Cytokinins (6-BAP) & Auxins (IAA)

OGEvilgenius said:

If this works like steroids, perhaps there might be the same problem where natural production of some of these hormones might slow down or stop?

Click to expand...

Guile- did you read this post? This is some good intuition here because it is correct. Hormone replacement does cause supression of its production as well as a cascade of other effects.

I wonder why you chose to throw so many different auxins together? Why not pick max 1 auxin and 1 cytokinin? One reason that you see no more than 2 hormones in the literature is because they're trying different orders of magnitudes- say 100:1 auxin:cytokinin to 1:100 auxin:cytokinin. In fact I read that is what is suggested for "homework" in the discussion of many of these tests. The ANOVA tests have no more than 3 hormones. Perhaps cytokinin, auxin, and giberellin. Here is a well thought out ANOVA test for cannabis and various hormones:

http://www.ib.uj.edu.pl/abc/pdf/47_2/145-151.pdf

useless to you, i know, but I do tissue culture so I get a feel for this stuff. Also many of these hormones are finicky in solution, IAA being the most finicky, so your cocktail has probably just trashed your IAA anyways. Many others require special methods for dissolving in solution and keeping them stable.

CONSTANS and FLOWERING
CONSTANS and the evolutionary origin of photoperiodic timing of flowering
Hope this one works its a pdf on a webviewer p14: flowering, CONSTANS, and Gibberellins

drewbot said:

Guile- did you read this post? This is some good intuition here because it is correct. Hormone replacement does cause supression of its production as well as a cascade of other effects.

I wonder why you chose to throw so many different auxins together? Why not pick max 1 auxin and 1 cytokinin? One reason that you see no more than 2 hormones in the literature is because they're trying different orders of magnitudes- say 100:1 auxin:cytokinin to 1:100 auxin:cytokinin. In fact I read that is what is suggested for "homework" in the discussion of many of these tests. The ANOVA tests have no more than 3 hormones. Perhaps cytokinin, auxin, and giberellin. Here is a well thought out ANOVA test for cannabis and various hormones:

http://www.ib.uj.edu.pl/abc/pdf/47_2/145-151.pdf

useless to you, i know, but I do tissue culture so I get a feel for this stuff. Also many of these hormones are finicky in solution, IAA being the most finicky, so your cocktail has probably just trashed your IAA anyways. Many others require special methods for dissolving in solution and keeping them stable.

Click to expand...

My thought on the different Auxins was predominantly based on the part of the plant/function that each seems to be most closely associated with (it would seem to get pronounced results in more than one aria/attribute it would require more than one Auxin)

Ideally the objective of my experiments is to produce the greatest biomass (by way of flower) in the shortest frame of time between taking a cutting and pulling a harvest. (I live in a state that places a relatively low limit on the number of plants I can legally cultivate) don't get me wrong, I also have an eye on "feed efficacy" so to speak, keeping yield to cost ratio as reasonable as possible too. (what I would consider the common concerns of most farmers)

Far from useless your insight could be exceedingly useful in working out a more focused/effective test in the near future. I would love to hear more of your thoughts/opinions (at varying levels of detail).

Though a relatively simple sort myself (my dad an I consider ourselves "hicks" we try to make the best of the simple tools and modest resources available to us) and new to phytohormones, I have actually experimented with animal hormones a bit going as far as to strip the ester chains from (chemically alter) some in order to speed up their half life, allowing finer control through more frequent/lower dosages (this worked well when attempting to balance the effects of a hormone "stack") They too require special consideration when attempting to maintain a stable solution (though I try to follow manufacturer/distributor recommendations whenever available/applicable)
Anyway, I'm just trying to apply what I have learned through that experimentation to plants now, and hopefully learn a bunch of new stuff along the way

This may sound odd but I enjoy reading research/white papers, especially if there is a decent body of them to be found (so you can compare them to each-other, makes for good reference material). The thing I seem to get about must research (not everyone does) is that the research (aria itself) and many aspects of it are directly (or at least in part) a product of the researchers themselves. Making first hand experimentation the only way to attain atleast as much true knowledge/first hand understanding as the author of the paper is claiming to offer (otherwise you are accepting what is essentially opinion, or what they want you to think as fact) The scientific method calls for repeatable unbiased results (this bay nature requires much independent testing).

