# Molasses?



## ta2drvn (Jun 1, 2008)

been hearing a lot about using molasses during flowering to help pack on some some extra meat on those bones, but what is the earliest you use molasses? The way I have heard people talk, it kinda sounds like something you could do from the very early on, but is it just a unusable ingredient for the plant in earlier life?

I would like a little better understanding on #1 how to use it most effectively and #2 how the plant utilizes the molasses in different stages of life. Any help is mucho gracias!


----------



## speedhabit (Jun 1, 2008)

From my limited understanding molasses is equivilent to the carbo loading products sold in the hydro stores. They help add bud mass during flowering, feed the good bacteria, add benefitial micronutes.

I use beir rabbit blackstrap molasses as both a carb suppliment and a cal-mag suppliment. Plus its like 2 bucks a huge ass bottle in the supermarket. I add 1 TBS with each gallon of water that goes into a 5 gal bucket every other day. Stuff seems fine. I add it, shake, and let sit for a while before adding organic nutes to the water. 

Most of the fertilizer sales stuff on HTG says to use these carb products throughout the cycle but I only use it in the final half of flowering.


----------



## ta2drvn (Jun 1, 2008)

speedhabit said:


> I use beir rabbit blackstrap molasses


thanks, I keep hearing about 'blackstrap molasses' but I have never seen it in stores, at least here in so cal, could it be called something different or is it the same as regular molasses? I have also hear of sulfured and unsulfured, is this the same?

LOL... how many different types of molasses can there be? Can Maple Surup be used is it the same?


----------



## MrFishy (Jun 1, 2008)

ta2drvn said:


> thanks, I keep hearing about 'blackstrap molasses' but I have never seen it in stores, at least here in so cal, could it be called something different or is it the same as regular molasses? I have also hear of sulfured and unsulfured, is this the same?
> 
> LOL... how many different types of molasses can there be? Can Maple Surup be used is it the same?


Yeah, it's all the same (un-sulphered) and I've seen nothing about using Maple Syrup . . . if you can, I'm sure it'd have to be pure, and that's expensive (for syrup) . . . I think "Grandma's" is the most available U.S. molasses.


----------



## mister420green (Jun 10, 2008)

I have a question, if you use maple syrup instead of sweet would that add any flavor? I've never tried it but Mr. Fishy had a good point. And I love maple syrup. Flavoring Bubba Kush with it might be pretty tasty.


----------



## smokertoker (Jun 10, 2008)

I tried using black strap molasis in my hydro system and it did not work out well and I would not recomend it. Stuff started growing in my water after the intoduction of the molasis. I believe I used about 1 tbs per gallon. I didn't see any difference while I was giving it a shot. If I remember correctly I gave it a shot for about 3-4 weeks.


----------



## MrFishy (Jun 10, 2008)

smokertoker said:


> I tried using black strap molasis in my hydro system and it did not work out well and I would not recomend it. Stuff started growing in my water after the intoduction of the molasis. I believe I used about 1 tbs per gallon. I didn't see any difference while I was giving it a shot. If I remember correctly I gave it a shot for about 3-4 weeks.


Yeah, I've seen several posts re:molasses and hydro . . . I think it's a soil thing mainly?


----------



## MetalSmelter (Jun 10, 2008)

Yes pretty much a soil thing, the sugars in molasses grime up/clog the sprayers/etc in hydro and bacteria and mold start forming a few days after any sugar sits in water for long periods of time.

I add Gma's at 1/2 tspn per 1/2gallon, and have read that up to 2tblspn in 1gallon max....depending on situation.


----------



## purplehaze2 (Jun 10, 2008)

I use in my hydro and it kicks ass,nothing ever gets cloged.I use 1tbl spoon and 2 teaspoons for a 5 gallon bucket. pack that suger on,just dont pack to much you will topple the plant.


----------



## smokertoker (Jun 10, 2008)

You don't have any problems with stuff starting to grow or just smell. My water went staight funky... I blame that for damaged caused to my roots at that time. I had the same type of thing happening when I added staight sugar cane too. I did use a lot more molasis then you say you use.


----------



## greenbrewer (Jun 11, 2008)

I believe the important function of molasses is to provide micronutrients/minerals, not carbohydrates (sugars). 

Blackstrap molasses contains fewer sugars and more nutrients. It's basically a less pure form of regular molasses. 

I don't know about the mineral content of maple syrup, but I suspect it is not a good substitute for molasses.


Unless you see a problem with your plants, I don't know if you really need it. But heck, if you're growing in soil and you aren't worried about a bacteria issue, then it probably won't hurt you unless you way overdose it.


----------



## purplehaze2 (Jun 11, 2008)

yes you can go to much,I never have a problem with smell or root rot.It sounds like to me your water is just sitting there and not circulating.its time to turn her into a recirculating system which is a lot easier to use no air pumps no foggers nothing just fill the res with nutes and watch it go. the nutrient is constantly moving .and sugar is different than unsulfered molassass.


----------



## abwhite86 (Jun 12, 2008)

i used a teaspoon per gallon earlier today for the first time to my month old seedlings ill let you know how it works


----------



## purplehaze2 (Jun 15, 2008)

just to let you know I use only in the flowrering stage. I think the reason people get root rot and smells is theres a light leek penatrating to the bottom of the buckets,and if theres a light leek the molllas will get it molding rather than if you didnt have mollasss, the sweetness will start the mold issue.hope I helped PH2


----------



## KillerWeed420 (Jun 15, 2008)

I use a 1/2 tablespoon of Grandma's Molasses in my soil grow. Just once a week and it does seem to work.


----------



## oh really??? (Jun 15, 2008)

Not my words but i did the leg work for you. it convinced me to add it the whole time of growing. get ready to read. hope this helps you.


Sweet Goodness - Magical Molasses

There are a number of different nutrient and fertilizer companies selling a variety of additives billed as carbohydrate booster products for plants. Usually retailing for tens of dollars per gallon if not tens of dollars per liter, these products usually claim to work as a carbohydrate source for plants. A variety of benefits are supposed to be unlocked by the use of these products, including the relief of plant stresses and increases in the rate of nutrient uptake. On the surface it sounds real good, and while these kinds of products almost always base their claims in enough science to sound good, reality doesn&#8217;t always live up to the hype. 

The 3LB are pretty well known for our distrust of nutrient companies like Advanced Nutrients who produce large lines of products (usually with large accompanying price tags) claiming to be a series of &#8220;magic bullets&#8221; - unlocking the keys to growing success for new and experienced growers alike. One member of the three_little_birds grower&#8217;s and breeder&#8217;s collective decided to sample one of these products a while back, intending to give the product a fair trial and then report on the results to the community at Cannabis World. 

Imagine, if you will, Tweetie bird flying off to the local hydroponics store, purchasing a bottle of the wonder product - &#8220;Super Plant Carb!&#8221; (not it&#8217;s real name) - and then dragging it back to the bird&#8217;s nest. With a sense of expectation our lil&#8217; bird opens the lid, hoping to take a peek and a whiff of this new (and expensive) goodie for our wonderful plants. She is greeted with a familiar sweet smell that it takes a moment to place. Then the realization hits her. . . 

Molasses! The &#8220;Super Plant Carb!&#8221; smells just like Blackstrap Molasses. At the thought that she&#8217;s just paid something like $15 for a liter of molasses, our Tweetie bird scowls. Surely she tells herself there must be more to this product than just molasses. So she dips a wing into the sweet juice ever so slightly, and brings it up to have a taste. 

Much the same way a sneaky Sylvester cat is exposed by a little yellow bird saying - &#8220;I thought I saw a puddy tat . . . I did I did see a puddy tat . . . and he&#8217;s standing right there!&#8221; - our Tweetie bird had discovered the essence of this product. It was indeed nothing more than Blackstrap Molasses, a quick taste had conformed for our Tweetie bird that she had wasted her time and effort lugging home a very expensive bottle of plant food additive. Molasses is something we already use for gardening at the Bird&#8217;s Nest. In fact sweeteners like molasses have long been a part of the arsenal of common products used by organic gardeners to bring greater health to their soils and plants.

So please listen to the little yellow bird when she chirps, because our Tweetie bird knows her stuff. The fertilizer companies are like the bumbling Sylvester in many ways, but rather than picturing themselves stuffed with a little bird, they see themselves growing fat with huge profits from the wallets of unsuspecting consumers. Let us assure you it&#8217;s not the vision of yellow feathers floating in front of their stuffed mouths that led these executives in their attempt to &#8220;pounce&#8221; on the plant growing public. 

And the repackaging of molasses as plant food or plant additive is not just limited to the companies selling their products in hydroponic stores. Folks shopping at places like Wal-Mart are just as likely to be taken in by this tactic. In this particular case the offending party is Schultz® Garden Safe All Purpose Liquid Plant Food 3-1-5. This is a relatively inexpensive product that seems appealing to a variety of organic gardeners. Here&#8217;s Shultz own description of their product.

&#8220;Garden Safe Liquid Plant Foods are made from plants in a patented technology that provides plants with essential nutrients for beautiful flowers and foliage and no offensive smell. Plus they improve soils by enhancing natural microbial activity. Great for all vegetables, herbs, flowers, trees, shrubs and houseplants including roses, tomatoes, fruits, and lawns. Derived from completely natural ingredients, Garden Safe All Purpose Liquid Plant Food feeds plants and invigorates soil microbial activity. Made from sugar beet roots! No offensive manure or fish odors.&#8221; 

That sure sounds good, and the three_little_birds will even go as far as to say we agree 100% with all the claims made in that little blurb of ad copy. But here&#8217;s the problem, Shultz isn&#8217;t exactly telling the public that the bottle of &#8220;fertilizer&#8221; they are buying is nothing more than a waste product derived from the production of sugar. In fact, Schultz® Garden Safe 3-1-5 Liquid Plant Food is really and truly nothing more than a form molasses derived from sugar beet processing that is usually used as an animal feed sweetener. If you don&#8217;t believe a band of birds, go ahead and look for yourself at the fine print on a Garden Safe bottle where it says - &#8220;Contains 3.0% Water Soluble Nitrogen, 1.0% Available Phosphate, 5.0% Soluble Potash - derived from molasses.&#8221;

The only problem we see, is that animal feed additives shouldn&#8217;t be retailing for $7.95 a quart, and that&#8217;s the price Shultz is charging for it&#8217;s Garden Safe product. While we don&#8217;t find that quite as offensive as Advanced Nutrients selling their &#8220;CarboLoad&#8221; product for $14.00 a liter, we still know that it&#8217;s terribly overpriced for sugar processing wastes. So, just as our band of birds gave the scoop on poop in our Guano Guide, we&#8217;re now about to give folks the sweet truth about molasses. 

What Is The Story Behind This Sweet Sticky Garden Goodness?

Molasses is a syrupy, thick juice created by the processing of either sugar beets or the sugar cane plant. Depending on the definition used, Sweet Sorghum also qualifies as a molasses, although technically it&#8217;s a thickened syrup more akin to Maple Syrup than to molasses. The grade and type of molasses depends on the maturity of the sugar cane or beet and the method of extraction. The different molasses&#8217; have names like: first molasses, second molasses, unsulphured molasses, sulphured molasses, and blackstrap molasses. For gardeners the sweet syrup can work as a carbohydrate source to feed and stimulate microorganisms. And, because molasses (average NPK 1-0-5) contains potash, sulfur, and many trace minerals, it can serve as a nutritious soil amendment. Molasses is also an excellent chelating agent.

Several grades and types of molasses are produced by sugar cane processing. First the plants are harvested and stripped of their leaves, and then the sugar cane is usually crushed or mashed to extract it&#8217;s sugary juice. Sugar manufacturing begins by boiling cane juice until it reaches the proper consistency, it is then processed to extract sugar. This first boiling and processing produces what is called first molasses, this has the highest sugar content of the molasses because relatively little sugar has been extracted from the juice. Green (unripe) sugar cane that has been treated with sulphur fumes during sugar extraction produces sulphured molasses. The juice of sun-ripened cane which has been clarified and concentrated produces unsulphured molasses. Another boiling and sugar extraction produces second molasses which has a slight bitter tinge to its taste. 

Further rounds of processing and boiling yield dark colored blackstrap molasses, which is the most nutritionally valuable of the various types of molasses. It is commonly used as a sweetner in the manufacture of cattle and other animal feeds, and is even sold as a human health supplement. Any kind of molasses will work to provide benefit for soil and growing plants, but blackstrap molasses is the best choice because it contains the greatest concentration of sulfur, iron and micronutrients from the original cane material. Dry molasses is something different still. It&#8217;s not exactly just dried molasses either, it&#8217;s molasses sprayed on grain residue which acts as a &#8220;carrier&#8221;.

Molasses production is a bit different when it comes to the sugar beet. You might say &#8220;bird&#8217;s know beets&#8221; because one of our flock grew up near Canada&#8217;s &#8220;sugar beet capitol&#8221; in Alberta. Their family worked side by side with migrant workers tending the beet fields. The work consisted of weeding and thinning by hand, culling the thinner and weaker plants to leave behind the best beets. After the growing season and several hard frosts - which increase the sugar content - the beets are harvested by machines, piled on trucks and delivered to their destination. 

At harvest time, a huge pile of beets will begin to build up outside of the sugar factory that will eventually dwarf the factory itself in size. Gradually throughout the winter the pile will diminish as the whole beets are ground into a mash and then cooked. The cooking serves to reduce and clarify the beet mash, releasing huge columns of stinky (but harmless) beet steam into the air. Sometimes, if the air is cold enough, the steam will fall to the ground around the factory as snow!

As we&#8217;ve already learned, in the of sugar cane the consecutive rounds of sugar manufacturing produce first molasses and second molasses. With the humble sugar beet, the intermediate syrups get names like high green and low green, it&#8217;s only the syrup left after the final stage of sugar extraction that is called molasses. After final processing, the leftover sugar beet mash is dried then combined with the thick black colored molasses to serve as fodder for cattle. Sugar beet molasses is also used to sweeten feed for horses, sheep, chickens, etc.

Sugar beet molasses is only considered useful as an animal feed additive because it has fairly high concentrations of many salts including calcium, potassium, oxalate, and chloride. Despite the fact that it&#8217;s not suitable for human consumption and some consider it to be an industrial waste or industrial by-product, molasses produced from sugar beets makes a wonderful plant fertilizer. While humans may reject beet molasses due to the various &#8220;extras&#8221; the sugar beet brings to the table, to our plant&#8217;s it&#8217;s a different story. Sugar beet molasses is usually fairly chemical free as well, at least in our experience. Although farmers generally fertilize their fields in the spring using the various arrays of available fertilizers, weed chemicals (herbicides) are not used for this crop due to the beet plant&#8217;s relatively delicate nature.

There is at least one other type of &#8220;molasses&#8221; we are aware of, and that would be sorghum molasses. It&#8217;s made from a plant known as sweet sorghum or sorghum cane in treatments somewhat similar to sugar beets and/or sugar cane processing. If our understanding is correct, sorghum molasses is more correctly called a thickened syrup rather than a by-product of sugar production. So in our eyes sorghum molasses is probably more like Maple Syrup than a true molasses. 

In the distant past sorghum syrup was a common locally produced sweetener in many areas, but today it is fairly rare speciality product that could get fairly pricey compared to Molasses. Because sorghum molasses is the final product of sweet sorghum processing, and blackstrap and sugar beet molasses are simply waste by-products of sugar manufacturing, it&#8217;s pretty easy to understand the difference in expense between the products. The word from the birds is - there isn&#8217;t any apparent advantage to justify the extra expense of using sorghum molasses as a substitute for blackstrap or sugar beet molasses in the garden. So if you find sorghum molasses, instead of using it in your garden, you&#8217;ll probably want to use it as an alternate sweetener on some biscuits.

That&#8217;s a quick bird&#8217;s eye look at the differences between the various types and grades of molasses and how they are produced. Now it&#8217;s time to get a peek at the why&#8217;s and how&#8217;s of using molasses in gardening. 

Why Molasses?

The reason nutrient manufacturer&#8217;s have &#8220;discovered&#8221; molasses is the simple fact that it&#8217;s a great source of carbohydrates to stimulate the growth of beneficial microorganisms. &#8220;Carbohydrate&#8221; is really just a fancy word for sugar, and molasses is the best sugar for horticultural use. Folks who have read some of our prior essays know that we are big fans of promoting and nourishing soil life, and that we attribute a good portion of our growing success to the attention we pay to building a thriving &#8220;micro-herd&#8221; to work in concert with plant roots to digest and assimilate nutrients. We really do buy into the old organic gardening adage - &#8220;Feed the soil not the plant.&#8221;

Molasses is a good, quick source of energy for the various forms of microbes and soil life in a compost pile or good living soil. As we said earlier, molasses is a carbon source that feeds the beneficial microbes that create greater natural soil fertility. But, if giving a sugar boost was the only goal, there would be lot&#8217;s of alternatives. We could even go with the old Milly Blunt story of using Coke on plants as a child, after all Coke would be a great source of sugar to feed microbes and it also contains phosphoric acid to provide phosphorus for strengthening roots and encouraging blooming. In our eyes though, the primary thing that makes molasses the best sugar for agricultural use is it&#8217;s trace minerals. 

In addition to sugars, molasses contains significant amounts of potash, sulfur, and a variety of micronutrients. Because molasses is derived from plants, and because the manufacturing processes that create it remove mostly sugars, the majority of the mineral nutrients that were contained in the original sugar cane or sugar beet are still present in molasses. This is a critical factor because a balanced supply of mineral nutrients is essential for those &#8220;beneficial beasties&#8221; to survive and thrive. That&#8217;s one of the secrets we&#8217;ve discovered to really successful organic gardening, the micronutrients found in organic amendments like molasses, kelp, and alfalfa were all derived from other plant sources and are quickly and easily available to our soil and plants. This is especially important for the soil &#8220;micro-herd&#8221; of critters who depend on tiny amounts of those trace minerals as catalysts to make the enzymes that create biochemical transformations. That last sentence was our fancy way of saying - it&#8217;s actually the critters in &#8220;live soil&#8221; that break down organic fertilizers and &#8220;feed&#8221; it to our plants.

One final benefit molasses can provide to your garden is it&#8217;s ability to work as a chelating agent. That&#8217;s a scientific way of saying that molasses is one of those &#8220;magical&#8221; substances that can convert some chemical nutrients into a form that&#8217;s easily available for critters and plants. Chelated minerals can be absorbed directly and remain available and stable in the soil. Rather than spend a lot of time and effort explaining the relationships between chelates and micronutrients, we are going to quote one of our favorite sources for explaining soil for scientific laymen. 

&#8220;Micronutrients occur, in cells as well as in soil, as part of large, complex organic molecules in chelated form. The word chelate (pronounced &#8220;KEE-late&#8221 comes from the Greek word for &#8220;claw,&#8221; which indicates how a single nutrient ion is held in the center of the larger molecule. The finely balanced interactions between micronutrients are complex and not fully understood. We do know that balance is crucial; any micronutrient, when present in excessive amounts, will become a poison, and certain poisonous elements, such as chlorine are also essential micronutrients.
For this reason natural, organic sources of micronutrients are the best means of supplying them to the soil; they are present in balanced quantities and not liable to be over applied through error or ignorance. When used in naturally chelated form, excess micronutrients will be locked up and prevented from disrupting soil balance.&#8221;
Excerpted from &#8220;The Soul of Soil&#8221;
by Grace Gershuny and Joe Smillie

That&#8217;s not advertising hype either, no product being sold there. That&#8217;s just the words of a pair of authors who have spent their lives studying, building, and nurturing soils.

Molasses&#8217; ability to act as a chelate explains it&#8217;s presence in organic stimulant products like Earth Juice Catalyst. Chelates are known for their ability to unlock the potential of fertilizers, and some smart biological farmers we know are using chelating agents (like Humic Acid) to allow them to make dramatic cuts in normal levels of fertilizer application. 

One way to observe this reaction at work would be to mix up a solution of one part molasses to nine parts water and then soak an object which is coated with iron rust (like a simple nail for instance) in that solution for two weeks. The chelating action of the molasses will remove the mineral elements of the rust and hold them in that &#8220;claw shaped&#8221; molecule that Grace and Joe just described.

As we&#8217;ve commented on elsewhere, it&#8217;s not always possible to find good information about the fertilizer benefits of some products that aren&#8217;t necessarily produced as plant food. But we&#8217;ve also found that by taking a careful look at nutritional information provided for products like molasses that can be consumed by humans, we can get a pretty decent look at the nutrition we can expect a plant to get as well. 

