimp

Sector 5 Moderator
Just add a drop of liquid soap (not detergent) as a surfactant. Emulsifiers and emulsifying particles tend to promote dispersion of the phase in which they do not dissolve very well; for example, proteins dissolve better in water than in oil and so tend to form oil-in-water emulsions (that is, they promote the dispersion of oil droplets throughout a continuous phase of water).
 

Guile

Active Member
I don't mean to come off sounding completely numb here, but I am still a little unclear... I believe that the only soap I have in my house is the perfumed bars of bath soap. (its Ivory, so its 99,44% pure... lol) of its 7 constituent parts only the Sodium chloride (salt) and "fragrance component" seem like they could be an issue..

So, when we say "soap" are we talking about mixing Sodium Hydroxide with plant/animal fat to obtain unadulterated soap or is the perfumed bar soap in my bathroom sufficient?

Sorry about coming off like a fool but its always the simple sounding stuff that seems to trip me up.. (In my experience, whenever things appear too simple its usually because there are too many assumptions taken for granted).

Please don't get me wrong I understand what the soap is doing to aide in maintaining my solution, also breaking surface tension/acting as a wetting agent which will also eliminate the white specks where the hormones concentrated on my leaves (as the water evaporates or is absorbed).. however the perfume... is it an issue?
 

potpimp

Sector 5 Moderator
It probably would not be an issue. Check your dishwashing detergent. If you have any Dawn, it works great.
 

Guile

Active Member
Well it is just perfume, and in the spirit of keeping things economical/simple I think I'm going to give Ivory soap a try :)

I was just going through some of my old research and notes when It dawned on me that the concentrations of hormones recommended by the distributor are much higher than every other paper I had read on the topic and I cant help but think they are just trying to sell more product..

My concern is that they recommend feeding only once every other week and I cant help but think there might be a reason behind it...

When originally considering this experiment I intended to foliage feed my plants twice a week at significantly lower hormone concentrations.
If I quarter the recommended concentration of hormones and feed at 4 times the frequency things will be more on par with the papers I've read, but will the plants be more prone to building a tolerance to the hormones (being more consistently elevated)?

I'm strongly considering poring the remainder of my first 1 gallon test batch into a 5gallon container and diluting things to where I had originally thought they should be.. (at lower saturation the hormones might even stay in suspension better and would likely elevate the leaf curling experienced at the high recommended concentration)
 

potpimp

Sector 5 Moderator
Say it ain't so Joe!!:o I hate that most companies are so greedy they feel the need to have you burn your plants up just so you'll use a few more cents of their product faster. When will they ever learn? Looking forward to the results.
 

Guile

Active Member
So far there is one interesting observation I have made.....

Though I should probably start by saying that my grow room is a 10x20 foot addition added to the side of my house, though insulated it is not heated by anything other than the 2.4kw worth of lights that I run at night to take advantage of the warmer daytime temperatures while they are off (its kind of cool to see which strains have started turning purple from the cold) currently speaking I am running 4 ebb & flow tables each is 3ft square (1m2) and has its own 40 gallon (150 liter) res. I run GH flora series nutrients using the modified Lucus formula with the addition of Superthrive, Kool Bloom, and Hygrozyme.

I run a perpetual harvest so I pull a table every 2 weeks. Each table is set up with 16 sites and I am running 2-4 strains per table (4 or 8 plants of each strain)
If you are familiar with my local laws and have done the math I would like to circumvent discussions about legality by stating that I share garden space with my girlfriend/partner whom is also a MMJ patent and care provider (so we are within the current laws)

The strains I currently have in flower are :
Sour Diesel (mid-late in flowering)
Wappa (mid-late in flowering)
Redd Cross
Sage & Sour (early-mid in flowering)
MOB (early-mid in flowering)
AK48
White Castle
Head Band
Blue Gum (early in flowering)
Light of Jah (early in flowering)
Skunk
Chronic
Northern Lights

During my first test spraying of the high recommended hormone concentrations I sprayed 16 plants (essentially 1-2 plants of each verity).

The observation I've made so far is that the leaves of some of these plants are curling. I have been placed under the impression that its a product of too high an IAA concentration.

Here's the interesting part, the most robust/best yielding strains with my system/method seem to be the ones most affected with the curling leafs. For the most part they are broader leaf verity's (MOB, Blue Gum, exct) however some of the narrower leaved are suffering as well (most notably Light of Jah and Wappa).

Sage & Sour (which has medium width leafs) is taking it particularly poorly. This is my first cycle with Sage & Sour and I had high hopes for the strain but much like Redd Cross its sending branches out the side nearly equal in distance to its height making it unsuitable for my setup. Might be worth mentioning that sour diesel is suffering the symptom as well, just to a lesser extent.

Blue Gum is perhaps the second next most affected, the significance is that this particular cutting is simply the most resistant, robust, idiot proof plant I have ever encountered (I've worked with no less than 3 dozen strains). On more than one occasion I have thoroughly abused this plant in just about any way you could imagine and have yet to hermi never mind kill it.
You don't even need rooting hormone to clone it, you can simply snap off a branch, stick it in a cup of water and within 2 weeks it will have roots (I did this once with a branch I accidentally broke off a mother through rough handling).

This leads me to believe that the most robust plants are more sensitive to artificially elevated hormones, perhaps as a consequence of naturally high levels in them to start with? Though AK48, White Castle and Headband are all good performers too and seem to be showing far less of the leaf curling issues than some of the others.

Chronic, Skunk, and Northern Lights don't seem to be affected at all however they are amongst the least mature plants exposed to the hormones.

The stage in which the most affected plants were/are flowering is also noted as it may also be a contributing factor..
 

potpimp

Sector 5 Moderator
It appeared to me also that the dosage was too high - typical of companies wanting to sell more product, even if they kill your plants. With this effect on your plants you're not going to get bigger buds for sure. I would scale down the experiment until I got it dialed in more.
 
Top