I think with technology we have become better "informed" and less "intelligent" we can Google/Wiki something and accept what we find as fact (even pass it of as such), but who actually "learned" anything in the process? All you have done is become better informed of the "accepted wisdom" or "conventional view".. Without effort towards "creative problem solving" in an attempt to glean any sort of personal incite there is no opportunity to hone the intellectual aspect of our mind (get a real education).
This is where the masses get manipulated. We have grown far too domesticated now, lazy and accepting... (at this rate one day we may evolve to bare a mighty fine fleece) With our mediocre educational standards and utter lack of critical thinking we have conveniently blurred the line between informed and intelligent to spare our own personal feelings (and create an ever more docile next generation for that "lucky" 1-2% of us to manipulate for our/their own personal gain). Consequentially I don't just want to be informed, I want to be knowledgeable too..

Well I think that the only advice I would give you right now is to understand what you're working with. Many hormones are not stable in aqueous solution, so you get a lot of info out of agar solutions but they might not be useful to you. Also you can foliar feed the hormones if needed. Each of these ideas needs to be checked according to stability and activity in solution or at a given pH and how that will interact with the plant. It's useful to get literature together and start comparing, but don't assume that you can replace decades of lab technique and command of the given art, so although I commend you for taking on a big task I am trying to politely warn you to keep it really simple. Notice the difference in hormone therapy in 5 different cultivars that I linked to you. Strip all of the variables you can.

Although I won't claim to know much at all about this field, I will give you an idea on how I approach it. I'm a biochemical engineer and a chemist, but so far all of my tests have been on a hormone or two versus no hormone or growth regulator at all. I'm using a variety of cultivars as well which is the other variable. Actually I'm stress testing them so I'm killing most of them off in one form or another. Before I figure out how to get them to thrive I am learning how to kill 'em. In my opinion your approach is a bit complicated. You aren't the first person to want to make a large flowering mass, either. Many of these hormones are stuffed in commercial mediums but many are not stable, so your best bet is to start with IAA and figure out a delivery method that is stable, and double check that against a standard (no hormone). Then work up from there... HTH

drewbot said:

Well I think that the only advice I would give you right now is to understand what you're working with. Many hormones are not stable in aqueous solution, so you get a lot of info out of agar solutions but they might not be useful to you. Also you can foliar feed the hormones if needed. Each of these ideas needs to be checked according to stability and activity in solution or at a given pH and how that will interact with the plant. It's useful to get literature together and start comparing, but don't assume that you can replace decades of lab technique and command of the given art, so although I commend you for taking on a big task I am trying to politely warn you to keep it really simple. Notice the difference in hormone therapy in 5 different cultivars that I linked to you. Strip all of the variables you can.

Although I won't claim to know much at all about this field, I will give you an idea on how I approach it. I'm a biochemical engineer and a chemist, but so far all of my tests have been on a hormone or two versus no hormone or growth regulator at all. I'm using a variety of cultivars as well which is the other variable. Actually I'm stress testing them so I'm killing most of them off in one form or another. Before I figure out how to get them to thrive I am learning how to kill 'em. In my opinion your approach is a bit complicated. You aren't the first person to want to make a large flowering mass, either. Many of these hormones are stuffed in commercial mediums but many are not stable, so your best bet is to start with IAA and figure out a delivery method that is stable, and double check that against a standard (no hormone). Then work up from there... HTH

Click to expand...

I agree (I've been a little ambitious) I believe I may have bitten off more than I can chew (especially for a first bite)..

I am under the impression that the use of a single hormone (like IAA) can yield predictable results on its own, some of which might be undesirable to the ultimate goal.
Would you find it reasonable to combine its usage (in variable ratios/concentrations) with other hormones in an attempt to counteract some of the less desirable affect's? I know that I am complicating things at this point (muddying the waters so to speak) making it harder to completely appreciate the fullest scope of each components affect but it seems like a useful time saver (as something will likely have to be done to curb things like stretch do to cellular elongation anyway)

I think a big flaw in my approach so far is that I keep assuming that I want to "treat" one undesirable condition with another "pill" so to speak. and its just becoming a convoluted "over-medication" going into it..

I think you are right, I have a feeling that my next series of tests should be with individual or simple combinations of relatively few hormones, using smaller test groups to accommodate more testing simultaneously. That would allow better understanding of individual components (or groups) before mixing them in more complex concoctions.