There are many brand&#8217;s of molasses available, so please do not look at our use of a particular brand as an endorsement, our choice of Brer Rabbit molasses as an example is simply due to our familiarity with the product, one of our Grandmother&#8217;s preferred this brand.

Brer Rabbit Blackstrap Molasses
Nutritional Information and Nutrition Facts: Serving Size: 1Tbsp. (21g). Servings per Container: About 24. Amount Per Serving: Calories - 60;
Percentage Daily Values; Fat - 0g, 0%; Sodium - 65mg. 3%; Potassium - 800 mg. 23%; Total Carbohydrates - 13g, 4%; Sugars - 12g, Protein - 1g, Calcium - 2%; Iron 10%; Magnesium 15%; Not a significant source of calories from fat, sat. fat, cholesterol, fiber, Vitamin A, and Vitamin C. __________________
Peace


----------



## HiAzHeLL (Jun 26, 2008)

i got a two liter bottle from a buddy of mine that works at a nutrition company for cattle they bag and mix feed for cows. they get big tankers in full of molasses but im not sure what kind it is....would anyone have an good idea as to what it might be???


----------



## Stoney McFried (Jun 26, 2008)

I use sorghum molasses, theyre stronger...but blackstrap works...at walmart, near pancake syrup...brer rabbit molasses - Ask.com Search


----------



## Stoney McFried (Jun 26, 2008)

Here's what I use...Ag Facts


----------



## HiAzHeLL (Jun 26, 2008)

so any type of molasses is alright to use?


----------



## Stoney McFried (Jun 26, 2008)

I think blackstrap or sorghum are the best.


HiAzHeLL said:


> so any type of molasses is alright to use?


----------



## HiAzHeLL (Jun 26, 2008)

thats the thing idk what kind i have. it came out of a big tanker full of the stuff at this farm nutrition place. they use it to mix in with calf feed. i dont want to use it and then find out a day later that the baby girls didnt take to kindly to it


----------



## gangjababy (Jun 26, 2008)

I've always thought unsulphured molasses was the best *because* of the low sulphur content! This article says otherwise, I guess I'll try blackstrap next bottle!


----------



## ta2drvn (Jun 26, 2008)

WOW lots of info.... 


Thanks for all of it guys!


----------



## hooked.on.ponics (Jul 7, 2008)

Why does someone always have to post that 3lb article anytime the subject of molasses comes up? Some of the points in it may not be complete fabrication, but it's obvious they've just got an axe to grind with AN.

Anyone who's ever actually seen Carboload knows that it's ludicrous to say it's the same thing as molasses.


----------



## drumsinttown (Jul 7, 2008)

HOP... I'd say your entitled to your opinion.... As for me... I appreciate the information. Thanks Oh Really


----------



## doctorD (Jul 8, 2008)

I use an and have had great results. yes it can cost a bit more than the other brands but I think its worth it. I have used the carboload and its great.


----------



## El Duderino (Jul 13, 2008)

Ive been using Grandmas Molasses for 2 weeks now at 1 fat tablespoon/ gallon and 2 days ago I started feeding them at 2 fat tablespoons/ gallon. When I came home to check on them today the whole room smelt like warm cotton candy. My buds smell like sugar now. the skunk smell is totally gone and the crystals are coming in nicely.


----------



## ta2drvn (Jul 13, 2008)

El Duderino said:


> Ive been using Grandmas Molasses for 2 weeks now at 1 fat tablespoon/ gallon and 2 days ago I started feeding them at 2 fat tablespoons/ gallon. When I came home to check on them today the whole room smelt like warm cotton candy. My buds smell like sugar now. the skunk smell is totally gone and the crystals are coming in nicely.


How long they been in flower?


----------



## El Duderino (Jul 13, 2008)

4 weeks. I started them outside in april then moved them in for security. Ive had them inside on 12/12 for 4 weeks now.


----------



## tobaaaac (Jul 15, 2008)

This is a crazy debate. If I can remember, on my next crop, I'm going to do a side by side. I'm going to to feed basically the whole Botanicare line. I'll do two of the plants differently. I'll give one of them molasses instead of Sweet, and I'll give the other one no carbo load. I think that's the best way that I can get to the bottom of the great molasses debate. Has anyone done anything similar to this? I thought that's what the 3LB thing was going to be, but no.... just a little bit of info and a big old rant about how the nutrient companies are raping us. I'd like to assert that one would be hard pressed to spend $200 on nutrients when growing $2000 worth of grass. I think that the nutrient expense is a non-issue. You just want what works the best. If you grow one more gram with the $10 product, it paid for itself... twice over here in GA. 

My next crop is 9 plants. Maybe I'll give 3 Sweet, 3 Molasses and 3 neither. That might be a better test than 7 1 1. Opinions? Anyone interested in seeing that? I guess when I start feeding molasses could have some effect too. I think I'll just start it in Aug when I start flowering those little ladies.


----------



## WEEDISGOOD (Jul 15, 2008)

How long will an indoor plant live for?


----------



## makinthemagic (Jul 15, 2008)

i just picked up some black strap today. i'll prolly dose the girls over the weekend. will report back after that, if there is anything to report


----------



## ta2drvn (Jul 15, 2008)

It depends, in veg state (18-24hrs of lights) you could keep one alive as long as you like pretty much, but in flowering state usually 6-15 weeks depending on strain. This is an annual plant meaning they live for a short cycle, usually a spring to fall cycle like in nature.


----------



## ta2drvn (Jul 15, 2008)

I have just started to flower so I will see, next trip to store.


----------



## jimbobjim (Jul 16, 2008)

i cant get molasses where i live, but unprocessed sugar cane and sugar cane juice is readily available , does anyone know about this? also i heard you can use unrefined "brown" sugar. anyone have any experience?


----------



## tobaaaac (Jul 16, 2008)

Where do you live that you can't get molasses?


----------



## jimbobjim (Jul 17, 2008)

i live in the largest country in asia, a little (ok, a lot) paranoid about the goverment dude, dont want to be deported or shit. maybe by not mentioning the name they wont find the posts.


----------



## smokertoker (Jul 17, 2008)

I'd be more afraid of the death penalty over there than deportation...


----------



## sir smokesalot (Jul 17, 2008)

speedhabit said:


> From my limited understanding molasses is equivilent to the carbo loading products sold in the hydro stores. They help add bud mass during flowering, feed the good bacteria, add benefitial micronutes.
> 
> I use beir rabbit blackstrap molasses as both a carb suppliment and a cal-mag suppliment. Plus its like 2 bucks a huge ass bottle in the supermarket. I add 1 TBS with each gallon of water that goes into a 5 gal bucket every other day. Stuff seems fine. I add it, shake, and let sit for a while before adding organic nutes to the water.
> 
> Most of the fertilizer sales stuff on HTG says to use these carb products throughout the cycle but I only use it in the final half of flowering.


exactly, its is a carb loader and it provides mag, cal and iron as well as K. it will help the buds to be denser and more resinous too. but even if it didnt bulk up the plant it is still a great supplement. i use blackstrap but may try regular unsulfered next time



smokertoker said:


> I tried using black strap molasis in my hydro system and it did not work out well and I would not recomend it. Stuff started growing in my water after the intoduction of the molasis. I believe I used about 1 tbs per gallon. I didn't see any difference while I was giving it a shot. If I remember correctly I gave it a shot for about 3-4 weeks.


yeah. molasses in most hyrdo systems = death


----------



## Tongbokes (Jul 17, 2008)

smokertoker said:


> I'd be more afraid of the death penalty over there than deportation...


 Thats what im saying !!


----------



## techhead420 (Jul 18, 2008)

I only have two words of the benefits of using molasses: BULL SHIT.

No where in botany are you going to find a peer reviewed white paper supporting the claim that plants can take up any sugars or other carbohydrates through their roots. I have gone so far as contacting manufactuers asking if they can back up their claims....they never get back to me. There has been a lot of reserach into how to boost the sugar levels in plants (this can be an issue with fruits such as strawberries) but adding sugar has NEVER been found to work outside of tissue culture and some weak evidence in helping seedlings.

The manufactuers making the beneficial claims have never been able to back them up and people on this and other forums have never been able to back up the claim (beyond anecdotes which should not be confused with evidence). 

BS, BS....BS!


----------



## ta2drvn (Jul 18, 2008)

_


techhead420 said:



I only have two words of the benefits of using molasses: BULL SHIT.

No where in botany are you going to find a peer reviewed white paper supporting the claim that plants can take up any sugars or other carbohydrates through their roots. I have gone so far as contacting manufactuers asking if they can back up their claims....they never get back to me. There has been a lot of reserach into how to boost the sugar levels in plants (this can be an issue with fruits such as strawberries) but adding sugar has NEVER been found to work outside of tissue culture and some weak evidence in helping seedlings.

The manufactuers making the beneficial claims have never been able to back them up and people on this and other forums have never been able to back up the claim (beyond anecdotes which should not be confused with evidence). 

BS, BS....BS!

Click to expand...

_
Interesting opinion, thanks for posting. This is the first argument AGAINST Molasses in this thread so far. Can you please provide more info as to why you have formed this opinion. I know you feel it is a waste because you have found that sugars/carbs are not able to be uploaded from the plant roots, how did you come to this conclusion? I mean in addition to your reason being that manufactures don't get back to you with there studies, and no white papers.. (have to admit, not sure what you mean). I'm fairly new and still very open-minded to issues like this and I like to have both sides of the issue so I can come to a conclusion with at least a little info from both pro's and con's. 

So what you are saying rebuts what people are saying about the PLANT utilizing carbs as 'sir smokesalot' put it:

*exactly, its is a carb loader...*

*...and it provides mag, cal and iron as well as K. it will help the buds to be denser and more resinous too. but even if it didnt bulk up the plant it is still a great supplement. i use blackstrap but may try regular unsulfered next time[/I]*

It also mentioned that Molasses provides additional nutrients; wouldn't these be available in a form that the plant could use even if the plant couldn't use the sugars? 




Now if the plant doesn't utilize these sugars/carbs/nutrients what you say would make sense, especially if your intent was to feed the plant, but what about this theory:

"For gardeners the sweet syrup can work as a carbohydrate source to feed and *stimulate microorganisms*. And, because molasses (average NPK 1-0-5) contains potash, sulfur, and many trace minerals, it can serve as a nutritious soil amendment. Molasses is also an excellent chelating agent."

If the above statement is true then wouldn't it still be beneficial for the plant to enrich the soil with extra sugars and carbs, to get the various microorganisms fed and stimulated to help rid your roots of fungi, rot and other root issues? Wouldn't this help to make your roots stronger and better able to upload nutrients that the flowers are needing from your soil? I say this because it seems like when it comes to healthy roots, microorganisms are a popular ingredient to add in with your nutrients. The guy at the Hydro shop showed me an example of this in a bottle he sells for like $129!!!



Don't take this the wrong way, I would be posting a very similar post if the large majority of posts were con and your message was the ONLY one that was pro to using Molasses, you know what I mean? 

Besides, sounds like there are a few posters that have done side by side comparo's and it is the reason they like using it... Tell me about your side by side, please.


----------



## ta2drvn (Jul 18, 2008)

Oh yeah, do you have an alternative to Molasses that you like to use?


----------



## oh really??? (Jul 18, 2008)

yes i was wondering your evidence as well. . .have you tried molasses?


----------



## techhead420 (Jul 19, 2008)

No, I haven't tried molasses. What I'm saying is in all of the history of botany there has not been so much as one peer reviewed white paper to support the claim that adding molasses or anyother carbo to plants has any positive benefit. People should be asking why this is instead of buying into a bunch of manufactuer's money driven hype (it's called critical thinking). I already use fertilizers that give all of the nutrients I need (I use hydro fertilizers in soil with 1000ppm H2O2).

The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. The claim is that molasses will have a positive benefit to plant growth. This claim has NEVER been backed up in a published controlled study. This claim has NEVER been backed in a peer reviewed white paper.



"Now if the plant doesn't utilize these sugars/carbs/nutrients what you say would make sense, especially if your intent was to feed the plant, but what about this theory:

"For gardeners the sweet syrup can work as a carbohydrate source to feed and *stimulate microorganisms*. And, because molasses (average NPK 1-0-5) contains potash, sulfur, and many trace minerals, it can serve as a nutritious soil amendment. Molasses is also an excellent chelating agent."

If the above statement is true then wouldn't it still be beneficial for the plant to enrich the soil with extra sugars and carbs, to get the various microorganisms fed and stimulated to help rid your roots of fungi, rot and other root issues? Wouldn't this help to make your roots stronger and better able to upload nutrients that the flowers are needing from your soil? I say this because it seems like when it comes to healthy roots, microorganisms are a popular ingredient to add in with your nutrients. The guy at the Hydro shop showed me an example of this in a bottle he sells for like $129!!!"

It says "can work" not "will work" and is nothing but a money driven speculation and not a "theory". Critical thinking skills people.


----------



## gangjababy (Jul 19, 2008)

don't knock it until you try it buddy! I see an improvement on my plants and will continue to use it as long as I grow.


----------



## ta2drvn (Jul 19, 2008)

techhead420 said:


> No, I haven't tried molasses.... People should be asking why this is instead of buying into a bunch of manufactuer's money driven hype (it's called critical thinking).
> 
> It says "can work" not "will work" and is nothing but a money driven speculation and not a "theory". Critical thinking skills people.


Well let's see what do you mean by 'critical thinking'...

Critical thinking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia =Critical thinking consists of mental processes of discernment, analysis and evaluation. It includes possible processes of reflecting upon a tangible or intangible item _in order to form a solid judgment that reconciles scientific evidence with common sense_

OK so let's see, you keep referencing manufactures claims not being supported. From what I have found Molasses companies are typically selling there product to consumers for consumption NOT for plant nutrients. So how many Molasses companies have a marketing campaign directed at farmers/grower emphasizing the benefits of molasses for their plants? 

molasses what can it be used for? - Google Search


Most claims that I have seen are from people posting threads that it has worked for them, that they have noticed a difference or they have found it a CHEAP alternative to Hydro shop nutrients, not companies selling it. So who is making all this so called money off of BS molasses sales for plants? 

*Hydro Shops?* - Haven't see it sold in any garden departments for that matter let alone a Hydro Shop... 
*Seed Banks? *- Haven't see it promoted on many of these....
*Growers?* - Have a few growers purchased Molasses companies?
*Investors?* - When was that last big rush on Molasses stock?
*Dispensary Owners?* - I have not seen Molasses sold there either?
*Dealers?* - Are they taking there profits and purchasing stock in Molasses?

*Grocery Store?* - they have always made money off products they sell including Molasses, now I have not seen Grocery Stores promoting this to the MJ community or to growers of any kind. 
*Molasses Companies?* - Seems like a logical choice, but I haven't seen this on there sites? As an additive for cattle, yes, but for plants, no.
*Nutrient Companies?* - Sure, but they usually add other things in with it, I have not seen a straight Miracle Grow Molasses product yet? or other nutrient product with straight Molasses.


So let's get back to 'critical thinking' for this subject:

- Majority of posters and google searches seems to find more people pro than con to using Molasses....

- One of your cons to this debate is that GREEDY COMPANIES promote this product to enhance their profits margins, but yet you offer no companies that are directly offering JUST MOLASSES as a supplement for growing plants. 

- You mention that there is NO PROOF it works, yet you have NEVER TRIED IT? So you have NO evidence to the contrary to offer us that would support your opinion that it does NO GOOD. Wouldn't you think that if you wanted to disprove something or verify your suspicion that it isn't worth an extra $5-10 per grow that you WOULD ACTUALLY TRY IT!!!

I asked for support to your opinion yet you just continue to offer OPINIONS on this, please support your claim as I asked. All I'm looking for is something to support your claims that it doesn't work, I just haven't found anything need help. 


PS...

You said:

_It says "can work" not "will work" and is nothing but a money driven speculation and not a "theory"/I]

Speculation = Speculation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

...Speculation (in a financial context) is the assumption of the risk of loss, in return for the uncertain possibility of a reward...

Seems to be a pretty close definition to what you are talking about, right?

vs. 

Theory = Theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In science a theory is a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation. For the scientist, *"theory" is not in any way an antonym of "fact"*


I would say that what I describe would probably be better thought of as a Theory rather than as a Speculation in this case. At least that is what MY CRITICAL THINKING tells me. My Critical Thinking is starting to tell me YOU are full of BS.... but I do have an open mind about that, just need some proof to the contrary._


----------



## techhead420 (Jul 19, 2008)

WTF? Speculation in this context has nothing to do with finances. ROFLMAO. Jesus Christ on a stick, that was just ridiculous.

Speculation:

Contemplation or consideration of a subject; meditation.
A conclusion, opinion, or theory reached by conjecture.
Reasoning based on inconclusive evidence; conjecture or supposition
In this case there's a lot of conjecture and inconclusive "evidence". This is a text book example of a person trying to make an arguement but not understanding the context of the arguement. Anecdotes are not evidence.

I never said that manufactuers are selling molasses for plant nutrition, I've claim that they're trying to sell it as a carbo source and that this claim has never been backed up using the scientific method. Period. 

Yet another ROFLMAO....you'e asking me to prove a negative. Trying to say prove a negative is an invalid agruement scientifically, philosophically and in a legal context. We learn in first year philosophy classes that the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. The claim is that molasses and carbos are beneficial to plants. My claim is that this has never been backed up. If it has been backed up then by all means, give me a link to a peer reviewed white paper.

Maybe you should look a little harder when you claim that grow stores don't sell molasses:

Garden-Ville Molasses-Spray-N-Grow Gardening
Organic Molasses - 20 L :: Australian Soil Additives & Products

You have shown no "theory". You have shown no kind of evidence that is capable of making future predictions.

Please...show me the research that backs up the claim that adding molasses or carbos has been shown to increase the yield of ANY type of plant. Come on people, show that you've got critical thinking skills and just give me one link. Is that so much to ask?


----------



## MrFishy (Jul 19, 2008)

Has anyone come across sulphered molasses? I sure haven't. It seems to me it's all un-sulphered. Why they note that on the containers is beyond me. Perhaps important info from times gone by. 
I tried using it on my latest grow and it certainly did no harm at all. Nice, nasty lookin' nugs.


----------



## ta2drvn (Jul 19, 2008)

techhead420 said:


> WTF? Speculation in this context has nothing to do with finances. ROFLMAO. Jesus Christ on a stick, that was just ridiculous.
> 
> Speculation:
> 
> ...


This is why I posted what I did, so that we can debate based on what each other ACTUALLY mean, not OUR INTERPRETATIONS of what we are saying. I use this definition and asked if I was correct, because of your adamant insistence that Molasses Manufactures are the ones promoting these claim's and your comment:

_money driven speculation_


Based your defined definition, you are correct, I am on my FIRST grow that is why I am asking about this subject. I am not a expert just trying to understand and learn. I understand that plants produce there own carb through PHOTOSYNTHESIS, and I know that plants will upload substances other than water through the roots, stalks and foliage so if carbs can be broken down why not uploaded also? (ie. you cut a stalk set it in water with blue coloring, a foreign substance other than water or mineral, and the buds will become blue) This is where I am also getting THEORY from my statements. 






techhead420 said:


> I never said that manufactuers are selling molasses for plant nutrition, I've claim that they're trying to sell it as a carbo source and that this claim has never been backed up using the scientific method. Period.


I broke down two basic different ways that people claim Molasses works:

- carb loader 
- Soil Enhancer 

You mentioned:

_No where in botany are you going to find a peer reviewed white paper supporting the claim that plants can take up any sugars or other carbohydrates through their roots._

This would suggest you are disputing the CARB LOADING claim, not Soil Enhancement, or am I wrong? Also that plants DO NOT upload carbs of ANY kind? Is this YOUR ARGUMENT? 

Or are you saying that BOTH soil AND roots are unable to utilize carbs?

I have not found anything that roots will upload carbs, so if this is why you don't think it is beneficial I can understand your point. However, if you feel that the soil would not benefit from these carbs/sugars, then I am not sure you could still be correct. It is still logical to feed the microorganisms in your soil and that this can lead to a healthier soil, thus leading to a healthier and richer plant. 





techhead420 said:


> another ROFLMAO....you'e asking me to prove a negative. Trying to say prove a negative is an invalid agruement scientifically, philosophically and in a legal context. We learn in first year philosophy classes that the burden of proof is on the person making the claim.