I would love to hear more about the incites you have gleaned from your testing so far, some of the hormones/amino acids I have read about more recently sound as though they can aide a plant in being more stress resistant (I assume these are the hormones you are working with?).

How would you recommend keeping IAA in a stable aqueous solution?

OGEvilgenius said:

If this works like steroids, perhaps there might be the same problem where natural production of some of these hormones might slow down or stop?

Click to expand...

Biased on some of the reading I have done it seems that could very well be the case. I'm under the impression that at-least some plants can become tolerant to some hormones (obviously this could apply more broadly than that statement may seem to imply).

Part of/some of my earlier research/experimentation's actually dealt with animal hormones, a big part of managing a hormone supplementation program is dealing with the natural feedback/response of the body (over time producing less to no natural hormone, becoming more tolerant of the artificially elevated levels, and elevating other less desirable hormone levels as a consequence of how they degrade/convert/metabolize). Improperly managed "hormone therapy" can lead to severely negative repercussions upon its termination (conclusion) as a product. Most animals exposed to artificially elevated hormones for more than a couple-few months often remain on them for the rest of their lives.

Three of the 4 hormones used in the "INFLUENCE OF CULTIVAR, EXPLANT SOURCE AND PLANT GROWTH
REGULATOR ON CALLUS INDUCTION AND PLANT REGENERATION
OF CANNABIS SATIVA L." study were Auxins. (2 of which I don't think are found in nature, and I'm finding little about their use other than as herbicides). It seemed like much of the testing was focused on the Auxins (even pairing them together) rather than the Cytokinins that seemed to only be included in about 1/3 of the testing and only ever paired with NAA.

Are there resources that make comprehensive comparisons dealing with the effects of different hormones? For instance comparing Cytokinins like 6-furfurylaminopurine (KIN) and 6-Benzylaminopurine (BAP), or Auxins like Indole-3-acetic acid (IAA) and 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D)?

In regards to the Shoot formation from the Induction of callus on the petiole tissue, does that imply that under the right circumstances you could essentially grow a second branch at each node by removing the fan leaf (or would you have to remove the branch too in order to reach the correct tissue)?

Guile said:

Three of the 4 hormones used in the "INFLUENCE OF CULTIVAR, EXPLANT SOURCE AND PLANT GROWTH
REGULATOR ON CALLUS INDUCTION AND PLANT REGENERATION
OF CANNABIS SATIVA L." study were Auxins. (2 of which I don't think are found in nature, and I'm finding little about their use other than as herbicides). It seemed like much of the testing was focused on the Auxins (even pairing them together) rather than the Cytokinins that seemed to only be included in about 1/3 of the testing and only ever paired with NAA.

Are there resources that make comprehensive comparisons dealing with the effects of different hormones? For instance comparing Cytokinins like 6-furfurylaminopurine (KIN) and 6-Benzylaminopurine (BAP), or Auxins like Indole-3-acetic acid (IAA) and 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D)?

In regards to the Shoot formation from the Induction of callus on the petiole tissue, does that imply that under the right circumstances you could essentially grow a second branch at each node by removing the fan leaf (or would you have to remove the branch too in order to reach the correct tissue)?

Click to expand...

prepare stock solution of IAA: http://gantlet.org/protocols/iaap.pdf
that's just an example. read the MSDS sheets and generally whatever you can find on sigma aldrich website, and phytotechlab.com. That's a start. It's stable enough on its own so pH it how you like. KOH being preferred for a couple of reasons *read the sheets*

to answer your questions there are resources that compare the cytokins and the auxins on their own, which is the major body of research. Most cannabis related material comes out of university of mississippi. If you have a good college library and you are a student you can get access to them. Off the top of my head TDZ is the hot sh1t for cannabis. Also it makes the plant produce a TON of shoots at the right concentration. Anything above the right concentration and you see some of the complexities of competitive, noncompetitive, and uncompetitive binding between hormones.