YOU made the claim:

_I only have two words of the benefits of using molasses: BULL SHIT_

This claim goes against the 'norm' for this post, I asked for support to YOUR CLAIM, other than your words explaining how carbs are not uploaded by roots, I have not disputed this. 





techhead420 said:


> the claim is that molasses and carbos are beneficial to plants. My claim is that this has never been backed up. If it has been backed up then by all means, give me a link to a peer reviewed white paper.


Molasses (average NPK 1-0-5) contains potash, sulfur, and many trace minerals.... 

Is this in dispute? Do these come in a form that is detrimental to the plant, neutral or would they be beneficial? Now, answer the same question about the soil. 





techhead420 said:


> Maybe you should look a little harder when you claim that grow stores don't sell molasses:
> 
> Garden-Ville Molasses-Spray-N-Grow Gardening
> Organic Molasses - 20 L :: Australian Soil Additives & Products


Looks like another noob mistake, you are correct. kiss-ass

...but the claim seems to imply (at least to my one way focused eyes...LOL) that it aids directly to soil which indirectly benefits the plant.





techhead420 said:


> You have shown no "theory". You have shown no kind of evidence that is capable of making future predictions.
> 
> Please...show me the research that backs up the claim that adding molasses or carbos has been shown to increase the yield of ANY type of plant. Come on people, show that you've got critical thinking skills and just give me one link. Is that so much to ask?


My theory is that if you can keep your soil healthy and rich in the nutrients your plant thrives on then your roots will be less likely to be unhealthy and there for be able to absorb and upload more nutrients and moisture, allowing the plant a better shot at optimal growth.....

As such, I theorize that adding a nutrient that CAN benefit microorganisms contained within the soil, would tend to aid in maintaining the health of that soil AND the addition of trace minerals CAN promote growth...


http://rcrec-ona.ifas.ufl.edu/mol.pdf <-- page 7 & 8 list the minerals found in Molasses (actually different kinds) pretty sure that a plant can upload:

Copper, Iron, Manganese, Zinc, Potassium, phosphorus

Yes that site is for animal use but still minerals are the same, it was an easy find, why I used it. 

OK, I admitted I was wrong..... But I think when it comes to feeding your soil there is evidence that there are beneficial minerals in Molasses and that THESE MINERALS can aid in growth by being available in the soil for the plant to use.


----------



## spiked1 (Jul 19, 2008)

*techhead420 is offering nothing but his own opinion and to me his post is not only hypocritical but offers nothing to back it up. Not even sure why I'm even bothering to post on this.
*


----------



## spiked1 (Jul 19, 2008)

Forgot to mention that mollasses is talked about on many different gardening forums, not only cannibus forums.


----------



## ta2drvn (Jul 19, 2008)

If nothing else, at least I have more information today on this subject than the day I posted my original question.... So I can honestly say thank you to everyone who has posted in this thread.


----------



## oh really??? (Jul 19, 2008)

you're welcome. molasses does benefit the plant. if not from documentation that i can legally site, then from first hand experience that won't hold up in court because i don't have it on white paper or researched officially in a peer review.


----------



## jimbobjim (Jul 20, 2008)

so aside from death penalty and deportation any word on using fresh pure sugar cane juice?


----------



## specialkayme (Jul 20, 2008)

well, if death penalty and deportation are out of the question .... I'll go with puting you in the stockade.

To answer your question, from what I have read pure sugar cane juice will do little if anything to help. I know I'm probably going to get my ass reamed out for that because I don't have proper sources or expert witnesses, but that's what I remembered reading in previous posts. I don't remember which ones, just the compolation of my memory.


----------



## techhead420 (Jul 20, 2008)

Bottom line, you people have not been able to back up your claims with a peer reviewed white paper that molasses, sugar or carbs have any positive benefit for plants. Yup, molasses has some nutes that can be a benefit for plants but what's bullshit is that NONE of you can back your claim that carbs or sugars can benefit any part of the plant. Until you people can do that then you're just speculating (only a dumbass would assume I was talking financial speculating and I never said these complanies were greedy I said to take claims with a finacial incentive with a grain of salt, those are pretty wise words).

Anecdotes are the resort of the mediocre mind and unfortunately mediocre minds tend to confuse anecdotes with evidence. You people are giving nothing but anaecdotes.

Yet once again, why can't you people back up your claims by providing just one source that empirically demonstrates that molasses, sugars or carbs has any benefit to a plant, leaves or roots? Give the damn link people!

I'm not offereing opinion as some knucklehead has suggested, I'm saying you people are bullshit for making claims that you can not or will not back up with evidence. There's a word for people who make claims that they can not back up: crackpot.

Yet again, you have no theory. Although I do admire your copy and paste skills perhaps you should read the definition of theory that you posted. You have no body of evidence from which you can make a future prediction in a given system. Bullshit.

"OK, I admitted I was wrong..... "....first smart thing you've said now back up what you say.

"Looks like another noob mistake, you are correct

...but the claim seems to imply (at least to my one way focused eyes...LOL) that it aids directly to soil which indirectly benefits the plant." 

Look Einstein, these people are making a claim that they are not backing up and they have a financial incentive (I'm still laughing about that "financial speculation" reference. Wow man... just wow) to make this claim. What are they going to do, come out and say we have this great product but there is not a shred of proof to back our claim up.


----------



## specialkayme (Jul 20, 2008)

While I greatly appreciate your opinion, and thank you for your contribution, I think now would be a great time for you to step down from your soap box techhead, and join the rest of the world with their feet on the ground. No one offered a source to back up their claim, which would leave it as a claim, not fact. But I would like to remind you that you have offered no shred of 'peer reviewed white paper' that offers a claim that molasses has NO effect on a plant, or that it has a NEGATIVE effect. Untill you can live up to your own standards, perhaps you should worry less about everyone else. 
That being said, please stop calling people 'crackpots', 'bullshit', and 'Einstein'. If you disagree with what they have to say, make your claim and then wait for a rebutal. Demanding evidence from everyone else, and then claiming that their lack of evidence is your evidence against the claim is hardly a good tactic for disproving a claim.


----------



## drumsinttown (Jul 20, 2008)

I can't imagine wanting to be right like you tech head, considering the amount of friends and vagina that it will probably yeild.....

Is there a way using the scientific method that you can dispute my claim that if you actually behave in real life the way you do in this thread that you will never find someone to talk to you for more than a few minutes


----------



## ta2drvn (Jul 21, 2008)

techhead420 said:


> Bottom line, you people have not been able to back up your claims with a peer reviewed white paper that molasses, sugar or carbs have any positive benefit for plants. Yup, molasses has some nutes that can be a benefit for plants


 

NO benefits or YES benefits?

You are contradicting yourself... and you don't have to be rude... I understand if you are frustrated but there is no need to be rude about this, it only makes your argument weaker, by forcing those that could learn something to close there ears to your word of wisdom.... 

With open debate comes truth... 

I am only trying to get to the bottom of this, call me what ever, I don't care I will try to remain calm. I am not so closed minded that I can't learn something new or look at a subject from more than one side OR ADMIT I AM WRONG, once again I AM NEW that is why I posted this originally. I have asked repeatedly for you to simply answer my question as to WHY YOU FEEL THIS WAY? What facts have lead you to believe this way....

I don't care what everyone can't prove or what they claim; that is not what is being asked of you, once again maybe this will be more clear...

What is so simple and clear to you that is NOT clear to me and most of these people on this subject that makes you so insistent that you have the correct idea behind this and others do not? Botany 101 professor please...

I mean it's not like you have actually tried it, why not? A $5 experiment on one of your many grows to find out for sure, doesn't sound all that hard....


----------



## ta2drvn (Jul 21, 2008)

techhead420 said:


> Look Einstein, these people are making a claim that they are not backing up and they have a financial incentive (I'm still laughing about that "financial speculation" reference. Wow man... just wow) to make this claim. What are they going to do, come out and say we have this great product but there is not a shred of proof to back our claim up.


I thought you would understand, sorry. Here let me explain for you:

You said "_It says "can work" not "will work" and is nothing but *a money driven speculation* and not a "theory"_"


In other words you are saying that they are making claims knowing that they risk being proven wrong and there corp reputation tarnished along with the risk people will stop purchasing their product and put them out of business for the uncertain reward of people purchasing their product on an unproven claim.... rather than the possibility that they have somehow paid some research firm or had someone that has done some kind of small experiment to support or come up with a theory for their claim?

Starting to wrap you mind around the definition...


----------



## ta2drvn (Jul 21, 2008)

Once again I politely ask you a question just like I did in the first place (I even acknowledged that #1 I don't know and #2 I would like to know) and this is met with avoidance and name calling... you taking a play out the political campaign of both the Dem's and Rep's?

If you were to take a step back or better yet, don't tell a friend anything about this debate and ask them to read this post and comment on the behavior of your screen name... Let me help you with how it seems from my prospective, you are someone who just likes to disbelieve just because others believe. I mean most normal, intelligent, rational people don't have to resort to these tactic's if they truly believed they were right, they would simply answer the question. 

I mean I think I have explained why I think it could work, they may be wrong and I am OK with that, I just need to understand why I shouldn't believe this way... I have seen other posts from you, you seem to have knowledge in this field and seem to have studied this subject far more extensively than I have. I have only been asking for your help in understanding why, I don't see why this is so difficult to explain??? Thank God we are not debating the shape of the World, I mean I could be hanging out with all kinds of people that have influenced me into a belief the world is flat and you could be screaming at the top of your lung everyone is wrong and calling people names and belittle them but that doesn't influence them into learning why the earth is not flat.....

Am I wrong people?


----------



## ta2drvn (Jul 21, 2008)

techhead420 said:


> In terms of molasses, how do you know that the sugars aren't throwing off the osmatic pressure in the root zone making uptake of nutrients more difficult?
> 
> 
> BTW Einstein, companies don't care if they get busted out for making bad claims, there's plenty of suckers out there.


If the first item is true or possible what would cause people to see improved growth that they say they have EXPERIENCED? Just wondering the possibilities that COULD lead to this.


I didn't say the companies cared, I offered up a reason for my 'interpretation' of what you said... 

Man, you really need to read these posts a bit more thoroughly before posting! I mean I have been a little stoned when posting but at least I answer your questions without insults and my cut and paste jobs you like, are so that I can make sure to respond to YOUR questions as best as I can and to make sure there is little misinterpretation, but I can't help it if you are unable to understand this.


I mean shit why so hostile about this subject or my desire to get a better understanding?


----------



## specialkayme (Jul 22, 2008)

Mind if I ask what type of engineering you are involved in? Just curious, I used to study Aerospace Engineering for a few years. Ended up going a different route though.


----------



## techhead420 (Jul 22, 2008)

specialkayme said:


> Mind if I ask what type of engineering you are involved in? Just curious, I used to study Aerospace Engineering for a few years. Ended up going a different route though.


 Electronics Engineer specializing in robotics research and development.


----------



## ta2drvn (Jul 22, 2008)

techhead420 said:


> Why so rude? Because some crackpot is making claims that he can not support. This does a disservice to the online community and is how these faulty urban laegends get started. As an engineer (i.e. scientist), I do not respect crackpots.
> 
> I have ask you to back up your claim that molasses has been shown to be beneficial to any plant. You have decided to redirect the debate to your poor ego playing the victim card. Pathetic.



Have you read my posts? Did you even notice I gave you a + rep for posting your original post, I thought it would help me understand a different perspective, boy was I wrong! When have I said IT WORKS? From my very first post, I gave you the benefit of the doubt and have asked you to explain why you are of this opinion SO I CAN UNDERSTAND instead of being a blind sheep and believing THE FIRST PERSON TO COME ALONG DISPUTING SOMETHING, so far almost 3 pages later you OFFER NOTHING BUT INSULTS AND STILL AVOID EXPLAINING WHY YOU FEEL THIS WAY... (I really haven't even ask for PROOF just an explanation, why so hard to provide, I just don't get it) 

So much for for giving respect before it is given..... YOU ARE THE REASON people have such problems with this...

I have not made a claim, hell, I have even left open the possibility that my understanding may not be correct!!! I have offered up reasons why I 'think it COULD work'; I have tried to explain why I 'think' others have made claims based on what they have posted and I have explained why *I believe* it makes sense to me... NEVER MADE A CLAIM IT WORKS.... You started throwing insults out from your first response to me OVER the semantics of the verbiage I used, then when I explained why I used it you insult me again, I even offered up a peace offering by admitting I was mistaken and I get more insults... 

My ego is not driven by your comments, hell, I've been called worse and some of it could be true... I haven't even suggested you apologize, only refrain from insults. But I sure do wish you would just get off your high horse for a few minutes and help a newb out!!! I am just trying to keep this as an adult conversation and trying to keep this on point, instead of trying to resort to insults and distractions to digress from the original question that you have never answered... 

Here is my original post to you again, so you can reference it BEFORE you continue with you insults, I have tried to give you an opportunity to both help me and everyone else understand why it won't work AND even asked you for an alternative solution in the very next post (yes one more of your favorite cut and paste jobs):







*Interesting opinion, thanks for posting. This is the first argument AGAINST Molasses in this thread so far. *Can you please provide more info as to why you have formed this opinion. I know you feel it is a waste because you have found that sugars/carbs are not able to be uploaded from the plant roots, *how did you come to this conclusion?* I mean in addition to your reason being that manufactures don't get back to you with there studies, and no white papers.. *(have to admit, not sure what you mean)*. *I'm fairly new and still very open-minded to issues like this* and I like to have both sides of the issue so I can come to a conclusion with at least a little info from both pro's and con's. 

So what you are saying rebuts what people are saying about the PLANT utilizing carbs as 'sir smokesalot' put it:

exactly, its is a carb loader...

...and it provides mag, cal and iron as well as K. it will help the buds to be denser and more resinous too. but even if it didnt bulk up the plant it is still a great supplement. i use blackstrap but may try regular unsulfered next time[/i]

It also mentioned that Molasses provides additional nutrients; wouldn't these be available in a form that the plant could use even if the plant couldn't use the sugars? 


Now *if the plant doesn't utilize these sugars/carbs/nutrients what you say would make sense*, especially if your intent was to feed the plant, but what about this theory:

"For gardeners the sweet syrup can work as a carbohydrate source to feed and stimulate microorganisms. And, because molasses (average NPK 1-0-5) contains potash, sulfur, and many trace minerals, it can serve as a nutritious soil amendment. Molasses is also an excellent chelating agent."

*If the above statement is true* then wouldn't it still be beneficial for the plant to enrich the soil with extra sugars and carbs, to get the various microorganisms fed and stimulated to help rid your roots of fungi, rot and other root issues? Wouldn't this help to make your roots stronger and better able to upload nutrients that the flowers are needing from your soil? I say this because it seems like when it comes to healthy roots, microorganisms are a popular ingredient to add in with your nutrients. The guy at the Hydro shop showed me an example of this in a bottle he sells for like $129!!!



*Don't take this the wrong way, I would be posting a very similar post if the large majority of posts were con and your message was the ONLY one that was pro to using Molasses, you know what I mean? *

Besides, sounds like there are a few posters that have done side by side comparo's and it is the reason they like using it... Tell me about your side by side, please


----------



## specialkayme (Jul 22, 2008)

As far as 'white papers' I believe he is refering to peer reviewed, academic style research papers. The kind that are the basis behind people's thesis papers throughout college, graduate school, and the like. The only problem that I see with coming up with 'white papers' about any of the related topics is 1. most researchers arn't studying the affects of anything on marijuana, 2. most governments restrict such research from happening in the first place, but most importantly 3. most of us don't have access to Lexus Nexus, or another database that would contain such material. Most people on here are stoners, newbs, and old time growers (no offense, I'm in there too). Not to claim that there arn't any intelligent individuals on riu, just that many of them don't have access to peer reviewed articles about the cultivation of marijuana, let alone papers about botany in general.

That being what it is, I'm just wondering what your basis for disputing this claim is techhead? Have you tryed it and failed? Have you read about it and the articles said it didn't work? Do you have any doccumentation to support a claim that it doesn't work? Or are you claiming that by there being no doccumentation that it DOES work leads to the logical conclusion that it DOES NOT work?

Not trying to attack, just wondering.

Other than that I think this thread has mainly evolved into techhead and ta2drvn arguing, neither adding very contributing evidence, and occasionally someone like myself chiming in only to be dismissed as part of the peanut gallery. No offense guys, I'm not contributing much either, just saying. So I would suggest for both of you to continue your arguing in pm form, so everyone else doesn't need to read it, and feel free to come back when you have something constructive to add. I just don't really feel like reading 7 more pages of bickering before we get to the bottom of this, but maybe that's just the ramblings of a stoner. 

Just my opinion. Don't like it? Then don't take it.


----------



## ta2drvn (Jul 22, 2008)

You are right, seems we have gotten as far as we will on this subject, it has been 3 pages more than it should have, to get nothing. 

Sorry I couldn't get more info as to why it doesn't work... The rest of it is really pretty petty and seems like it will just continue back and forth with no new info, starting to seem pretty pointless if nothing new will come of it... I tried to get the info, sorry guys. 

Since you asked the questions, maybe Tech will be more willing to give you the answers, seems he is just unwilling to provide because I am asking...


----------



## ta2drvn (Jul 22, 2008)

For those interested in the answer to why Tech feels the way he does:

https://www.rollitup.org/newbie-central/78158-adding-sugur-your-water-5.html

"Quote:
Originally Posted by O4aUsErNaMe 
so is nature.

but it is pretty hard to boost co2 when you grow outdoors,
plus the fact that most of the carbs in the ground have already been burnt of in the growing of the plant.
so the molasses is just an efficient way to boost the carb level at the very moment the plant needs it the most."


Tech's response:

Still, is there any empirical evidence, scientific study etc that demonstrates that the sugar molecule can actually be taken up by the root system. I tried doing a google search and I found nothing besides marketing hype and anecdotes. This strikes me as just another urban legend. At no time in my botany classes, for example, was it ever mentioned that any thing besides various mineral salts, even then only in ionic form, can be taken up and transported via the plants xylem.

I've found not one shred of evidence to support this technique.





Man this is all I asked for in the first place.... Now I understand, it make sense why you feel this way..


----------



## nickfury510 (Jul 22, 2008)

this is a cool article on molasses by the 3 little birds...a group of growers out of humboldt

The 3LBs Molasses Manual - A Marijuana Growers Guide To Soil Sweeteners


----------



## sir smokesalot (Jul 22, 2008)

damn thats a long article i'm way to high to read all that but good post


----------



## techhead420 (Jul 23, 2008)

There is no evidence that molasses, sugar or carbs can be taken up by ANY plant. If you would bother reading through my posts you'll see that I was making that point and NOT just for pot. The only claim that I've made is that there is no science to support these claims. My claim is EASILY falsifiable, just show a white paper that shows that molasses, sugar of carbs has been demonstrated to show an improvement in growth in ANY plant. Absense of proof is not evidence. Anecdotes, like provided on the above link, are not evidence.

You don't need a specialized search engine to find white papers, most os the abstracts at least can be found on google. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim and so far you people haven't shown a shred of proof. A crackpot is a person who makes a claim that they can't back up. I can back up my claim because it's easily falsifiable, why don't you people use a little bit of critical thinking and back up your claim.


----------



## specialkayme (Jul 23, 2008)

techhead420 said:


> Absense of proof is not evidence. Anecdotes, like provided on the above link, are not evidence.
> 
> The burden of proof is on the person making the claim and so far you people haven't shown a shred of proof. A crackpot is a person who makes a claim that they can't back up. I can back up my claim because it's easily falsifiable, why don't you people use a little bit of critical thinking and back up your claim.


So, would you care to back up your claim? By your own standards? You claim that molasses has NO effect on ANY plant. So far you havn't backed it up, just made more claims. Where is your evidence?


----------



## specialkayme (Jul 23, 2008)

techhead420 said:


> Jesus Christ, I'm dealing with a bunch of Einsteins here....this is the problem when a person with actual formal scientific training tries to debate laymen who have no understanding of the scientific method.
> 
> I said there is no science to back up the claim. I said that my claim, which is that there is no evidence to back up that molasses etc has any benefit, is falsifiable, which it is, just show one scientific link for ANY plant.
> 
> Scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


First, please don't insult me. I'm not trying to insult you, just asking you to follow YOUR OWN STANDARDS. Which you have yet again failed to do.

Second, you have no idea who I am, what level of education I have, what formal training I have, or anything about me. 

Lastly, I'll offer you the same advice I did a few pages ago.



specialkayme said:


> While I greatly appreciate your opinion, and thank you for your contribution, I think now would be a great time for you to step down from your soap box techhead, and join the rest of the world with their feet on the ground. No one offered a source to back up their claim, which would leave it as a claim, not fact. But I would like to remind you that you have offered no shred of 'peer reviewed white paper' that offers a claim that molasses has NO effect on a plant, or that it has a NEGATIVE effect. Untill you can live up to your own standards, perhaps you should worry less about everyone else.
> That being said, please stop calling people 'crackpots', 'bullshit', and 'Einstein'. If you disagree with what they have to say, make your claim and then wait for a rebutal. Demanding evidence from everyone else, and then claiming that their lack of evidence is your evidence against the claim is hardly a good tactic for disproving a claim.


You need to get off your high horse, thinking you are an amazing scientist, demanding evidence from everyone else and providing none. That being said, I do not wish to argue with you, I am only asking for facts and evidence, all of which you respond with none and insult me back. So go ahead and insult me again if you like, but I don't really think it will be worth your time to type it, or mine to read it, unless you actually offer some EVIDENCE.


----------



## specialkayme (Jul 23, 2008)

specialkayme said:


> I do not wish to argue with you, I am only asking for facts and evidence, all of which you respond with none and insult me back. So go ahead and insult me again if you like, but I don't really think it will be worth your time to type it, or mine to read it, unless you actually offer some EVIDENCE.


 Thanks Techhead


----------



## ta2drvn (Jul 23, 2008)

This isn't saying anything about roots up taking but it says this about molasses:

'In summary, these studies showed that the low-cost soy molasses is suitable for use in the production of microbial biosurfactants. With further process optimization to improve the yields, it is expected that the production cost of these biosurfactants could be lowered by the use of this agro-based feedstock.'

ARS | Publication request: PRODUCTION OF MICROBIAL BIOSURFACTANTS FROM SOY MOLASSES

Another link I found on Molasses (not saying they support anything just info if you want more info.....)

http://aem.asm.org/cgi/reprint/61/1/165.pdf

in case like me you were not sure what Alcaligenes eutrophus is:

Alcaligenes eutrophus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## hooked.on.ponics (Jul 23, 2008)

But don't you see? No carbohydrate can help plants until science first PROVES that it can and the proper documentation is submitted, peer-reviewed, and published.

After all, we all know that the world was in fact flat until it was conclusively proven to be round and the proper white papers published. If you'd tried to circumnavigate the globe without the proper documentation prior to that, you'd have fallen right off the edge of the world.

Techhead, I know where you're coming from. I dislike bad scientific method as much as the next educated man. However, being an ass is bad for science.

If you are right, being a flaming jerkwad is unnecessary. The truth withstands scrutiny so all that is necessary to prove oneself right is calm, rational scrutiny. Getting emotional and calling people names are the tools of those who lack the ability to prove themselves right.

But here's the thing: the only thing you can hope to prove is that no one has formally conducted an experiment on the interaction of carbohydrates and plants, published the results, and had it peer-reviewed. (I'm assuming here, that this is true. In point of fact, I do not and cannot know such a thing to be true without first checking every single such document known to exist.)

I have never used molasses myself. I have, however, used a carbohydrate supplement (Carboload) and have absolutely no doubts in my mind as to whether or not it works. It does. I know this to be true. Precisely how and why it works is something on which I cannot authoritatively speak. Like my mom - she couldn't tell you why her car runs, but she has no doubt that it does because she has observed it to be so.

Neither she nor I have conducted any research or published any documents to prove this to be true. Neither case is made more or less true by the presence or absence of such documents.

None of us are Wile E. Coyote. We do not need to have studied gravity in order to fall. Gravity works perfectly well for both the Physics major and ignorant rock alike.


----------



## specialkayme (Jul 23, 2008)

Haha, I love your sense of humor hooked.on.ponics


----------



## GarryFroker (Jul 24, 2008)

techhead420 said:


> No, I haven't tried molasses.


That's what I thought, Thank you, move along.....nothing to see here.


----------



## techhead420 (Jul 24, 2008)

hooked.on.ponics said:


> But don't you see? No carbohydrate can help plants until science first PROVES that it can and the proper documentation is submitted, peer-reviewed, and published.
> 
> After all, we all know that the world was in fact flat until it was conclusively proven to be round and the proper white papers published. If you'd tried to circumnavigate the globe without the proper documentation prior to that, you'd have fallen right off the edge of the world.
> 
> ...


 Man, very funny and witty post. I love your humor.

Look, I don't give a damn if I'm an ass, if I can get people to think a little bit and actually look to see if there's anything behind these claims then great. People tend to accept urban legends and anecdotes as fact. All I'm saying is do a little research to see if there's anything to it. That's all I'm saying and so far there is no research to back up any claim so maybe we should have a little empiricism instead of passing off speculation as fact when for all we know there could be no effect or even a harmful effect (does the sugar throw off the osmotic pressure in the root zone making the uptake of nutrients more difficult by the roots?).

Your claim of Carboload working is simply conjecture. Have you've done a side to side experiment so that you can back your claim with empiricism? You know as well as I do, considering all of the factors that go into making a healthy and high yielding plant, that if there is no side by side comparison then other factors can and will play a part in the productivity of a plant. Is asking one to back a claim with empiricism so much to ask? Wouldn't that add to one's credibility?

I make a simple falsifiable claim. There are 100 years or so of research papers to draw from for ANY type of plant. NASA alone has spent millions in SBIR grants coming up with techniques for high sugar content (thus yield) in plants. Is NASA so stupid that they would over look adding carbos to plants? Where is the research to support this urban legend?


----------



## ta2drvn (Jul 24, 2008)

Well guys, thanks for all the information on this subject. I think I have come to the conclusion that I will give Molasses a shot and see. There are 80+ posts and I have found 2 posts that are kinda skeptical but say try it and one person that has never tried molasses or done a side by side himself (and has a hard time being courteous with people that ask questions of him) that keeps repeating the following 'falsable' statement on this subject:


_'The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. *The claim is that molasses will have a positive benefit to plant growth.* This claim has NEVER been backed up in a published controlled study. This claim has NEVER been backed in a peer reviewed white paper.'_


Since I have found plenty of claims (not a lot of access to 'white papers' on this subject through google, sorry I tried, maybe I didn't search correctly? but there seems to be papers on indirect benefits, ie soil) as to the benefits of molasses, well at least, for microbes in the soil that appear to lead to healthier soil. _It seems to me that it only make sense that healthier soil directly benefits the plant._ I am not a botanist or scientist so I could be wrong, but I have always heard the healthier the medium the healthier the plant. Seems to me that for $5-10 it is worth an experiment if nothing else. 


Oh yeah and it helped to have people that actually used the stuff provide there experience in using it, thanks guys.


----------



## Seamaiden (Jul 24, 2008)

Edited to add: I thought white papers were technical publications (engineering specs, that sort of thing). Maybe you should be searching on published papers, ag departments and other similar research. You can also use Google Scholar, but many, if not most, sites require membership and/or demonstration that you have an actual professional need for access to the article.

I might, or might not, read the whole nine pages of this thread. But, before I do, I will say this; efficacy of carbohydrates in the form of sugars has now been shown effective at boosting biological filtration in saltwater aquatic systems. Even VODKA has shown a positive effect (in helping drop oxidized N values).  I'm trying the molasses, it seems to follow along with a lot of the research that has proven endo/ecto micrrhizae to be beneficial in a large way.


----------



## sir smokesalot (Jul 24, 2008)

i'm done with this thread. all anyone wants to do is trade insults and argue whether there is scientific documentation regarding the effects of molasses. who cares? if you use it and think it works go with it. if you use it and dont see improvement, then don't. its as simple as that


----------



## makinthemagic (Jul 27, 2008)

about 48 hours after adding molasses to my 2 girls there was some change. the ~2 week older plant added enough weight to start bending over. the younger one might have added some mass but not as dramatically. i will be upping the concentration and feeding more tomorrow


----------



## CaNNaBiZNeSS (Jul 27, 2008)

i dont know if its a canadian hing only but bulk barns rock the shit out of anything you need, they got like 8 kinds of wierd molasses aroudn here, bnut you need to get the blackstrap, i got 8 oz of it for 97 cents, but you can get it jarred and shit, its messy shit.

infact i found HEMP SEEDS and roasted hemp seeds, suprised me, i actually wouldnt doubt out of the whole 2 tonne bin 10 would germ, even if they are useless, still hilarious to me you know little 13 year olds are tryna buy those seed and try and grow them out LMAO couldnt believe the bulk barn sells hemp seeds


----------



## CaNNaBiZNeSS (Jul 27, 2008)

btw bulk barn is not in any way shape or form an actual barn, it is a store/supermarket of all household needs in bulk, (BIG ASS BINS that you have bags and and weigh out what you want etc) its quite sick i dont know if u guys got them in the states, would suck if you dont you can get anything there; kelp, guano any molasses etc for pennies


----------



## jimmyspaz (Jul 27, 2008)

*My yields increased 1/3 to 1/2 after I started using mollasses as a suppliment during flowering. As I understand it (thanx Subcool) it's largely the trace elements that benefit the plant, not so much the sugars. I would recommend it for anyone growing in soil. I know nothing about hydro though, maybe someone who does could respond.*


----------



## ta2drvn (Jul 27, 2008)

Jimmy and Magic thanks for the posts, keep us up on the progress M, good luck!




Hey Canna, I have never heard of this Bulk Barn sounds like a cool place. BTW, Hemp seed are eaten as a health food, they are high in essential fatty and amino acids... I don't think those seeds will pop and if they do probably have a <1% thc content anyways, poor kid that spends 90+ days trying to grow one... lol



HEMP SEED: The Most Nutritionally Complete Food Source In The World


----------



## Seamaiden (Jul 27, 2008)

I wouldn't mind having something like that Barn around here, that's for sure.


----------



## GarryFroker (Jul 27, 2008)

CaNNaBiZNeSS said:


> btw bulk barn is not in any way shape or form an actual barn, it is a store/supermarket of all household needs in bulk, (BIG ASS BINS that you have bags and and weigh out what you want etc) its quite sick i dont know if u guys got them in the states, would suck if you dont you can get anything there; kelp, guano any molasses etc for pennies


We have them here. They are called Sam's Club and Costco. I'd shop there too but I don't think I need a 50 pound bag of Frosted Flakes.


----------



## GarryFroker (Jul 27, 2008)

ta2drvn said:


> Jimmy and Magic thanks for the posts, keep us up on the progress M, good luck!
> 
> What about me? lol


----------



## codeman420 (Jul 27, 2008)

lol @ this thread.

Molasses is real and works...but its Black strap molasses. It contains the best foods for those micro bacteria in your soil. anyone who dosnt believe...is new. 

word.


----------



## hooked.on.ponics (Jul 29, 2008)

I forgot who it was that asked, but generally molasses is a bad idea in hydroponics.

That's where products like Carboload really become most valuable. People can argue back and forth about whether it's worth the money to use in soil - personally I don't care because anything important enough to me to bother feeding in the first place is going to be in hydroponics rather than soil. Dirt's just for stuff I don't really care about, like houseplants.

But if you put molasses in a hydroponic system most of the time you're going to end up with nightmare of algae and god knows what else growing in your water.

So yeah, skip the molasses in hydroponics. If you want to use something like that go with Carboload.


----------



## GarryFroker (Jul 29, 2008)

hooked.on.ponics said:


> People can argue back and forth about whether it's worth the money to use in soil - personally I don't care because anything important enough to me to bother feeding in the first place is going to be in hydroponics rather than soil. Dirt's just for stuff I don't really care about, like houseplants.


Make sure when you fall off that high hose that you don't hurt yourself.


----------



## drumsinttown (Jul 30, 2008)

I concur.... Feel free to keep comments as annoyingly unnecessary as that to yourself.


----------



## ta2drvn (Jul 30, 2008)

you know some people would only grow their good stuff in soil.


----------



## hooked.on.ponics (Aug 4, 2008)

Look, I understand that when there's a raving lunatic running around telling you that you're full of it for having an opinion that hasn't been double and triple checked by the scientific community that it's easy to get defensive (and offensive) but give a guy a break, will ya?

If you'll remember, I've demonstrated pretty nicely already that I'm not siding with him. Sheesh.

Someone asked a question about molasses and hydroponics. It just so happens that hydroponics is my thing (shocking, I know, considering my screen name). So I answer the question.

Then I say this:



hooked.on.ponics said:


> People can argue back and forth about whether it's worth the money to use in soil - personally I don't care because anything important enough to me to bother feeding in the first place is going to be in hydroponics rather than soil. Dirt's just for stuff I don't really care about, like houseplants.


Nowhere do I say that soil is bad or that hydroponics is better. I'm just saying that, when it comes to plants that are important to me, I will always prefer to put them in hydroponics. Why? Because I get better results there, that's all.

Relax a bit, maybe a couple. Try not to bite someone's head off for having a different opinion. If soil is your thing, more power to ya. I'm not saying there's a single solitary thing wrong with that.

I just prefer 'ponics. There's nothing wrong with _that,_ either.


----------



## sleeper05 (Aug 4, 2008)

So I was pretty much set on going out tomorrow and buying some of this until now that I read that it's for soil grows and not hydro. SOMEONE SHOULD PUT THAT AT THE START SO NO GROWS ARE ROYALLY FUCKED. Probably just flush the whole system but still, pain in the ass.


----------



## Kludge (Aug 4, 2008)

hooked.on.ponics said:


> Relax a bit, maybe a couple. Try not to bite someone's head off for having a different opinion. If soil is your thing, more power to ya. I'm not saying there's a single solitary thing wrong with that.


You're absolutly right. I mean if I saw shit on a hydroponics setup I'd try to wipe the hydroponics off the shit but it's fine for you.

Hey, it's like, I'm not SAYING hydroponics is only done by low life douchebags that have sex with their mothers... I'm just saying.

Please. A person that has to make themselves feel tall by standing on the corpses of others isn't a tall man at all; he's just a midget with bloody shoes.

Admit you were wrong, learn a life lesson, grow a little, and then go sleep with your neighbor's teenage daughter... oh wait, ignore that last part.


----------



## ta2drvn (Aug 4, 2008)

sleeper05 said:


> So I was pretty much set on going out tomorrow and buying some of this until now that I read that it's for soil grows and not hydro. SOMEONE SHOULD PUT THAT AT THE START SO NO GROWS ARE ROYALLY FUCKED. Probably just flush the whole system but still, pain in the ass.





So you read the title maybe the first post then skip to the last page? 

...um 1st page 6th post dealt with the fact that hydro is not a good idea.. I know it is a long one filled with some stupid stuff back and forth and if you skiped THAT I would understand but NOT READING THE 1st PAGE? I am sure you just forgot after having to read all the other 9 pages. Here is a little FRIENDLY ADVICE, maybe it's a good idea to double check before you post, let alone decide if you are going to use something you saw posted in some thread on the internet.... 

Not trying to be a dick about this but, NOT reading posts thoroughly is what started all the stupid ass comments and bickering back and forth in this thread already and this thread was meant to be informative about MOLASSES not a bitchfest thread... HINT!!! HINT!!!


I asked Tech to not be rude and I will ask all others that want to post in this thread to please read what you are going to post and make sure it is not directed in a rude or mean way, this has happened one too many times already, PLEASE.. Lets stick to the topic..


----------



## drumsinttown (Aug 4, 2008)

MMM.... teenage daughter....



BTW, HOP.....
Regardless of any justification you may have....

I reiterate my previous statement.... Annoyingly unnecessary your post was.


----------



## sir smokesalot (Aug 6, 2008)

Kludge said:


> You're absolutly right. I mean if I saw shit on a hydroponics setup I'd try to wipe the hydroponics off the shit but it's fine for you.
> 
> Hey, it's like, I'm not SAYING hydroponics is only done by low life douchebags that have sex with their mothers... I'm just saying.
> 
> ...


what the fuck? 
"I mean if I saw shit on a hydroponics setup I'd try to wipe the hydroponics off the shit but it's fine for you." hahahahahahahahahahahah

thats fucking funny


----------



## Kludge (Aug 6, 2008)

sir smokesalot said:


> what the fuck?
> "I mean if I saw shit on a hydroponics setup I'd try to wipe the hydroponics off the shit but it's fine for you." hahahahahahahahahahahah
> 
> thats fucking funny


 
I try


----------



## techhead420 (Aug 8, 2008)

Well Einsteins, here's a peer reviewed white paper that demonstrates how inefficient adding carbos to soil is. Only 0.6% uptake to new shoots. Unfortunately this process also lowers oxygen levels in the root zone. Low oxygen levels will encourage fungi and harmful bacteria. 

ABSTRACT:
"The flow of carbon from roots into the rhizosphere represents a significant C loss from plants. However, roots have the capacity to recapture low molecular weight C from soil although this is in direct competition with soil microorganisms. The aim of this study was to investigate the behaviour of glucose in rhizosphere and non-rhizosphere soil, the plant&#8217;s potential to recapture sugars from soil and translocation and utilization of the recaptured sugars. In microcosms containing maize plants we injected​​14C-glucose into the rhizosphere and followed its uptake into plants, upward and downward transport in the plant and soil, evolution as 14CO2 and incorporation into the soil microbial biomass. These fluxes were compared with non-rhizosphere soil. Glucose was rapidly mineralized in
soil and the rate of turnover was significantly greater in the rhizosphere in comparison to non-rhizosphere soil. The amount of glucose captured by the maize plants was low (<10% of the total 14C-glucose added) in comparison to that captured by the soil microbial biomass. Only small amounts of the 14C-glucose were transported to the shoot (0.6% of the total). The degree of glucose capture by maize roots whilst in competition with soil microorganisms was similar to similar experiments performed for amino acids. We conclude that while plant roots can recapture low molecular weight C from the rhizosphere, intense competition from soil microorganisms may reduce the efficiency of this process."

https://www.uni-hohenheim.de/~kuzyakov/K_SBB_2006_Glucose-Uptake-Maize.pdf​


----------



## sir smokesalot (Aug 8, 2008)

techhead420 said:


> Well Einsteins, here's a peer reviewed white paper that demonstrates how inefficient adding carbos to soil is. Only 0.6% uptake to new shoots. Unfortunately this process also lowers oxygen levels in the root zone. Low oxygen levels will encourage fungi and harmful bacteria.​
> 
> ABSTRACT:
> "The flow of carbon from roots into the rhizosphere represents a significant C loss from plants. However, roots have the capacity to recapture low molecular weight C from soil although this is in direct competition with soil microorganisms. The aim of this study was to investigate the behaviour of glucose in rhizosphere and non-rhizosphere soil, the plants potential to recapture sugars from soil and translocation and utilization of the recaptured sugars. In microcosms containing maize plants we injected 14C-glucose into the rhizosphere and followed its uptake into plants, upward and downward transport in the plant and soil, evolution as 14CO2 and incorporation into the soil microbial biomass. These fluxes were compared with non-rhizosphere soil. Glucose was rapidly mineralized in
> ...


dude let it go.


----------



## ta2drvn (Aug 8, 2008)

techhead420 said:


> *No where in botany are you going to find a peer reviewed white paper supporting the claim that plants can take up any sugars or other carbohydrates through their roots.*... NEVER been found to work outside of tissue culture and some weak evidence in helping seedlings.
> 
> BS, BS....BS!


Guess you found one huh? 0.60% not a lot but it is a little more than nothing, so they CAN take up sugars, just not very good at it and not very much at a time

here is another excerpt:

_"While *plant roots have been shown many times to actively take up simple sugars* from an external solution"_ 




IF he responds again who is taking bets on the odds of this guy actually admitting his mistake? 

I got my money on NO, with a parlay that he will try to come up with some more rude comments and call everyone (me included) Einstein's.....maybe he thinks posting this informative link is the equivalent?


----------



## ta2drvn (Aug 8, 2008)

Gotta hand it to Tech, as rude and arrogant as he can be the link he posted is a pretty good read, have not read the whole thing but have scanned here and there... on 858 it has some interesting stuff, for those like me with a limited education and don't always understand them there big words realz good like here are some of the highlights that stood out for me:

- previous experiments have indicated that approximately 45% of the glucose-C taken up by roots is subsequently respired as CO2 (Jones and Darrah, 1992).