Using TDZ at the right level will produce 5x the shoots that the plant would otherwise have made. At the required dose its cheap as hell, too.

edit: that is the last hint i'm going to give out on TDZ. the literature is stuffed full of it and it's no secret but i'm not hand feeding any solutions out- your answer is to dick around with TDZ + cytokinin + giberellin. Perhaps only 2 at first. Watch out for plant life stages, shoots, roots, photosynthesis, and chlorophyll production. It's not a simple task. You won't get past the veg state before you get in over your head, so beware.

drewbot said:

prepare stock solution of IAA: http://gantlet.org/protocols/iaap.pdf
that's just an example. read the MSDS sheets and generally whatever you can find on sigma aldrich website, and phytotechlab.com. That's a start. It's stable enough on its own so pH it how you like. KOH being preferred for a couple of reasons *read the sheets*

to answer your questions there are resources that compare the cytokins and the auxins on their own, which is the major body of research. Most cannabis related material comes out of university of mississippi. If you have a good college library and you are a student you can get access to them. Off the top of my head TDZ is the hot sh1t for cannabis. Also it makes the plant produce a TON of shoots at the right concentration. Anything above the right concentration and you see some of the complexities of competitive, noncompetitive, and uncompetitive binding between hormones.

Using TDZ at the right level will produce 5x the shoots that the plant would otherwise have made. At the required dose its cheap as hell, too.

edit: that is the last hint i'm going to give out on TDZ. the literature is stuffed full of it and it's no secret but i'm not hand feeding any solutions out- your answer is to dick around with TDZ + cytokinin + giberellin. Perhaps only 2 at first. Watch out for plant life stages, shoots, roots, photosynthesis, and chlorophyll production. It's not a simple task. You won't get past the veg state before you get in over your head, so beware.

Click to expand...

I think the CAS registry and MSDS are 2 of the most useful sources of information for me when it comes to cross referencing, comparing, and finding out what is in alot of the things I come across in my searches..

Unfortunately I'm not in school anymore, and left under relatively tense circumstances. I'm lucky I didn't end up in trouble/walk away with a bill (I think they worried it would have been too much of an embarrassment, as I was the youngest student ever admitted and at their highest scholarship level to boot). Don't get me wrong, that sounds different than I mean. I simply wasn't who they expected me to be, and I pretty much bombed out while having too much fun, so I don't think they will allow me to use their resources anymore..

Now TZD is a Cytokinin isn't it (or it behaves like one?), and you warned about too close a node spacing (before your edit, didn't you, otherwise i read it elsewhere?) so that would seem to imply that the best 2 part solution would likely incorporate the Giberellin (to encourage stretching between nodes)
With a starting point around 5-10ppm TZD? and a greater quantity of GA (up to 5 times as much?) (and around 10-20ppm 2,4-D respectively for a study on fruit anyway)
Though I have a feeling that you were referring to Kinetin (6-Furfurylaminopurine) as the other Cytokinin being that it was involved in the study you referenced earlier. BA looks to be responsible for more "new shoots" in a couple studies I've recently read.

This discussion dances on the edges of my comprehension, but I am tracking as best as I can. I am also very interested in the effects of triacontanol, cytokinins and other PGR's; Admittedly, I am just beginning to learn about the subject. I used to post on another online forum where a member by the handle of DizzleKush was conducting various tests. He left a link for his conclusive results. I am still learning how to decipher much of the scientific terminology, but hopefully this will help contribute to the topic at hand..

https://www.icmag.com/ic/showpost.php?p=4835054&postcount=146

Green Revolution said:

This discussion dances on the edges of my comprehension, but I am tracking as best as I can. I am also very interested in the effects of triacontanol, cytokinins and other PGR's; Admittedly, I am just beginning to learn about the subject. I used to post on another online forum where a member by the handle of DizzleKush was conducting various tests. He left a link for his conclusive results. I am still learning how to decipher much of the scientific terminology, but hopefully this will help contribute to the topic at hand..

https://www.icmag.com/ic/showpost.php?p=4835054&postcount=146

Click to expand...

Same here man, this is education by immersion, (if you don't drown you inherently learn to swim)..

Some of the papers I reed have me looking up things just to grasp the significance of a name or process I am otherwise unfamiliar with to that point..

the http://phytotechlab.com/ and http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/united-states.html are pretty cool.this looks interesting Cytokinin Activity Induced by Thidiazuron wish I could find
Yip and Yang (1986) and Thomas and Katterman (1986) I have a feeling they make interesting reads too. Here is an interesting 3 part solution


I just tend to "google" or "Wiki" a hormone name and start cross referencing everything I find. MSDS CAS Common/product names other related and similar hormones/products.. I book mark alot of stuff for future reference too (partly because I often have a dozen pages open at a time looking at even a narrow cross section of information relating to whatever I'm checking out at the time)..