- The root and soil parts located above the part in which 
the glucose was injected recovered higher C amounts 
than the respective below parts. This is clear evidence 
that glucose was preferably transported with the main 
upward water stream. This upward directed transport of 
glucose was about two times higher than the downward 
transport. 

- The uptake of sugars by roots from a range of crop plants 
grown in sterile hydroponic solutions is well documented 
(Xia and Saglio, 1988; Jones and Darrah, 1993; Vucinic and 
Vuletic, 1995; Sacchi et al., 2000; Stubbs et al., 2004). 
Further, the addition of sucrose to agar is regularly used as a 
mechanism for enhancing the growth of Arabidopsis 
thaliana plants in the laboratory (Sherson et al., 2000). In 
addition, in Arabidopsis the external supply of sugar to the 
roots has been shown to modulate adventitious rooting 
(Takahashi et al., 2003).


- 4.4. Conclusions: 
While plant roots have been shown many times to 
actively take up simple sugars from an external solution, this 
is the &#64257;rst study that demonstrates this phenomenon in a 
rhizosphere soil context. However, our study shows that the 
rhizosphere microbial community are highly effective in 
competing for this resource. 






Hope that helps those that don't want read the link contents...


----------



## alka (Aug 8, 2008)

wow, this is one hot topic!

The elements in molasses are certainly beneficial to a plant, iron, calcium, magnesium, zinc, etc. These nutrients will help a plant grow... but...

If sugars are applied directly to soil, it is the fastest way to lower available nitrogen in that soil. By feeding micro-organisms in soil (with glucose, fructose, maltose, etc) they will rapidly start consuming and holding nutrients, effectively locking them from being used by the plant.

I see many more pictures on this site of classic nutrient burns compared to deficiencies it seems. Feeding with molasses or sugar is a quick way to bring down nitrate levels during flowering. I have a hunch many are just correcting for an abundance of nutrient. 

Sugar is so effective at reducing nitrate levels that people are starting to use is as an organic weed spray. (try googling this)

I can see how many people have had success molasses, for two main reasons 
1- It lowers nitrogen and other keys nutrients, reducing vigor of the plant. (keeping that burn under control)
2- It contains some valuable elements (if you are not already giving them).

I have said my piece, but who the f*ck am i anyway?


----------



## alka (Aug 8, 2008)

just to add to my last post, if you do use molasses, the thicker and blacker and fuller the better, black molasses has a much higher concentration of minerals and elements to sugar (which is no good). 

I am only talking for soil growers here.

Molasses + hydroponics = fermentation (unless you have a heppa filter on the intake or you are very lucky). Makes a pretty shitty tasting 0.001 percent beer, lol.

A Sweet End to Weeds

i found a link, 

we'll see where this ends up.

Best advise i can give is, if you get massive buds and you feed molasses then keep doing so.
If you get massive buds without it then i wouldn't start.

The most important thing is to enjoy the grow and the smoke.


----------



## ta2drvn (Aug 8, 2008)

good post thanks for your input!


----------



## Budsworth (Aug 8, 2008)

I use a product called heavy wieght from my hydro store. The ingredients say 100%
molasses. I pour 2 oz. for 7 gal. into my DWC 6 plant rubbermaid w/ 4 12" airstones
and a 400W digital ballast. Grow room is 3x5 x 8' tall. I can tell you for a fact that it DOES not fuck up my rez water. I change rez once a week,& PH, although I could get away with twice a month I now think. Any way my buds seem to like the molasses.
I have no scientific proof. But I do check my girls EVERYDAY when its close to harvest time and see no ill effects from molassaes. I feed only into the last 3 weeks of flowering. Just my routene. But it works for me.


----------



## Seamaiden (Aug 9, 2008)

alka said:


> wow, this is one hot topic!
> 
> The elements in molasses are certainly beneficial to a plant, iron, calcium, magnesium, zinc, etc. These nutrients will help a plant grow... but...
> 
> ...


Some pages back I happened to make this point, as people in the reefkeeping world are learning the efficacy of using different forms of carbohydrates in order to do exactly that, fix nitrate (very problematic when one's trying to keep corals that evolved in nutrient-poor waters). Even using VODKA.


----------



## Kludge (Aug 13, 2008)

Budsworth said:


> I use a product called heavy wieght from my hydro store. The ingredients say 100%
> molasses.


Just make sure you aren't getting ripped off. I get Brer Rabbit Black Strap Molasses for between $3 to $4 for 12 oz at my local grocery store.


----------



## GarryFroker (Aug 13, 2008)

Kludge said:


> Just make sure you aren't getting ripped off. I get Brer Rabbit Black Strap Molasses for between $3 to $4 for 12 oz at my local grocery store.


12oz Plantation unsulfered Blackstrap for 3 dollars at my store. And its organic of course.


----------



## Seamaiden (Aug 13, 2008)

All we get 'round here is Grandma's. I like Brer Rabbit, reminds me of the stories I heard when I was a kid. And, for some reason, it also reminds me of grits. We're almost out of grits, too.


----------



## supbrah707 (Aug 23, 2008)

the molasses is a wonderful source of potassium, with calcium and manganese. i've been putting it in my soil 1 tblspn/ gallon. shits great.


----------



## Seamaiden (Aug 23, 2008)

I like to eat it, straight out of the jar.


----------



## genisis (Aug 24, 2008)

All I can say is WOW. What a lively conversation. I have been using molasses for about 2 years. I have absolutely no scientific proof it helps - only what I have seen with my own eyes. Since I started using it, I have seen an increase in resin and an increase in density of the kolas. I use the same nutrients, same strains (clones) - same soil type - same everything. Just added molasses - 1/2 tbs per gallon. It works for me and my avatar seems happy 

Although I don`t like it out of the jar - I do like the cookies


----------



## GarryFroker (Aug 24, 2008)

genisis said:


> All I can say is WOW. What a lively conversation. I have been using molasses for about 2 years. I have absolutely no scientific proof it helps - only what I have seen with my own eyes. Since I started using it, I have seen an increase in resin and an increase in density of the kolas. I use the same nutrients, same strains (clones) - same soil type - same everything. Just added molasses - 1/2 tbs per gallon. It works for me and my avatar seems happy.


Bottom line; If you see a dif then that's what matters.


----------



## misshestermoffitt (Aug 24, 2008)

This thread made my brain hurt. 

I would like to try molasses. I would like to know when to start using it. When you first start 12/12 or not until later when buds appear?  

I think it must work. The bud pics on here that always make my eyes pop out and my mouth water are also the people that say they use molasses. I'm thinking the two things are related.


----------



## nickfury510 (Aug 24, 2008)

i start molases right when i switch to 12/12....1 tsp per gallon once a week and i slowly bulk up to 1 1/2tsp per gallon 3x a week by the time i harvest.....aside from the sugars its packed with potassium and from what i understand its really hard to over do it with mollases....but it is possible....it can also be given up to the final day of harvest


----------



## ta2drvn (Aug 24, 2008)

misshestermoffitt said:


> This thread made my brain hurt.
> 
> I would like to try molasses. I would like to know when to start using it. When you first start 12/12 or not until later when buds appear?
> 
> I think it must work. The bud pics on here that always make my eyes pop out and my mouth water are also the people that say they use molasses. I'm thinking the two things are related.



LOL

I kinda look at molasses like marijuana, some people say MJ works for many medical conditions and some say it's BS and it's a dangerous drug... 

Some people say molasses is great for flowering in several ways like trace minerals, sugars for the microb's in the soil (can be used in hydro but probably better products out there that won't be as much work cleaning out the potential mess and molasses can ferment in res.) that help keep the roots healthy to providing sugars that can be uploaded and help increase bud size; you know kinda like how MJ has many medicinal uses, molasses is kinda like that only for growing AND.... some people call it BS!?!


Don't' see any harm in trying it.


----------



## [email protected] (Aug 25, 2008)

SUNCANT n your local healthfood store 4.50 lb the last 4 weeks!!!


----------



## O4aUsErNaMe (Aug 27, 2008)

Kludge said:


> Just make sure you aren't getting ripped off. I get Brer Rabbit Black Strap Molasses for between $3 to $4 for 12 oz at my local grocery store.


man you are still getting ripped off I get 5 liter for $3.75 aud here in aussie land....


----------



## Kludge (Aug 27, 2008)

O4aUsErNaMe said:


> man you are still getting ripped off I get 5 liter for $3.75 aud here in aussie land....


Well yeah, but there's the exchange rate to think of... oh and 100 liters equals like a quart or something right?


----------



## 20$oz (Aug 27, 2008)

1 liter= 1.0570 quarts...He gets the better deal


----------



## Kludge (Aug 27, 2008)

20$oz said:


> 1 liter= 1.0570 quarts...He gets the better deal


Sorry, I thought the hyperbole was sufficient to denote my post as a joke. You know, silly American doesn't know the metric system and all...


----------



## Seamaiden (Aug 27, 2008)

I got the joke.  

And then it was ruined.


----------



## O4aUsErNaMe (Aug 27, 2008)

I got it.....lol..


----------



## FlandersFlash (Aug 28, 2008)

I am doing an outdoor grow. One girl in the ground and 4 in 5 gallon buckets. All of them have nice buds except for the one in the ground. 
I am in the norteast, nights are already getting cooler. SHould I start to add mollasses now, do we know it really will help and not hurt the girls?/


----------



## Kludge (Aug 28, 2008)

The only thing it will hurt is a hydro system. I'm still not sure if actually does anything. I used it on my first grow and am not using it on my second and I don't see any difference. I'm into my 5th staggard grow now.

If anything my second grow is doing better than my first but that's probably just because I'm learning to grow and am getting better with each grow.

So, not very scientific but there ya go.

Oh, and don't use it during veg, but I think someone already said that. It will block nitrogen. I noticed this when I saw my new vegging plants start turning yellow on the edges of their leaves. I stopped the molasses and the leaves recovered (or I pulled them off, can't remember).


----------



## born2killspam (Aug 30, 2008)

Bulk store here in canada sells it for 91 cents/kg, in either fancy or blackstrap format (use blackstrap for this)..
We have a discussion on this in the advanced forum.. Its funny, it doesn't really do too much for the plant directly, aside from its organic uptakable nutrients, but it helps microorganisms that the plant depends on especially late in flowering..


----------



## ClarkNewbury (Sep 2, 2008)

Anyone ever use molasses during veg? I wanna try it.


----------



## tsdriles06 (Sep 2, 2008)

outside it would atrack way to many bugs
inside might be ok


----------



## O4aUsErNaMe (Sep 2, 2008)

tsdriles06 said:


> outside it would atrack way to many bugs
> inside might be ok


balderdash.....i use it all the time and i dont have an insect problem and just for your information it can be used to spray on your garden to repel certain insects...


----------



## Seamaiden (Sep 3, 2008)

I have not used it as a foliar spray, but I am using it plenty in my organic teas, and no issues with attracting bugs. What DOES attract bugs, "meat bees" (I call 'em baby hornets, hubby calls 'em baby yellow jackets) is my seaweed extract. That shit like candy to them, they smell it and I get swarmed by them, FAST. There's gotta be something in it, because they go fucking nutz for the stuff.


----------



## ta2drvn (Sep 3, 2008)

ClarkNewbury said:


> Anyone ever use molasses during veg? I wanna try it.



Based on what has been posted and what I have looked up, don't see a reason it would HURT during veg vs. flower. It has some trace minerals and would help feed the micro-organisms in your soil. Probably better things out there for veg time, but I don't see it doing harm under normal conditions.


----------



## born2killspam (Sep 3, 2008)

During veg time the plant is still quite capable of doing most of the work that the micro-organisms would do.. Late in life they tend to dump alot out of their roots for some reason, and that leaves them lacking proper balance internally, so they rely more on the helpers.. Count me in the boat that believes it causes no harm early, but less benefit will arise from the practise early..


----------



## techhead420 (Sep 3, 2008)

ta2drvn said:


> Guess you found one huh? 0.60% not a lot but it is a little more than nothing, so they CAN take up sugars, just not very good at it and not very much at a time
> 
> here is another excerpt:
> 
> ...


Man, I'm more than happy to admit mistakes, why the fuck do you think I posted that study? I'm more interested in finding the truth than being wrong. 

0.6%. That's it. And BTW, there's still no study showing any actual benefit to adding carbos when one considers the nutrient lock up and lower oxygen levels.


----------



## ta2drvn (Sep 3, 2008)

OK Tech....


I'm done debating this with you, more harm seems to come than good from it for this forum and my intent was for it to be someplace I and others could come to for reference on the subject of 'molasses' not a couple of guys bicker back and forth over semantics. 








PS. On a side note, I said it before and I'll say it again... I could care less about the names you like to call me or the manner in which you feel you need to convey your message. Having said that, you have contributed some very enlightening information and has helped me gain more insight into this and other subjects related and for that I do thank you for your input and posts, but, I still think your a........... no I'll leave it with a thank you for the posts.


----------



## techhead420 (Sep 3, 2008)

ta2drvn said:


> OK Tech....
> 
> 
> I'm done debating this with you, more harm seems to come than good from it for this forum and my intent was for it to be someplace I and others could come to for reference on the subject of 'molasses' not a couple of guys bicker back and forth over semantics.
> ...


 I'll be the first to admit I'm an ass (like I gives a flying F...!), however, I'm also interested in learning the truth rather than dogma (which is why I posted that one research paper showing 0.6%, refuting my own claim).

I actually regret the name calling, this discussion would have been better without it and for that I apologize.


----------



## ta2drvn (Sep 3, 2008)

I wasn't going to say ass, but... OK! lol

Thanks for stepping up and actually apologizing and agreeing with me on something!! LOL, wasn't needed but accepted.






PS. Now I don't regret giving you a +rep on your 1st post... lol


----------



## ClarkNewbury (Sep 3, 2008)

ta2drvn said:


> Based on what has been posted and what I have looked up, don't see a reason it would HURT during veg vs. flower. It has some trace minerals and would help feed the micro-organisms in your soil. Probably better things out there for veg time, but I don't see it doing harm under normal conditions.





born2killspam said:


> During veg time the plant is still quite capable of doing most of the work that the micro-organisms would do.. Late in life they tend to dump alot out of their roots for some reason, and that leaves them lacking proper balance internally, so they rely more on the helpers.. Count me in the boat that believes it causes no harm early, but less benefit will arise from the practise early..


That's exactly my thoughts, I figured a vegging plant would mostly care for itself but I figure if there's nutes in the molasses that they use, there's no reason not to at least try.. so I'm going to, I'll add a tablespoon to my next gallon of water and see what happens. 

Thanks for the replies.


----------



## hooked.on.ponics (Sep 4, 2008)

techhead420 said:


> I actually regret the name calling, this discussion would have been better without it and for that I apologize.


Now I gotta admit, I respect that. It's one thing to be an ass and an entirely different thing to be an ass that can't apologize when it's warranted.

I mean I know I can be a huge ass sometimes, and I know how tough it can be to admit when you've done something wrong.

The hard part is applying the lessons you learn and not repeating them...


----------



## drumsinttown (Sep 4, 2008)

hear hear techhead.... always got respect for that


----------



## Easy P (Sep 5, 2008)

just read this thread through...ive used molasses for years in my outdoor grow during flower and have had great results.molasses boosts microbal activity at a time in the plants life cycle when your girls depend on them most...molasses restricts the uptake of nitrogen thereby allowing a more thourough cure of your finished product in a shorter time due to the fact that less nitrogen at finish means less chlorophyl during cure...also by growing plants side by side ,with and without molasses i have found that molasses grown plants have more resistance to mold,temperature fluctuations, bugs...hope this helps. good luck all...


----------



## born2killspam (Sep 5, 2008)

Do you know anything regarding the science, or have any documentation on molasses restricting N uptake?
Not saying it isn't true by any means, I've just never come across that, and I'm a science geek who likes the nitty-gritty..


----------



## Seamaiden (Sep 5, 2008)

Here's someone post, they found a paper studying the N uptake in corn (a.k.a. maize, I learned a few years ago that what Europeans/Brits call corn ISN'T what Americans call corn). Here's his post a few pages back (it's easy for this stuff to get buried).


techhead420 said:


> Well Einsteins, here's a peer reviewed white paper that demonstrates how inefficient adding carbos to soil is. Only 0.6% uptake to new shoots. Unfortunately this process also lowers oxygen levels in the root zone. Low oxygen levels will encourage fungi and harmful bacteria.
> 
> ABSTRACT:
> "The flow of carbon from roots into the rhizosphere represents a significant C loss from plants. However, roots have the capacity to recapture low molecular weight C from soil although this is in direct competition with soil microorganisms. The aim of this study was to investigate the behaviour of glucose in rhizosphere and non-rhizosphere soil, the plant&#8217;s potential to recapture sugars from soil and translocation and utilization of the recaptured sugars.
> ...


​


----------



## Easy P (Sep 5, 2008)

no real science to back up anything...just been growing for a long time...i did comparison studies in my own garden over time bro.thats pretty much the way i developed my whole method.anyway if you get right down to it even if research was done on the subject as pertaining to weed,you would be hard pressed to find it,let alone believe it,because its been suppressed for a long time...i dont know for 100%certainty that my findings are totally because of molasses...i dont grow in a lab...ive used the stuff for years and ive never had a bad experience with it.i encourage you to do your own experiments.thats the only way to be sure right?good luck...peace


----------



## born2killspam (Sep 5, 2008)

I realize cannabis specific horticultural data is rare to say the least, that maize abstract is exactly the kind of thing I meant.. I do experiment, but collaborated experience is obviously beneficial.. Science isn't only about numbers and high tech analysis, responsible observation can qualify..
In my experience, not much observable difference occurs until about 75% through flowering.. At that point, the clones that got no molasses (pH flushed) started to really show their age in the leaves etc alot faster
than the plants getting molasses flushed, yet the trichromes matured at pretty much the same time..
Yield was 'probably' bettered by the molasses, but I'm iffy about what should get credit.. The molasses flushed buds had much more bag appeal though, that was undeniable..


----------



## Seamaiden (Sep 5, 2008)

I look at it this way--just as all fish evolved to live in water, all plants evolved to soak up the very same sun and same types of nutrients. Of course there are niche organisms, of course each niche is different, leading to differing requirements for the given organism. But, sometimes, some things just "translate", if that makes sense. Extrapolate.

That being said, I'm using molasses to help spur the growth of microorganisms. I'm using it out front with some trees that were doing poorly (incense cedar) and they're doing much, much better than expected.


----------



## normlpothead (Sep 6, 2008)

Popular thread... Over 5k views, 160 replies...

My take on everything with my personal experiments.

I noticed a better taste and aroma with molasses, and have not stopped using it since. This was 4 years ago, then AN released Sweet Leaf, which is mostly molasses, and some other micro nutes... Not sure what. Same effects as using the molasses. As far as nutrient uptake, i didn't notice any difference in overall yield, and consider the possibility of effecting nutrient uptake negligable compared to the better taste.

I also use Carbo Load and keep a good fungal bacterial culture growing in the mix. Thanks to AN.


----------



## abo el Seioof (Jul 1, 2010)

nice work, but so far after reading this thread, i can say i have learned almost nothing!
people who have used molasses dont feel much of an effect,but the bag appeal,smell,..and shit like that(thats what i concluded)
...scientifically which is what i was looking for!! no one has scientifically experimented using molasses. Why?
so far i go with techhead420 he is the only reasonable guy so far.
after using molasses in my hydro/organic nutes, my tank was filled with bacteria, feeding on the sugar for sure!!(how dumb of me!), and making a slime in the tank with a bad smell..
CAN WE GET A POST FROM A SCIENTIST HERE NOT A CONVICT OR BUSSDRIVER!!!!!withall do respect...dont waste ppls time plz..i like to see numbers and sheets and facts..and some R&D!!!!!!!!im an engineer


----------



## Anonymouse (Jul 1, 2010)

I do Hydro and instead of Molasses, I use a product called Sweet by Bontanicare and use it in all stages of growth. It's a bit expensive but I like what it does.