Guile said:

This may sound odd but I enjoy reading research/white papers, especially if there is a decent body of them to be found (so you can compare them to each-other, makes for good reference material). The thing I seem to get about must research (not everyone does) is that the research (aria itself) and many aspects of it are directly (or at least in part) a product of the researchers themselves. Making first hand experimentation the only way to attain atleast as much true knowledge/first hand understanding as the author of the paper is claiming to offer (otherwise you are accepting what is essentially opinion, or what they want you to think as fact) The scientific method calls for repeatable unbiased results (this bay nature requires much independent testing).

I think with technology we have become better "informed" and less "intelligent" we can Google/Wiki something and accept what we find as fact (even pass it of as such), but who actually "learned" anything in the process? All you have done is become better informed of the "accepted wisdom" or "conventional view".. Without effort towards "creative problem solving" in an attempt to glean any sort of personal incite there is no opportunity to hone the intellectual aspect of our mind (get a real education).
This is where the masses get manipulated. We have grown far too domesticated now, lazy and accepting... (at this rate one day we may evolve to bare a mighty fine fleece) With our mediocre educational standards and utter lack of critical thinking we have conveniently blurred the line between informed and intelligent to spare our own personal feelings (and create an ever more docile next generation for that "lucky" 1-2% of us to manipulate for our/their own personal gain). Consequentially I don't just want to be informed, I want to be knowledgeable too..

Click to expand...

Yeah, as a guy with a degree in a completely different field, it can be is a lot to swallow. I need a couple classes to get properly up to speed, but until then I can always educate myself.

Luckily, I know exactly what you were saying in the quote above. Sadly, I can't help but agree that the inquisitive mind is certainly becoming a much rarer creature these days.

You are pretty good at digging up references that's for sure. Care to share that one? We'll trade. I don't have much on 2,4-D on cannabis but the one piece I do have looks impressive. You can use like 20:1 GA:TZD. I don't know what TZD conc'n to start with.

One cool way to test your formula is to use a brix refractometer. Perhaps someone would like to check this reference because I read it in a real life paper book: foliar application will result in a change in brix reading within 2 hours signifying nutrient uptake. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

drewbot said:

You are pretty good at digging up references that's for sure. Care to share that one? We'll trade. I don't have much on 2,4-D on cannabis but the one piece I do have looks impressive. You can use like 20:1 GA:TZD. I don't know what TZD conc'n to start with.

One cool way to test your formula is to use a brix refractometer. Perhaps someone would like to check this reference because I read it in a real life paper book: foliar application will result in a change in brix reading within 2 hours signifying nutrient uptake. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Click to expand...

Which one are you after? http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/01140670709510200 is the one about Kiwi fruit.. I found another about Papayas but i think it used Dicamba or Picloram instead of 2.4-D.

On a different forum (in fact I think it was one you mentioned) I read something about GA actually delaying/inhibiting the onset of flowering in cannabis plants which is not what I am use to seeing. I hope that whomever stated that was mistaken, otherwise I am, and it would force me to come to alot more understandings than I have currently been in pursuit of...

Most of what I am finding about cannabis seems to deal with basically cloning plants from cells found in the nodes. Their rooting, growth, and proliferation of growing tips. I'm sure the results of these tissue culture tests can be directly translatable to "established plant" growth however I hate taking things like that for granted (making assumptions like that).

For fucks sake before using dicamba(2,4-d) as a growth inhibitor, how about you just drop the temps. Guess what they'll be nice and squat.

The problem I'm currently working on is rooting ex vitro shoots that have been dosed with TDZ in vitro. It seems as though the success is not very good, but IBA provides my best chance. I am going to start by fogging the rootzone with IBA. I don't know what conc'n yet. I'm going to foliar with IBA as well. Aside from that I'm at a loss. Any suggestions?

Afka said:

For fucks sake before using dicamba(2,4-d) as a growth inhibitor, how about you just drop the temps. Guess what they'll be nice and squat.

Click to expand...

Please don't take this wrong, I'm not trying to pull a superiority trip here (I'm just learning about this stuff myself).

It seems that DICAMBA is actually 3,6-Dichloro-o-anisic Acid
And 2,4-d is 2,4-DICHLOROPHENOXYACETIC ACID

Here is a comparison of the 2 on sugar cane
Here is a comparison of 2,4-D, Dicamba, and Picloram on soy beans (though clearly at/around herbicidal levels)

I'm only pointing this out because I find this to be pretty complicated (overwhelming) to start with, confusing things together would only make it worse.

Another thought (speculatively speaking) I believe both Dicamba and 2,4-d are Auxin/growth promoters. I know it seems counter intuitive being that both are used as herbicides (in higher doses) but I believe the action responsible for this is essentially rapid, uncontrolled, abnormal, cell growth (like cancer in animal bodies) Which can result in the blockage of phloem vascular tissue. Ultimately the plant is killed by starvation resulting form an inability to translocate needed energy in the phloem. (like a stroke/vascular blockage in animal bodies).

Its the Cytokinins used in many of these cocktails that seems to be the component responsible for focusing the plants growth horizontally as apposed to vertically. Though Triacontanol (mentioned a bit earlier) has also been described as offsetting the effects of GA (Gibberellic acid) which is known to cause cellular elongation (stretiching).

So far I would speculate that the biggest advantages of Auxins like 2,4-D, Dicamba, and Picloram over IAA (Indole-3-Acetic Acid) would be their mobility/water solubility and relatively low cost at effective concentrations. Though some of my reading seems to suggest that Dicamba can promote more "shoot tips" than other Auxins when compared for that purpose (though may be a product of node activity), I rarely see Dicamba used in conjunction with the Cytokinin Thidiazuron (TDZ) which would seem to be attributed with a similar quality when compared to its "pear group" so to speak.
I wonder if the combination of TDZ and Dicamba leads to uncontrolled (non uniform) growth in this aria.

Plant regeneration from cocoyam callus derived from shoot tips and petioles
The abstract seems to indicate that the combination of these hormones favor the "node" more than the "growing tip". Being that there is generally a growing tip at every node, having a greater number of nodes seems like it would be a good thing (Denser buds/shorter fuller plants) If that is in fact what could be drawn from it. Unfortunately I don't have access to the full document and am still unclear how well these plant tissue cultures translate to "established" plant growth.

drewbot said:

You are pretty good at digging up references that's for sure. Care to share that one? We'll trade. I don't have much on 2,4-D on cannabis but the one piece I do have looks impressive. You can use like 20:1 GA:TZD. I don't know what TZD conc'n to start with.

One cool way to test your formula is to use a brix refractometer. Perhaps someone would like to check this reference because I read it in a real life paper book: foliar application will result in a change in brix reading within 2 hours signifying nutrient uptake. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Click to expand...

Reference material is usually the best starting point for experimentation (gives you an idea of where you should begin your experiments).

2,4-D seems to show up alot, I have a feeling its advantages are greater than I fully appreciate at this point, unfortunately not knowing I cant say what they might be..

1mg per liter seems to be like 1ppm and I think the concentrations of TDZ commonly used in cannabis related study's are between 0.1 and 5.0 with 1 showing up most commonly. that would seem to make your ratio 20:1 likely 20ppm GA and 1ppm TDZ (though half-twice concentration would seem reasonable too). I'd speculate that if you were to add an Auxin like 2,4-D, Dicamba, or Picloram you would likely want to lower the ratio of GA/Cytokinsns in order to reduce stretching brought on be the cellular elongation of the GA in favor of the cellular division/expansion brought on by the Auxin something like 1/15/1 (2/30/2) Reducing the GA may also have the affect of reducing its influence on Flowering and fruit set (developing seedless fruit).

To remedy this/encourage/induce flowering it seems like a combination of amino acids 100ppm? ATCA (N-acetyl-thiazolidine-4-carboxylic acid) and 100-200ppm Fulvic acid might get you back to where you want to be. Though I would likely keep the amino acid solution separate from the other hormones, not only to make it easier to tweak each of the cocktails independently but also the application of the amino acids are likely to be more frequent (speculatively speaking of course).