----------



## corners (Jul 5, 2010)

techhead420 said:


> Bottom line, you people have not been able to back up your claims with a peer reviewed white paper that molasses, sugar or carbs have any positive benefit for plants. Yup, molasses has some nutes that can be a benefit for plants but what's bullshit is that NONE of you can back your claim that carbs or sugars can benefit any part of the plant. Until you people can do that then you're just speculating (only a dumbass would assume I was talking financial speculating and I never said these complanies were greedy I said to take claims with a finacial incentive with a grain of salt, those are pretty wise words).
> 
> Anecdotes are the resort of the mediocre mind and unfortunately mediocre minds tend to confuse anecdotes with evidence. You people are giving nothing but anaecdotes.
> 
> ...


Im i the only one noticing hes leaving out helpful to the soil and just keeps drumming that its useless to the plant? As if the two are separate.


----------



## corners (Jul 5, 2010)

techhead420 said:


> Rude? Don't be so sensitive there, Nancy-boy. I'll get you a tissue.
> 
> Yet again, you all can not back up your calims. Yawn.
> 
> ...


Where are your tests?


----------



## kingofqueen (Jul 5, 2010)

Yeah it should be used in soil . What u saw growing is what happens in the soil aka good bacteria


----------



## corners (Jul 5, 2010)

techhead420 said:


> Jesus Christ again, as I already stated before, proving a negative is an invalid arguement philosophically, scientifically or legally. Anyone with a 1st year scientific education would NEVER make an arguement of "prove me wrong". It is a logic falacy that mediocre people resort to when they have no other arguement to make which is why I'm quick to point out that my claim is EASILY falsifiable. Come on people, you all are not even trying. Give valid arguements to support your claims, not BS.
> 
> Negative proof - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


You do little to nothing to prove molasses works is wrong or right , then state no papers are written on the subjeect
and ask others to privde them while you sit on your arse and do nothing to further the debate other then childish insults.

Does anyone really believe a robotics engineer's best insult is calling people Einstein? Sounds like to me you are barely into high school, or less.


----------



## corners (Jul 5, 2010)

techhead420 said:


> Man, very funny and witty post. I love your humor.
> 
> Look, I don't give a damn if I'm an ass, if I can get people to think a little bit and actually look to see if there's anything behind these claims then great. People tend to accept urban legends and anecdotes as fact. All I'm saying is do a little research to see if there's anything to it. That's all I'm saying and so far there is no research to back up any claim so maybe we should have a little empiricism instead of passing off speculation as fact when for all we know there could be no effect or even a harmful effect (does the sugar throw off the osmotic pressure in the root zone making the uptake of nutrients more difficult by the roots?).
> 
> ...



Not sure how you can call peoples experiences BS cause they didn't do a controlled experiment, ESPECIALLY when you refuse to do one yourself.


----------



## corners (Jul 5, 2010)

alka said:


> wow, this is one hot topic!
> 
> The elements in molasses are certainly beneficial to a plant, iron, calcium, magnesium, zinc, etc. These nutrients will help a plant grow... but...
> 
> ...


Also high sugars kill bacteria, or was it mold or v iruses. I cant remember but we did some expermints in my biotech class and i was suprised that too much sugar can break down certain organisms. 

As to your point the sugars breaking down or locking out nitrogen is probably why people dont use the stuff till second half of flowering.


----------



## kingofqueen (Jul 5, 2010)

Yeah but some people want to be free of big business ripping us off. Look at how many different products there are out there ! The 3lbs are just trying to prove a point against big business more so than whether or not how well molassas works.


----------



## kingofqueen (Jul 5, 2010)

Sooo what do u do then?


----------



## corners (Jul 5, 2010)

kingofqueen said:


> Yeah but some people want to be free of big business ripping us off. Look at how many different products there are out there ! The 3lbs are just trying to prove a point against big business more so than whether or not how well molassas works.


Thats exactly what i got from that thread also. Companies are ripping people off up to over a hundred dollars in some cases for something that can be had at our local grocery store for little to nothing


----------



## Gr33nCrack (Jul 5, 2010)

molasses in hydro should work just fine, as long as you boil it with some water first. i mix a solution of half water half molasses and boil on the stove for like 5 minutes, it makes it much more soluble in water


----------



## 12benji (Jul 27, 2010)

Are you from tha reeferside?


----------



## TheRuiner (Jul 28, 2010)

Gr33nCrack said:


> molasses in hydro should work just fine, as long as you boil it with some water first. i mix a solution of half water half molasses and boil on the stove for like 5 minutes, it makes it much more soluble in water


Green, doesn't boiling the mixture do anything to it besides making it more runny? Like with cooking, are nutrients not destroyed when cooked ie. heat is applied?


----------



## Bag Lady (Jul 28, 2010)

Please remember that plants can only uptake nutes that are available in the soil. That means that you must have the right balance of micro and macro nutes in the right ratios to make certain nutes available for uptake. Just because you add something to the soil does not mean it is available. What you add may actually bind to the soil or some other carrier and be unavailable or cause other nutes to become unavailable.

What growers may be seeing is that their soil may not be in balance or lacking micro nutes that are in the Molasses. The adding of Molasses may be balancing the ratio that allows their plants to uptake those micro-nutes or placing in the soil the micros that were not there or in too small amounts for uptake.

In my state the Dept of Ag has a cheap soil test ($5) that will tell you the micro and macro content of your soil. This makes adjusting your nutes sooo much easier. 

And just because I'm curious I'm going to try 1 with Molasses and the others without.


----------



## odbsmydog (Jul 29, 2010)

I love molasses! I use it throughout the whole grow and tons during flowering. the bennies love it, the plants love it, I love the smell. I think it works way better than sweet or carbo-load.


----------



## buraka415 (Aug 1, 2010)

@odbsmydog

i was given a sample of Sweet at the recent Expo. I also have been using EarthJuice Hi-Brix vs buying blackstrap molasses at the local produce store. The latter is $$$$ .. 440ml = $7. The Hi-Brix is at least a gallon I think, for about $23. 

what was your experience with Sweet and why wouldn't you use it again compared to reg molasses

im currently using 100% coco


----------



## frogster (Jan 2, 2011)

I grow my bennies with it , then add it to the rez, i (hydro) I believe the molasses is just good for the bennies... I wouldnt add it straight to the rez,,, I like growing a bennie colony in a separate rez and then adding it... I may try molasses straight to the rez near the end of my flowering..


----------



## tomatogrowop (Jan 10, 2011)

techhead420 said:


> The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim.


AMEN! no one seems to understand basic logic anymore.


----------



## Otokehort (Aug 5, 2011)

Folks, I also found the same sugar uptake papers noted in earlier posts and we sent out inquiries to our scientific network at The American Society for Horticulture Science ... no one that answered from that network has heard of anyone in commercial horticulture pouring sugar on their plants as a normal practice.

I have ultimate faith in capitalism that when something works, everyone uses it ... e.g. mycorrhizae. So when mainstream does not adopt something, it usually means that there is not sufficient benefit for the expense/time spent. 

I have had many growers tell me the sugar is a must, but when I press for for proof, there never seems to be detail and I occasionally run across people who say they don't think sugar makes a real difference and that brings me to my point here. When faced with a claim, the only way to validate the claim is to run trials (following rigorous protocols) and see if you can measure significant changes and then link them back to the differences in care (e.g., added sugar vs did not add sugar.)

The relative dirth of scholarly article on flavor may be explained by the appearance that mainstream hort appears to have set aside research on flavor in favor of finding and using species with good flavor genetics, proper cultural management during growth and post harvest handling and curing. As we begin to get a better understanding of this area... the experimental feedback can help guide us toward an eventual answer and we must be sure that science can confirm the supposed mechanism. 

For example, I'm partial to the thought that Sulfur may be a plausible flavor agent and sulfur is absorbed by the plant as a nutrient. I have a viable path fore the flavor agent to get into the plant and I have an element that is a well know flavor enhancer. So that's my theory and now I need to run trials so that I can measure and compare the outputs. 

Otoké hort


www.otokehort.com


----------



## justin457 (Aug 6, 2011)

drumsinttown said:


> I can't imagine wanting to be right like you tech head, considering the amount of friends and vagina that it will probably yeild.....
> 
> Is there a way using the scientific method that you can dispute my claim that if you actually behave in real life the way you do in this thread that you will never find someone to talk to you for more than a few minutes


ahahahahaha


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 3, 2016)

It does this shit:


----------



## Dr. Who (Aug 6, 2016)

Olive Drab Green said:


> It does this shit:
> 
> View attachment 3748730 View attachment 3748731 View attachment 3748732 View attachment 3748733


You dug up a 6 YEAR old thread, and the last post was 5 years ago?

It's nice and quaint, that you believe that the Molasses is whats making your grow run well.

How many times have we had this disagreement over Molasses?

The properties of Molasses are overblown in growing and more myth then actual fact!!!
The BEST use of molasses to growing is to use it as the carb source for feeding AACT tea making! (everybody I know that makes TEAs does)

If your new to growing - The use of molasses in soil feed solutions is an "old - school" myth. It does not actually "do" what it was intended to.

NEVER put molasses in HYDRO, and that means soilless - like COCO too!

There are other things that "do" what molasses is supposed to, available for use.

But please - do what works for YOU!


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 6, 2016)

Dr. Who said:


> You dug up a 6 YEAR old thread, and the last post was 5 years ago?
> 
> It's nice and quaint, that you believe that the Molasses is whats making your grow run well.
> 
> ...


I disagree strongly with this. The only reason we don't use molasses in hydro is because it clogs and turns rancid in a ricirculating system. Coco is fine. Please don't look for my posts to criticize me I'm not wrong.

You and I will always disagree on molasses, and it seems most people agree with me, so I'm not going to tell anyone running organics not to use molasses, unless it is a pure hydro system.


----------



## Dr.Nick Riviera (Aug 6, 2016)

Olive Drab Green said:


> I disagree strongly with this. The only reason we don't use molasses in hydro is because it clogs and turns rancid in a ricirculating system. Coco is fine. Please don't look for my posts to criticize me I'm not wrong.
> 
> You and I will always disagree on molasses, and it seems most people agree with me, so I'm not going to tell anyone running organics not to use molasses.


I'll leave this here for you GAIN, Maybe you will actually understand it at some point,dunno?

*Molasses for Plants*
By Robert Pavlis on March 31, 2014

This is a hot gardening topic these days and many of the organic gardeners are promoting the idea that you should add molasses to your compost pile and to your garden. It makes the microbes grow better–they need to eat, don’t you know?

Molasses; should you eat it, or dump it onto your soil? You have come to the right place to get the facts.






Molasses for Plants


*Molasses, What is it?*
Molasses is a byproduct produced during the manufacture of sugar. Sugar cane or sugar beets are processed so that the sugar can be extracted. The material that is left after most of the sugar is removed is a black sticky material called molasses. Molasses contains sugar, some other carbohydrates, vitamins and a number of minerals like calcium and iron.

*Molasses for Plants*
You probably know that it is important to have microbes in your soil. If not, have a look at_Organic Fertilizer – What is its Real Value_. If having microbes is important, than it makes sense that you should feed those microbes. Feeding them will make them healthy, and make them reproduce so that you have even more microbes. Guess what? Microbes, especially the bacteria, love sugar. It’s no surprise that they also love molasses since it is mostly sugar.

So far it all seems to make sense. Microbes are good for soil, and molasses is good for microbes, so why not add it to soil? The short answer is that there is nothing wrong with adding molasses to your garden, or to your compost pile. It will feed the microbes.

*Does it Make Sense to Add Molasses?*
*I’ll save you the trouble of skipping to the end of this post–the answer is NO!

Understanding why the answer is no will help you understand your garden. Let’s have a look. In a normal garden, or compost pile, you have a large variety of microbes, all going about their daily lives. They find something to eat, they poop, and they die. This is a continual process that goes on a billion times a second.

Microbes are opportunistic in that their populations will increase and decrease as the conditions change. Let’s assume you have not been doing too much in the garden so conditions are not changing. In that case the microbe populations remain steady. Things are chugging along at a normal pace and everybody is happy.

Now you dump a lot of molasses on the garden. Instantly, microbes sense the extra food and they start to multiply. Bacteria can divide (ie double the population) every 20 minutes. The population explodes very quickly. All those bacteria need to eat, and they quickly consume the molasses you added. As the food source runs out there is a massive famine and most of the bacteria die.

What has the molasses accomplished?

Not much. It is true that all of the dead bacteria go on to feed other microbes, and they help build soil structure. The minerals in the molasses stay in the soil and plants can use them, but your soil probably had enough calcium and iron before you added the molasses. The vitamins in molasses are of no value to plants.

Is the massive population explosion good for your plants? I don’t think anyone knows, but most things in nature are better off without massive changes, and plant roots depend very much on the population of microbes around their roots. I just can’t believe a bacteria population explosion is good for the plants.

Molasses might make your compost pile work quicker, but the first rain, or your hose, will wash the sugars out of the pile removing any benefits.*

*Do You Need to Feed the Microbes?*
The reason for adding molasses is to feed the microbes, so it is important to ask, “Should the gardener feed the microbes?” The answer is a resounding YES! However, there are many ways to do this. Adding compost, wood chips or other organic matter as a mulch is the best way. This provides a slow, steady release of food for the microbes.

Molasses is a product that we can use to feed people and animals. I’d rather eat gingerbread cookies than compost and wood chips. From an environmental point of view it makes more sense to put non-edible organic matter in the garden and keep the food in the fridge.

There is no “magic” in molasses. It’s just another source of organic matter that will be decomposed in the garden. All organic matter contains carbohydrates, sugars, minerals and vitamins, just like molasses. Don’t believe me …… consider the fact that molasses is made from plants; sugar cane or sugar beets.

References:

1) Photo Source: Йоана Петрова
http://www.gardenmyths.com/molasses-for-plants/


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 6, 2016)

Dr.Nick Riviera said:


> I'll leave this here for you GAIN, Maybe you will actually understand it at some point,dunno?
> 
> *Molasses for Plants*
> By Robert Pavlis on March 31, 2014
> ...


Here we go again. You don't "dump molasses." You dilute and water in. Fucking sock.


----------



## Dr.Nick Riviera (Aug 6, 2016)

Olive Drab Green said:


> Here we go again. You don't "dump molasses." You dilute and water in. Fucking sock.


again, your reading comprehension skills suck


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 6, 2016)

Dr.Nick Riviera said:


> again, your reading comprehension skills suck


No, it's just that


Ignored.


----------



## Dr.Nick Riviera (Aug 6, 2016)

too much of a donkey to learn is more like it. and i said,
Bye felecia!!!


----------



## Dr. Who (Aug 6, 2016)

Dr.Nick Riviera said:


> I'll leave this here for you GAIN, Maybe you will actually understand it at some point,dunno?
> 
> *Molasses for Plants*
> By Robert Pavlis on March 31, 2014
> ...





Olive Drab Green said:


> I disagree strongly with this. The only reason we don't use molasses in hydro is because it clogs and turns rancid in a ricirculating system. Coco is fine. Please don't look for my posts to criticize me I'm not wrong.
> 
> You and I will always disagree on molasses, and it seems most people agree with me, so I'm not going to tell anyone running organics not to use molasses, unless it is a pure hydro system.


I came across this thread because it was on the first page Green. I would have answered the same - no matter WHO posted it!

Like I said and have said, and said. Molasses is not effective for it's intended or supposed, for that matter result.....in actual soil feeding.

IT belongs in NO HYDRO style for the bad things it does to hydro. Fermenting is the worst among them....

I come in and add FACT to posts so others can choose for them selves! You continue to believe and that's fine with me. I just get tired of having to post mine and with facts to back mine up from repeat contentions of those believers.

BTW, most all long term, or high end, and highly hort educated growers. DO NOT "agree with you"......You will NOT find it in commercial operations, nor in any of my friends operations around here, all growing for over 30 years and running organic!

Above is simply another example of "truth" listed to educate - NOT PUT "YOU" DOWN!

I have no problem with YOU! Just your constant posting of _your point of view_ _and then hammering mine as an "attack" on you!_
That's not fair...

PLEASE Green use what works for YOU! But, don't expect to post on the joy of molasses and not get a retort!

I've said my piece - I'm done here!

@Dr.Nick Riviera

Nice posting Doc! Great addition!


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 6, 2016)

We took a poll. 16 people agreed molasses works, with one in dissent. You even agree molasses works in AACTs. Which is thoroughly retarded, because if it works in AACTs, it will work straight in the soil as microbes break it down. You are talking a lot of horseshit, and showing you're full of shit by suggesting its use in AACTs and then saying it isn't useful. I'm sorry, Doc, but I'm blocking you, too. In finality, it wirks.


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 6, 2016)

AACTs: The same process that happens in the medium, except given extra air for bigger population and suspended in liquid. The only difference is, the pumped air even further increases microbe population in the suspension.


----------



## Dr. Who (Aug 6, 2016)

Olive Drab Green said:


> We took a poll. 16 people agreed molasses works, with one in dissent. You even agree molasses works in AACTs. Which is thoroughly retarded, because if it works in AACTs, it will work straight in the soil as microbes break it down. You are talking a lot of horseshit, and showing you're full of shit by suggesting its use in AACTs and then saying it isn't useful. I'm sorry, Doc, but I'm blocking you, too. In finality, it wirks.



Just who were these 15 people? And who gives a rats ass about a "poll" on a website! 

Didn't read the post by Dr. Nick did you! 

As for you calling me full of shit and talking horse shit. 

Whatever


----------



## Dr.Nick Riviera (Aug 6, 2016)

Dr. Who said:


> Just who were these 15 people? And who gives a rats ass about a "poll" on a website!
> 
> Didn't read the post by Dr. Nick did you!
> 
> ...


he grew a plant in MG and showed the whole site with his awesome journal of it. Now he knows all about growing.
shouldn't even be allowed in advanced growing till his balls at least drop!!!


----------



## Gary Goodson (Aug 6, 2016)

I use molasses for one thing and one thing only... AACT 

Once you've inoculated the medium, you dont need to keep feeding them sugars. You want them breaking down the stuff in the soil, not being lazy and eating all the sweets. The 20% cal and 25% iron in my blackstrap molasses doesn't impress me one bit. My base fertilizer already has enough of both or it wouldn't be my base fertilizer.

So for the recorded, I would've voted nay on the molasses poll.


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 6, 2016)

Gary Goodson said:


> I use molasses for one thing and one thing only... AACT
> 
> Once you've inoculated the medium, you dont need to keep feeding them sugars. You want them breaking down the stuff in the soil, not being lazy and eating all the sweets. The 20% cal and 25% iron in my blackstrap molasses doesn't impress me one bit. My base fertilizer already has enough of both or it wouldn't be my base fertilizer.
> 
> So for the recorded, I would've voted nay on the molasses poll.


Not saying AACT isn't better, I'm just saying molasses works.

I only use a tablespoon of molasses in 1.5L of water every few waterings or so while I top dress with organic matter, myco, and microbes.


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 6, 2016)

Who the hell would only feed molasses?


----------



## Gary Goodson (Aug 6, 2016)

You can't just do something and claim it worked because the plant didn't die lol


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 6, 2016)

Gary Goodson said:


> You can't just do something and claim it worked because the plant didn't die lol


Doesn't make sense. If AACTs work, dilute molasses would work with the same amount of safety, but to a lesser degree of efficacy. And it did work. My trics are getting thick.


----------



## Gary Goodson (Aug 6, 2016)

So you're saying molasses has made your trichs fatter? 

Have you ran a side by side? Can you explain what you think molasses is doing for your soil/plant?

I think you missed my point. I only use molasses to feed microbes in order to boost the population. In aact the molasses is used for food. So by the time I use my aact most of the sugars have been consumed. In soil your medium is the food. 

So are you using molasses to feed your microbes? Or are you using it as a fertilizer? Or is it to sweeten up the final product?


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 6, 2016)

Gary Goodson said:


> So you're saying molasses has made your trichs fatter?
> 
> Have you ran a side by side? Can you explain what you think molasses is doing for your soil/plant?
> 
> ...


The first two reasons. I don't use soil, I use coco/peat/yucca/EWC. I use it to increase microbe pop and for the micronutrients and carbs.

I have not yet run a side-by-side, no. So to be fair, I do not have a control group.


----------



## Gary Goodson (Aug 6, 2016)




----------



## Dankeh_fever (Aug 6, 2016)

Gary Goodson said:


> I use molasses for one thing and one thing only... AACT
> 
> Once you've inoculated the medium, you dont need to keep feeding them sugars. *You want them breaking down the stuff in the soil*, not being lazy and eating all the sweets..


Ya, that is also my understanding and practice.