Otherwise referencing the earlier "fruit" study's (but scaling to levels more commonly seen in cannabis study's) it would be like 2ppm TDZ, 10ppm GA, and 4ppm Dicamba (concentrations of well over 50ppm GA are commonly tested and any adjustments made would likely be in that direction, my intuition at this point says closer to 20-30ppm)

Another thought on why an Auxin may not be used in your recipe, would be that perhaps the affect of Auxins are predominantly focused on vegetative growth forcing the plant to utilize recesses that might otherwise be available for flowering..
Though this study "The Dual Role of Auxin in Flowering" would seem to indicate that should not be a concern.

drewbot said:

The problem I'm currently working on is rooting ex vitro shoots that have been dosed with TDZ in vitro. It seems as though the success is not very good, but IBA provides my best chance. I am going to start by fogging the rootzone with IBA. I don't know what conc'n yet. I'm going to foliar with IBA as well. Aside from that I'm at a loss. Any suggestions?

Click to expand...

The insert I got with my IBA seems to imply that a concentration of 50ppm should be sufficient for both single spray or long soak methods, Keep in mind that all other recommendations made in these inserts seem to be excessive.. Perhaps something more like 10-20ppm would be more suitable especially if there is going to be long-term or repeated exposure.

Looks like Walnuts do well at 5-40ppm

Perhaps you can clarify for me just how translatable these tissue culture tests are to the application of established plants (having a complete root/circulatory system). All I really see is maybe at the concentrations tested a plant should be able to handle constant/continuous exposure to the hormone?

What scale do you use? I own a Gempro 250 that I picked up for a different project (best compromise to be had at the time). These are supposed to be accurate to 1mg which to me means you should never trust it below 2mg but preferably more like 5mg (leaving a 20% margin of accuracy). making minimum "accurate" test batches over a gallon. (1gal 42oz) otherwise over 2.5gal to obtain accuracy within 10% (assuming 1ppm target)

How is your stress hormone testing coming along? I have some sativa influenced hybrids that are a little more sensitive than I like. If I ever plan to successfully tame "true Sativas" to accommodate my growing methods I have a feeling stress resistance is going to be another major consideration to keep in mind.
I found this while looking for info about ATCA Mixtures and methods for the induction of resistance in plants

I have a lot of work to do this week with TC. Basically all week... anyways the translation is hard to make because with TC your tissues are undifferentiated and you can basically boss the plant around. With the ex vitro plant you're nudging the plant with hormones and it will try to reach stasis again, whereas TC will just do what you tell it and that level of TDZ will boss around any natural auxin which is why values above 0.5 micrograms per liter is about at the max level. Also the diffusive forces are much more prevalent in a liquid solution than in a gel, so obviously the plant gets an initial shot when transplanted but then it wanes off naturally, which is why i'm having a problem predicting what happens when i take an unrooted cutting out of culture after it is soaked in TDZ. I will be dealing with this problem all week, and I need to get the plant to snap out of it properly. In other words, I will know god damn well how TC and ex vitro are related in very short time because I have to.

Oh and my scale.. well it's not mine. It's good though. The local police used to use this scale to weigh in drugs that they seized. This is where I have/may/do work I'm testing out my hash right now so I'll see how much sense I made in the morning, but stay tuned for TC experiment. I have hundreds of plants in beer cups I was using for node sacrifice but i'm just going to mess them up with hormones now. Must make room for the army of agar jars. I have seen 2,4-d and dicamba both "win" to some degree in affecting the plant in some way that I was not interested in, so I would have to go back and look, but I ordered them because they are so DAMN CHEAP i figured i'd toss it in a cocktail and make some callus tissue - perhaps attempt somatic embryogenesis which is yet to be recorded for cannabis that I know of. Oh and once I figure out the whole aventitious bud formation then GAME OVER! I'm growin nugz in suspension culture. Growin weed out of thin air eh? Anyone else got the balls to get that going? No plant to tell it when to start, stop.. just your imagination and alchemy *poof*. Smoking too much reefer... eh? Nah I've paid my dues went to school for a long time and been in this game dealing with the biggest idiots I could imagine so I'm taking the game to another level and cashing in. Bet your ass. The big show is yet to come. Synthetic seeds, cloning autoflowers, recombinant gene expression, all with homemade lab equipment out of old stereos and computers, car parts.. oh and dedication. Anyone want in on an IPO I can use the loot?