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 6, 2016)

Gary Goodson said:


>


I will run a control group next run, just to settle this, alright?


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 6, 2016)

Dankeh_fever said:


> Ya, that is also my understanding and practice.


You have no practice, giddouddaheer. 

And I don't use enough molasses that the microbes would spend more time on the molasses than the other organic matter in the medium.


----------



## Dankeh_fever (Aug 6, 2016)

Olive Drab Green said:


> You have no practice, giddouddaheer.
> 
> And I don't use enough molasses that the microbes would spend more time on the molasses than the other organic matter in the medium.


I actually have a thoroughly tested practice. why would you speak out of your ass?
The purpose of cultivating a vibrant micro herd isnt only to decompose organic matter but also to process inorganic minerals. Trace elements and even macro nutrients are not "organic matter in the medium".

This might help you:
*Inorganic materials In Soil - Geology For Kids - By KidsGeo.com*


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 6, 2016)

Dankeh_fever said:


> I actually have a thoroughly tested practice. why would you speak out of your ass?
> The purpose of cultivating a vibrant micro herd isnt only to decompose organic matter but also to process inorganic minerals. Trace elements and even macro nutrients are not "organic matter in the medium".
> 
> This might help you:
> *Inorganic materials In Soil - Geology For Kids - By KidsGeo.com*


Molasses isn't inorganic. And the point of organics is to feed the microherd in the soil so that the microbes shit out what the plants take up. I know what I'm doing.


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 6, 2016)

Now that guy's on ignore, too. Like I said, my plants show that I can grow. Even with what you guys consider to be some of the lowest quality components. i.e. my light, my medium, my ferts. The only issue I've had was slight N tox. That aside, everyone agrees my plants look great, and more importantly, I think so, too. Will I probably get an air pump and start making AACTs? Probably eventually. For now, I'm fine with what I'm doing.


----------



## Gary Goodson (Aug 6, 2016)

Then tell me, what do you think the yucca is for? Do you know what loves to munch on yucca? Fungi! I hope there's some fun girls in there too lol

There is plenty of food in your soil and molasses isn't that great of a fertilizer either. Again, it has calcium and iron and some nitrogen, but that should all be in your base fertilizer anyway. Even if you were doing water only soil, all of that would be in the mix.

You might want to also take a look at this
http://organicxpert.blogspot.com/2012/09/molasses-as-organic-fertilizer-good-or.html


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 6, 2016)

Gary Goodson said:


> Then tell me, what do you think the yucca is for? Do you know what loves to munch on yucca? Fungi! I hope there's some fun girls in there too lol
> 
> There is plenty of food in your soil and molasses isn't that great of a fertilizer either. Again, it has calcium and iron and some nitrogen, but that should all be in your base fertilizer anyway. Even if you were doing water only soil, all of that would be in the mix.
> 
> ...


Myco's fungus, innit? 

What would you suggest that's effective and organic?


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 6, 2016)

"There are a number of "molasses-based" fertilizers in the market. So, are these products good or bad?
Molasses based fertilizers are good if you wish to increase microbial activity. Increased microbial activity is good for fallow ground or in pre-plant situations. If you increase microbial activity during the growing season you will reduce the available nitrogen for crop growth. This is because microbes use both carbon and nitrogen in an 8:1 ratio. The Nitrogen consumed by the microbes for cell production is immobilized and will only be available in some future time-frame - not in this seasons crop.
Molasses has a 27:1 carbon to nitrogen ration and contains about 21% soluble carbon. For every 8 pounds of carbon applied 1 pound of Nitrogen will be immobilized, or for each 1 lb. of carbon (2 lbs molasses) .12 lbs of Nitrogen will be immobilized.
Let's analyze a liquid fertilizer weighing 10 lb. per gallon @ 4% nitrogen containing 50% molasses.
Carbon content:
10 lb. x .5 (50%) x .21 (% C) = 1.05 lbs Carbon
Nitrogen content:
10 lb x .04 (% N) = .4 lb Nitrogen
Nitrogen Immobilized
1.05 (lbs C) x .12 (lbs. N Immobilized) = 0.126 lbs Nitrogen Immobilized
Remaining Plant Available Nitrogen:
.4 (lbs N per gal.) - .126 (lbs N immobilized) = .274 lbs Nitrogen

*This equates to a 31% loss in available Nitrogen!"*

This states that molasses is a good fertilizer, especially for increasing microbial activity, but that I'm going to need extra nitrogen, which I only need a little of during flower, anyway, right?


----------



## Gary Goodson (Aug 6, 2016)

Hold on man, I'm still on turtle so replying takes some time.

First quote. yes mycos is fungi. but what I'm saying is fungi love yucca so no need to feed them sugars, they have food. You also said you have ewc in the mix so you've got the bacteria covered as well. They are going to be feeding on organic matter in the soil. So again, no need for sugars.

Second quote. I don't think you read the link properly. Its basically said what I was saying earlier, molasses is good for boosting microbe populations, but once established no need to continue feeding them molasses.


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 6, 2016)

Gary Goodson said:


> Hold on man, I'm still on turtle so replying takes some time.
> 
> First quote. yes mycos is fungi. but what I'm saying is fungi love yucca so no need to feed them sugars, they have food. You also said you have ewc in the mix so you've got the bacteria covered as well. They are going to be feeding on organic matter in the soil. So again, no need for sugars.
> 
> Second quote. I don't think you read the link properly. Its basically said what I was saying earlier, molasses is good for boosting microbe populations, but once established no need to continue feeding them molasses.


Alright, man. You're never a dick to me, and I can see you're not just trying to show off, you're trying to help me. I'll take a look around for a natural/organic solution to terpinator/resinator besides molasses.


----------



## Dr.Nick Riviera (Aug 6, 2016)

Gary Goodson said:


> Then tell me, what do you think the yucca is for? Do you know what loves to munch on yucca? Fungi! I hope there's some fun girls in there too lol
> 
> There is plenty of food in your soil and molasses isn't that great of a fertilizer either. *Again, it has calcium and iron and some nitrogen*, but that should all be in your base fertilizer anyway. Even if you were doing water only soil, all of that would be in the mix.
> 
> ...


 it has trace elements, if I pissed in the ocean, it now has trace elements of my piss. and as you said, you shouldn't need anything from molasses that you don't already have.


----------



## Gary Goodson (Aug 6, 2016)

Those are hype products meant to take money out of your pocket and put it in the manufactures. Trust me on this. I hate to admit it, but a couple of years ago I bought a bottle of terpinator and it wasn't worth a fuck. Owner of the hydro store let me get it for like $10 or some shit. I ran it in both organic soil and hydro and was not impressed at all.

You dont need all that stuff for really good weed. Just grow a healthy plant and let it fully ripen. That's when you will get the best flavors and aromas.


----------



## Dankeh_fever (Aug 6, 2016)

Olive Drab Green said:


> Molasses isn't inorganic. And the point of organics is to feed the microherd in the soil so that the microbes shit out what the plants take up. I know what I'm doing.


Your understanding is faulty. The goal is to create a vibrant, diverse and robust microherd. A continuous supply of sugar and potassium creates the flabby colonies that GG alluded to. If creating a vibrant micro herd was as simple as adding molasses everyone who tried would be a successful organic gardener. If your biology is consuming readily available organic compounds (sugars) they are not responding to the exudates directing them to process B or Si or P , etc complexes that the plant is asking for. microbes digesting C are also crapping C.

You dont know what you're talking about.


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 6, 2016)

Gary Goodson said:


> Those are hype products meant to take money out of your pocket and put it in the manufactures. Trust me on this. I hate to admit it, but a couple of years ago I bought a bottle of terpinator and it wasn't worth a fuck. Owner of the hydro store let me get it for like $10 or some shit. I ran it in both organic soil and hydro and was not impressed at all.
> 
> You dont need all that stuff for really good weed. Just grow a healthy plant and let it fully ripen. That's when you will get the best flavors and aromas.


Alright. Do you think this is good for bloom?

http://drearth.com/products/organic-fertilizers/organic-8-bud-bloom-booster/


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 6, 2016)

I took Nick Riviera and Dr. Who off of ignore. That new guy can eat a dick, though.


----------



## Gary Goodson (Aug 6, 2016)

I haven't used flower girl, but I did look into it before. It actually looks like it would be a good organic fertilizer.


----------



## tangerinegreen555 (Aug 6, 2016)

Olive Drab Green said:


> I took Nick Riviera and Dr. Who off of ignore. That new guy can eat a dick, though.


Dr. Who is a pretty smart fellow...would not put him on ignore...

I've used molasses a few times...with marginal results. There's a lot of controversial theories out there. Over time, I've tried many of them. 

Just remember, the plant practically grows by itself with a little guidance...


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 6, 2016)

tangerinegreen555 said:


> Dr. Who is a pretty smart fellow...would not put him on ignore...
> 
> I've used molasses a few times...with marginal results. There's a lot of controversial theories out there. Over time, I've tried many of them.
> 
> Just remember, the plant practically grows by itself with a little guidance...


I don't mind Dr. Who. But he can watch the condescenscion and if he's got something to explain to me, he can do it like he was talking to a colleague, not a child, y'know? We just have differing methods. But I'll probably focus on using my bloom booster from Dr. Earth instead of molasses, since it has organically mined potassium sulfate, and to be truthful, molasses leaves my medium a bit compacted.


----------



## tangerinegreen555 (Aug 6, 2016)

Olive Drab Green said:


> I don't mind Dr. Who. But he can watch the condescenscion and if he's got something to explain to me, he can do it like he was talking to a colleague, not a child, y'know? We just have differing methods. But I'll probably focus on using my bloom booster from Dr. Earth instead of molasses, since it has organically mined potassium sulfate, and to be truthful, molasses leaves my medium a bit compacted.


You can learn from people you may construe as condescending too...

You were in the service, right? Lol.

I never cared as much about attitude as I did about gaining information I could utilize. And like I said...it almost grows be itself. And you can always experiment...they're your plants.


----------



## Cx2H (Aug 6, 2016)

Olive Drab Green said:


> I don't mind Dr. Who. But he can watch the condescenscion and if he's got something to explain to me, he can do it like he was talking to a colleague, not a child, y'know? We just have differing methods. But I'll probably focus on using my bloom booster from Dr. Earth instead of molasses, since it has organically mined potassium sulfate, and to be truthful, molasses leaves my medium a bit compacted.


#NoDisrespect
I agree with Tangie when I first came across him Dr.W he was pretentious, but on the other side he knows his sheet when he focuses on the issue and not the person or lack of reading details of said persons post before ranting.. SO I have gotten used to a little fire from him. is what it is.


----------



## BarnBuster (Aug 6, 2016)

I always thought Doc knew his stuff as well.


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 6, 2016)

BarnBuster said:


> I always thought Doc knew his stuff as well.


Most people I talk to think that he doesn't grow. Some have apparently caught him in downright lies. I can't speak to that. All I'm saying is, if you want me to listen to the guy, he has to stop being antagonistic. Because he started shit with me over other shit two weeks ago, and I hadn't spoken to him for weeks by then.

And if he's got good information, I'd like to at least see proof of a recent successful grow before I stop what I'm doing when it's working for me. Figuratively speaking. I'm already going to reduce the molasses use.


----------



## Cx2H (Aug 6, 2016)

Ah yeah well I see what you are saying. I wouldn't change anything you are doing. You are getting positive results with your methods. 

I look at what people say and maybe like it? But won't change what I'm doing unless I know 100% it will work in my situation. 

Matter of fact I am watching it in a research sense with the molasses method you are doing. To cross ref with research data sets.


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 6, 2016)

Cx2H said:


> Ah yeah well I see what you are saying. I wouldn't change anything you are doing. You are getting positive results with your methods.
> 
> I look at what people say and maybe like it? But won't change what I'm doing unless I know 100% it will work in my situation.
> 
> Matter of fact I am watching it in a research sense with the molasses method you are doing. To cross ref with research data sets.


Like I said, if he shows me one successful, recent grow that I can't find a match for using Google Image Search, I might have more respect for what he has to say. But all I know of him is he likes to talk down to people and tell them where they're going so egregiously wrong, but he doesn't share any evidence besides his preferred method that he even knows what's right. Meanwhile, my plants are thriving and doing just fine.


----------



## Cx2H (Aug 6, 2016)

*Raises Bottle* cheers.

Sidenote: _Most_ images contain *Exif/MetaData* data that say when, where, how it was taken and in some cases by who.


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 6, 2016)

Like, my first week here, he put himself on the same level as RM3.

"Great! RM3 has UncleBuck and I have you!" referring to me as a troll who plagues elite growers simply because I disagreed with what he said. People then called him on his bullshit, saying he was no where in the same league as RM3. They mentioned a time when he said he had an '89 Chemdawg. There was no '89 Chemdawg. It was Dog Bud. And in '91 it was crossed with an unknown Indochina landrace a female friend brought home from a trip.

Did he really claim this? I don't know. But a few people say he did.


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 6, 2016)

Cx2H said:


> *Raises Bottle* cheers.
> 
> Sidenote: _Most_ images contain *Exif/MetaData* data that say when, where, how it was taken and in some cases by who.


Exif data should be removed from photos.


----------



## Dr. Who (Aug 6, 2016)

Olive Drab Green said:


> Most people I talk to think that he doesn't grow. Some have apparently caught him in downright lies. I can't speak to that. All I'm saying is, if you want me to listen to the guy, he has to stop being antagonistic. Because he started shit with me over other shit two weeks ago, and I hadn't spoken to him for weeks by then.
> 
> And if he's got good information, I'd like to at least see proof of a recent successful grow before I stop what I'm doing when it's working for me. Figuratively speaking. I'm already going to reduce the molasses use.


Yeah, your talking about sticky! What ever! I have him on ignore. Best way to deal with him! I could fill a book on what I think of him.....blah, blah, blah

I haven't TRIED to be antagonistic to you! You come back at me with fire in your eye's every time I point out my point on molasses. I gave you real info and with out saying about "you" or calling "you" anything in those posts.

If saying "Some have apparently caught him in downright lies. " isn't antagonistic,,,WHAT IS green? 
First off, you've been just like sticky. When given the truth you choose to either ignore or not listen.....(On the topic you 2 and that's what it sits at 2 - TWO of you.....who say this......

I didn't "start" shit with you! _You took it that way.....YOU_ were attempting to find my personal data! WHY? I haven't bitched at you for it. We PM'ed and spoke like men. I took it as solved!

When I counter something you say, it's at least MEANT to be in and as a learning experience. It's _you_ that takes it "wrongly" and you fly of the handle and post all sorts anti "Who" venom. Including a personal war between myself and some else.

WTFF? Your using the net, this site and no clear or real knowledge of whats going on between me and this "other person(s)" you speak of to troll and defame ME!......How do you think this doesn't antagonize ME.

AGAIN, I'm not flying off the handle here and accusing you of _ANYTHING, I'm not calling you names! I have not insulted you or your rep here or anywhere else for that matter! DID I SAY IT IN WORDS WRITTEN HERE?

No sir! _BUT, you have! I have earned the right to say what I'd like to say to you....I won't ! 
_
Learn a lesson from that!!!

When ever I encounter you in a thread. i will still post my opinion on the topic. If you don't agree - FINE! I will still at least attempt to answer with respect. 
BUT please stop feeling "attacked"...
If everyone that has been told their making a mistake (exact word I've used with you several times) on this site blew up at it.
The site wouldn't be here!

LASTLY
I'm not a big picture taker of any grow I run That's evidence! I'm NOT going to start supplying pictures of what I do, just to make YOU happy! 

Believe what you will about that - I don't CARE!_



Olive Drab Green said:


> Like I said, if he shows me one successful, recent grow that I can't find a match for using Google Image Search, I might have more respect for what he has to say. But all I know of him is he likes to talk down to people and tell them where they're going so egregiously wrong, but he doesn't share any evidence besides his preferred method that he even knows what's right. Meanwhile, my plants are thriving and doing just fine.


There you go again - How about you look around at some posts......There's other pics out there from well after my first "blog" or what ever post!
I'm not looking them up for you! Try looking up the bud porn - dick slinging contest thread - I started that!

My wife is bitching at me to get off the computer as steam is coming from my ears and she's worried about me having a heart attack.......In the FIRST retort I gave on your first molasses post - I was simply showing an alternative view and gave points as to why........I NEVER said in typed words "your doing it wrong - your wrong" - or in any disrespectful way spoke to about how you did things - I repeatedly said to do it your way if that made you comfortable!


----------



## Dr. Who (Aug 6, 2016)

Olive Drab Green said:


> Like, my first week here, he put himself on the same level as RM3.
> 
> "Great! RM3 has UncleBuck and I have you!" referring to me as a troll who plagues elite growers simply because I disagreed with what he said. People then called him on his bullshit, saying he was no where in the same league as RM3. They mentioned a time when he said he had an '89 Chemdawg. There was no '89 Chemdawg. It was Dog Bud. And in '91 it was crossed with an unknown Indochina landrace a female friend brought home from a trip.
> 
> Did he really claim this? I don't know. But a few people say he did.


AND NOW HERE YOU GO WITH THIS SHIT AGAIN!

There is no such strain as "dog bud" that formed ANY part of chemdog! AGAIN - You know what I was posting about and you still post this shit to antagonize ME!

Where in there did I say I was in a league with anyone? You have fucked up brain function that see's things that aren't there!
That's as close to insulting you as I'll get.....A whole SHIT LOAD of BLEEPS HERE!

I will say your an obtuse, feckless little wannabe. 

There, you got me pissed enough to actually say to YOU, to your FACE! What I now think of you!


----------



## Dankeh_fever (Aug 6, 2016)

Olive Drab Green said:


> I took Nick Riviera and Dr. Who off of ignore. That new guy can eat a dick, though.


I gave you a link to childs guide do you need a link to a bitches guide?


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 6, 2016)

Dr. Who said:


> AND NOW HERE YOU GO WITH THIS SHIT AGAIN!
> 
> *There is no such strain as "dog bud" that formed ANY part of chemdog! AGAIN - You know what I was posting about and you still post this shit to antagonize ME!*
> 
> ...


This entire story is straight from Chemdog's mouth, fool. This tells me you really do not grow.


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 6, 2016)

The Chemdog story, an interview with the breeder about the strain origin:

https://abakusmagazine.wordpress.com/2014/04/11/true-origins-of-chem-dog-and-sour-diesel-by-adam-dunn/

http://420dotcom.com/chemdawg-unraveling-the-chemdog-strain-mystery.html

http://www.thesmokersclub.com/blog/strain-highlight-chem-dog-family/

Stop telling me I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about.


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 6, 2016)

*Chem Dog*: "Thirteen seeds. Started two in ’91. One was a male. I was 17. Foolishly, I threw it away. The other came out identical to what I got from Joe and P in Deer Creek Indiana, summer Tour 1991. I did not get the beans there. I got one sack of the Dog Bud and thank god I did what I did. One became the original 91 cut. One became the Sister. I believe it was 2005, which was then Chem Dog D, which is still out there and very popular. Without the Chem Dog, there’d be no Sour. He will agree with that. From what I remember Joe telling me, he said some people called it Dog, some called it Chem. Either way people it’s d-o-g, not d-a-w-g. Brett from Apothecary Seeds, he bred the 91 cut and called that Chem Dawg. Could be wrong. Arjan of Greenhouse got the 91 cut and he spelled it the right way, so he gets props for that."

Suck it, Doc.


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 6, 2016)

@Dr. Who, you are the wannabe. I actually show that I can grow, and I just proved I know my shit a bit more thoroughly than you do. Fuck off with your pretentious bullshit.


I'll always have this to call you on your bullshit when you try to say later you never said this.


----------



## Cx2H (Aug 6, 2016)

Good Read Thanks.
'http://420dotcom.com/chemdawg-unraveling-the-chemdog-strain-mystery.html'

"Chemdawg genetics come from a mysterious Colorado strain called Dog Bud. It was a tightly held cut that came from California and unfortunately the plant no longer exists according to PBud."

"The strain he sold Chem Dog was called Dog Bud because it was so strong you rolled over like a dog after smoking it. It was nicknamed Chem or Chemy because of its taste. PBud said it was from California and that they never saw anything like it before. "

"These guys were breeding and made 3 way crosses. They used Thai weed, hashplant and skunk. They would grow thousands of seedlings and only keep the best. They brought in genetics from Afghanistan that were over 20% THC which was unheard of back then. That’s probably why when you smoked it you fell over like a dog."


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 6, 2016)

Cx2H said:


> Good Read Thanks.
> 'http://420dotcom.com/chemdawg-unraveling-the-chemdog-strain-mystery.html'
> 
> "Chemdawg genetics come from a mysterious Colorado strain called Dog Bud. It was a tightly held cut that came from California and unfortunately the plant no longer exists according to PBud."
> ...


See? Unlike you, this guy can read, and he's clearly pretty astute, so he can tell you what's up, Doc.


----------



## Dr.Pecker (Aug 6, 2016)

Olive Drab Green said:


> See? Unlike you, this guy can read, and he's clearly pretty astute, so he can tell you what's up, Doc.


Dr who's a good dude and means well.


Dr. Who said:


> AND NOW HERE YOU GO WITH THIS SHIT AGAIN!
> 
> There is no such strain as "dog bud" that formed ANY part of chemdog! AGAIN - You know what I was posting about and you still post this shit to antagonize ME!
> 
> ...


ODG is a good dude and means well. You guys should hug it out.


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 6, 2016)

Dr.Pecker said:


> Dr who's a good dude and means well.
> 
> ODG is a good dude and means well. You guys should hug it out.


You're a good dude and mean well. I'm sure he means well. But like I said from the beginning, he needs to stop condescending to people, especially when he's saying they're wrong and they're right.


----------



## Dr.Pecker (Aug 6, 2016)

Organically I use raw cane sugar and it's to help feed microlife in organic soil not for fatter buds. Fatter buds is just a byproduct of a healthy soil.


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 6, 2016)

Dr.Pecker said:


> Organically I use raw cane sugar and it's to help feed microlife in organic soil not for fatter buds. Fatter buds is just a byproduct of a healthy soil.


My argument was more trichomes, not fatter buds. But either way.


----------



## Ace Yonder (Aug 6, 2016)

Olive Drab Green said:


> *Chem Dog*: "Thirteen seeds. Started two in ’91. One was a male. I was 17. Foolishly, I threw it away. The other came out identical to what I got from Joe and P in Deer Creek Indiana, summer Tour 1991. I did not get the beans there. I got one sack of the Dog Bud and thank god I did what I did. One became the original 91 cut. One became the Sister. I believe it was 2005, which was then Chem Dog D, which is still out there and very popular. Without the Chem Dog, there’d be no Sour. He will agree with that. From what I remember Joe telling me, he said some people called it Dog, some called it Chem. Either way people it’s d-o-g, not d-a-w-g. Brett from Apothecary Seeds, he bred the 91 cut and called that Chem Dawg. Could be wrong. Arjan of Greenhouse got the 91 cut and he spelled it the right way, so he gets props for that."
> 
> Suck it, Doc.


Well if you trust Jason King, he claims in the Cannabible that people call Chemdawg D.o.g. when it's organic (Standing for Dawg Organically Grown) and Chem when it's grown with chemical ferts.


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 6, 2016)

Ace Yonder said:


> Well if you trust Jason King, he claims in the Cannabible that people call Chemdawg D.o.g. when it's organic (Standing for Dawg Organically Grown) and Chem when it's grown with chemical ferts.


That's total bullshit. That is actually the reason I want to return the set I just bought. This was spoken by Chemdog.


----------



## Dr.Pecker (Aug 6, 2016)

I can't stand condescending behavior either.


Ace Yonder said:


> Well if you trust Jason King, he claims in the Cannabible that people call Chemdawg D.o.g. when it's organic (Standing for Dawg Organically Grown) and Chem when it's grown with chemical ferts.


Like OG when it's not ocean grown?


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 6, 2016)

Yeah, it said Chem when you use synthetic ferts, and it wouldn't taste better if it were grown organically, no matter what.


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 6, 2016)

Hope that didn't sound prickish. I just was thinking about that earlier.


----------



## Dr. Who (Aug 6, 2016)

Wonderful. I remember the seeds from a dead show in Indiana part. 

Oh well. Thanks for the history lesson. I'll say I was wrong according to the internet searching you did.
As if I really care about where it came from.......
I still want some 3xsd - know what that was genius?


BTW, how old are you actually reader of all things net. One who attempted every sideways trick he could to attempt to find my PERSONAL info! 




Olive Drab Green said:


> @Dr. Who, you are the wannabe. I actually show that I can grow, and I just proved I know my shit a bit more thoroughly than you do. Fuck off with your pretentious bullshit.
> View attachment 3751298
> 
> I'll always have this to call you on your bullshit when you try to say later you never said this.


Why don't you go and pour some molasses on your hand and fuck your girl friend. If you even have a dick!
I haven't said I didn't say it. I won't either. 

You served - PROVE it! 
If you were a service member - you know how - DO IT!
*You don't act like any service member I've ever spoken with..
*
You've been here sense Feb and you say you grow so well you deserve our respect?
For molasses in feed solutions and the use of MG soils?
For pics of overfeed plants?

I've got a picture for you


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 6, 2016)

Dr. Who said:


> Wonderful. I remember the seeds from a dead show in Indiana part.
> 
> Oh well. Thanks for the history lesson. I'll say I was wrong according to the internet searching you did.
> As if I really care about where it came from.......
> ...


HAWHAWHAWHAWHAWHAWHAW.

Love you, Doc. You're a good dude.


----------



## Dr. Who (Aug 6, 2016)

Olive Drab Green said:


> You're a good dude and mean well. I'm sure he means well. But like I said from the beginning, he needs to stop condescending to people, especially when he's saying they're wrong and they're right.


You just didn't even read my posts did you!



Dr.Pecker said:


> Dr who's a good dude and means well.
> 
> ODG is a good dude and means well. You guys should hug it out.


Jeez Doc. After his constant antagonizing me with the shit he writes ......

He can hug the ass of an elephant with diarrhea!

One minute he's all "yeah, I took him off ignore"
Next is throwing shit like TRUMP.


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 6, 2016)

Dr. Who said:


> You just didn't even read my posts did you!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm antagonizing you? Are you fuckin' with me?

Alright, Doc, there's been some kind of miscommunication. I'm sorry if I offended or disrespected you. Seriously.


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 6, 2016)

@Dr. Who You know, I've had a smoke and thought about it. I'm sorry for being rude to you. Just, please. Stop condescending to me. I know I've come off condescending as well, so I'm going to try to make it a point to speak as neutrally as I can in attitude from now on. Alright?


----------



## Dr.Nick Riviera (Aug 7, 2016)




----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 7, 2016)




----------



## greasemonkeymann (Aug 10, 2016)

Olive Drab Green said:


> Alright, man. You're never a dick to me, and I can see you're not just trying to show off, you're trying to help me. I'll take a look around for a natural/organic solution to terpinator/resinator besides molasses.


neem meal, and manures.
my theory is that the sulfur somehow brings the goodness.

did a side by side, multiple plants, and across the board there were differences.
fairly profound ones too.
my second pineapple hashplant pheno had it's flavor totally change, and weirdly the smoke smelled totally different too.

Nothing seems to bring out the flavors more than a good compost pile with some good sulfur-containing ingredients


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 10, 2016)

greasemonkeymann said:


> neem meal, and manures.
> my theory is that the sulfur somehow brings the goodness.
> 
> did a side by side, multiple plants, and across the board there were differences.
> ...


I have pumice in my Roots Organic 707, which is essentially a high sulfur, low silica mineral. I tend to agree with you. Maybe due to acidulation?


----------



## greasemonkeymann (Aug 10, 2016)

Olive Drab Green said:


> I have pumice in my Roots Organic 707, which is essentially a high sulfur, low silica mineral. I tend to agree with you. Maybe due to acidulation?


huh?
to my knowledge it doesn't have sulfur in it, and it's high silica
doesn't do much past aeration
unless I am wrong


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 10, 2016)

greasemonkeymann said:


> huh?
> to my knowledge it doesn't have sulfur in it, and it's high silica
> doesn't do much past aeration
> unless I am wrong


Pumice is pretty much porous volcanic rock that is low-silica, high-sulfur. You can smell sulfur in pumice if you ever pick it up. Roots Organic's got a good bit of pumice in it.


----------



## Fastslappy (Aug 10, 2016)

greasemonkeymann said:


> to my knowledge it doesn't have sulfur in it, and it's high silica
> doesn't do much past aeration


home for beni life as well , I used it for 20 years in greenhouse of rare plants , orchids , aloes , corpse flower (I grew a few )
good stuff
get here at a horse feed store for $9 a bag 40# It's Called "DryStall"
keeps a shoed horse from slipping on wet cement floors in barns 
100% mined pumice


----------



## greasemonkeymann (Aug 10, 2016)

Olive Drab Green said:


> Pumice is pretty much porous volcanic rock that is low-silica, high-sulfur. You can smell sulfur in pumice if you ever pick it up. Roots Organic's got a good bit of pumice in it.


I've used pumice for yrs and never smelled any sulfur from it?
where did you hear/read this information?
as far as I understand it's HIGH silica, and I was unaware of any sulfur content
like I said, I could be wrong, I just never heard of that.
and i'm almost positive it's HIGH silica.


----------



## greasemonkeymann (Aug 10, 2016)

Fastslappy said:


> home for beni life as well , I used it for 20 years in greenhouse of rare plants , orchids , aloes , corpse flower (I grew a few )
> good stuff
> get here at a horse feed store for $9 a bag 40# It's Called "DryStall"
> keeps a shoed horse from slipping on wet cement floors in barns
> 100% mined pumice


NICE
good information to have my friend
funny how if ya slap a plant picture or two on it and they jack UP the price
same shit they do with DM, it's the exact stuff we use to absorb oil spills, and it's WAY cheaper.
and coming from a guy that's grown my share of obscure flowers... orchids AND a corpse plant??
shit man, cannabis must be a walk in the park to grow
I always say if you can get an orchid to re-bloom and re-grow each year?
then cannabis is cake


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 10, 2016)

"Pumice forms during eruptions of magma containing large quantities of gasses, such as water vapor, sulfur dioxide, and ... "


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 10, 2016)

Pumice forms when magma ash cools rapidly upon hitting a waterfront, with air rapidly exiting it, but they are igneous, meaning volcanic, and they definitely contain sulfur. They even smell like sulfur, if you ever find a natural pumice rock.


----------



## Yodaweed (Aug 10, 2016)

I been making home made soil mixes using pumice , mine never smells like sulfur.

Pumice is composed of highly microvesicular glass pyroclastic with very thin, translucent bubble walls of extrusive igneous rock. It is commonly,[4] but not exclusively of silicic or felsic to intermediate in composition (e.g., rhyolitic, dacitic, andesite, pantellerite, phonolite, trachyte), but basaltic and other compositions are known.

I don't think you are getting your information from a good source . Pumice is mainly silica .


----------



## Fastslappy (Aug 10, 2016)

I went organic on my current g/h gro
in coco+charcoal+pumice & organics 
Alien Tarantula the smaller of two


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 10, 2016)

Yodaweed said:


> I been making home made soil mixes using pumice , mine never smells like sulfur.
> 
> Pumice is composed of highly microvesicular glass pyroclastic with very thin, translucent bubble walls of extrusive igneous rock. It is commonly,[4] but not exclusively of silicic or felsic to intermediate in composition (e.g., rhyolitic, dacitic, andesite, pantellerite, phonolite, trachyte), but basaltic and other compositions are known.
> 
> I don't think you are getting your information from a good source . Pumice is mainly silica .


Maybe it is mostly silica, but there is sulfur in there, as you'd expect from volcanic ash.


----------



## Yodaweed (Aug 10, 2016)

Olive Drab Green said:


> Maybe it is mostly silica, but there is sulfur in there, as you'd expect from volcanic ash.


Yeah but if you getting strong sulfur smells from your pumice you might want to find a new source for pumice because mine never smells like that, it has no smell at all.


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 10, 2016)

The gasses in question are some kind of sulfur gas, as well as others.


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 10, 2016)

Yodaweed said:


> Yeah but if you getting strong sulfur smells from your pumice you might want to find a new source for pumice because mine never smells like that, it has no smell at all.


I'm talking natural pumice, not the stuff I use. I'm just saying, it's got sulfur in there.


----------



## Yodaweed (Aug 10, 2016)

Olive Drab Green said:


> I'm talking natural pumice, not the stuff I use. I'm just saying, it's got sulfur in there.


Now I am just confused, you are using unnatural pumice? What is that do you even buy bags of pumice at all or are you once again talking out of your ass?


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 10, 2016)

Yodaweed said:


> Now I am just confused, you are using unnatural pumice? What is that do you even buy bags of pumice at all or are you once again talking out of your ass?


Meh.. Would you rather I say "unprocessed?" Would you understand that better?


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 10, 2016)

I mean whole rocks vs the powdered stuff that comes in medium and agricultural supplies.


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 10, 2016)

Read, I found this to express what I was talking about:


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 10, 2016)

You need to stop thinking I'm talking out my ass. I wouldn't say something if I weren't reasonably confident there was a strong base of evidence for it.

When I was in 4th grade Geology, we had a collection of igneous rocks. I specifically remember the pumice, as it was like a black rock that looked like a sponge and smelled of sulfur. 

Did you not go to school, Yoda? Is that why you constantly think I'm dumb? Because you are uneducated?


----------



## Gary Goodson (Aug 10, 2016)

Olive Drab Green said:


> You need to stop thinking I'm talking out my ass. I wouldn't say something if I weren't reasonably confident there was a strong base of evidence for it.


You've kinda gone off the deep end...Ive used roots organic soil for years. You just now started using it and have not yet even got a harvest off of it man. Aren't you currently using MG natures cure? Did you go out and buy extra unprocessed pumice?

I just trying to see where you're coming from


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 10, 2016)

*PUMICE* - Students will immediately notice that pumice is spongy or "full of holes" or vesciular. This characteristic makes pumice extremely lightweight; it even floats in water (you may wish to show this to your students). It is commonly light gray to blackish-gray in color. It is easily broken and has sharp edges. Like obsidian, pumice is volcanic glass; it thus looks glassy (especially with a magnifying glass) and lacks visible minerals.

Pumice forms during eruptions of magma containing large quantities of gasses, such as water vapor, sulfur dioxide, and carbon dioxide. The gas "froths" the magma as it erupts, forming bubbles. This is physically analogous to opening a soda can; carbon dioxide bubbles form in the drink as the can is opened. Like obsidian, the magma then cools quickly, preserving the bubble shapes. The gas often escapes, leaving numerous holes in the pumice. Pumice is used as an ornamental building stone. "Pumice rock" is also sold in beauty stores for cleaning dead skin cells from areas like feet or elbows.


----------



## Gary Goodson (Aug 10, 2016)

In short, you wont get enough sulfur from pumice for it to make a difference in the end product.


Roots Organics uses it for aeration.


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 10, 2016)

Gary Goodson said:


> You've kinda gone off the deep end...Ive used roots organic soil for years. You just now started using it and have not yet even got a harvest off of it man. Aren't you currently using MG natures cure? Did you go out and buy extra unprocessed pumice?
> 
> I just trying to see where you're coming from


I don't get what you mean, or what you're getting at. The argument's just that pumice contains sulfur. I use other things that contain sulfur at the moment. I have just started in the Roots with my small ones. My argument was simply that the pumice contains sulfur, and pumice is in Roots 707.


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 10, 2016)

Gary Goodson said:


> In short, you wont get enough sulfur from pumice for it to make a difference in the end product.
> 
> 
> Roots Organics uses it for aeration.


RM3 seems to think less is more, and I agree. And as there is pumice in the medium, there's still some sulfur to it, and I think the properties of the pumice were intended to lend more than just aeration.


----------



## Gary Goodson (Aug 10, 2016)

Olive Drab Green said:


> I don't get what you mean, orbwhat you're getting at. The argument's just that pumice contains sulfur. I use other things that contain sulfur at the moment. I have just started in the Roots with my small ones. My argument was simply that the pumice contains sulfur, and pumice is in Roots 707.


That may be, but again, it's not enough to make a difference.

So its a moot point to be taking a stance on


Olive Drab Green said:


> RM3 seems to think less is more, and I agree. And as there is pumice in the medium, there's still some sulfur to it, and *I think* the properties of the pumice were intended to lend more than just aeration.


Correct "you think"


----------



## Dr.Nick Riviera (Aug 10, 2016)

Olive Drab Green said:


> RM3 seems to think less is more, and I agree. And as there is pumice in the medium, there's still some sulfur to it, and I think the properties of the pumice were intended to lend more than just aeration.


you should change your name to peter!!


----------



## Gary Goodson (Aug 10, 2016)

I also dont think I've ever read Rm3 saying get your sulfur from pumice.


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 10, 2016)

Gary Goodson said:


> That may be, but again, it's not enough to make a difference.
> 
> So its a moot point to be taking a stance on
> 
> Correct "you think"


Meh. Either way.

I'm not starting shit here. I'm simply talking about properties of rocks. Yoda's only got a personal issue with me, otherwise he wouldn't debate the properties of something you'd at least think I'd study before I speak about. I get I've got a runaway mouth, but that doesn't mean the shit I say is baseless.


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 10, 2016)

Gary Goodson said:


> I also dont think I've ever read Rm3 saying get your sulfur from pumice.


I didn't say he did. I said pumice contains sulfur, and pumice is the fourth most prevalent ingredient in 707. There's bound to be useable sulfur, but currently, this is hypothesis.


----------



## Dr.Nick Riviera (Aug 10, 2016)

Gary Goodson said:


> I also dont think I've ever read Rm3 saying get your sulfur from pumice.


no, that was kitty litter


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 10, 2016)

Oh, specifically, pumice contains trapped hydrogen sulphide. Not to a toxic degree. But that's why pumice is full of holes.


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 10, 2016)

Look, @Gary Goodson:

*"*But in low doses, hydrogen sulfide could greatly enhance plant growth, leading to a sharp increase in global food supplies and plentiful stock for biofuel production, new University of Washington research shows.

"*We found some very interesting things, including that at the very lowest levels plant health improves*. But that's not what we were looking for," said Frederick Dooley, a UW doctoral student in biology who led the research.*"*

This is most likely another reason the pumice is there, and this may not directly support my theory, but it is looking good.


----------



## Yodaweed (Aug 10, 2016)

Olive Drab Green said:


> Meh. Either way.
> 
> I'm not starting shit here. I'm simply talking about properties of rocks. Yoda's only got a personal issue with me, otherwise he wouldn't debate the properties of something you'd at least think I'd study before I speak about. I get I've got a runaway mouth, but that doesn't mean the shit I say is baseless.


I have no issue with you.


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 10, 2016)

Yodaweed said:


> I have no issue with you.


My mistake, then. But don't you think I'd read into and research what I say before I say it? C'mon, man.


----------



## greasemonkeymann (Aug 11, 2016)

Olive Drab Green said:


> My mistake, then. But don't you think I'd read into and research what I say before I say it? C'mon, man.


you said pumice was a LOW silica, HIGH sulfur ingredient, in my opinion I don't think you did research that before saying.
and for the record I don't have a problem with you either.
however as a impartial bystander I have noticed your posts have been increasingly confrontational and aggressive the last couple months or so.
not that it bothers me.


----------



## greasemonkeymann (Aug 11, 2016)

on topic, I prefer steer manure, langbeinite, and neem meal as my sources of sulfur.
a good read on sulfur is this.
interesting other countries list sulfur as the fourth macro

http://www.smart-fertilizer.com/articles/sulfur


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 11, 2016)

greasemonkeymann said:


> you said pumice was a LOW silica, HIGH sulfur ingredient, in my opinion I don't think you did research that before saying.
> and for the record I don't have a problem with you either.
> however as a impartial bystander I have noticed your posts have been increasingly confrontational and aggressive the last couple months or so.
> not that it bothers me.


I was wrong about the silica, I was thinking of a different igneous rock, but I was just misremembering, not wrong. Everything else I said was correct.

Also, I'm not confrontational or hostile. I'm just sick of people talking shit and acting stupid toward each other, especially when they really don't know, they only speculate based on outdated and wrong information.


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 11, 2016)

@Gary Goodson 
@greasemonkeymann

Most people start shit over simple, over opinionated bullshit, like my choice of lights. Saying they won't grow shit, that they're gonna die, etc. and the truth is, they don't actually know, they speak from bias. Clearly, I proved they can grow. I'm expecting 3-4 ounces minimum per plant for a 3 week veg, primarily utilizing one 450w light. I'm here for facts, not to measure dicks.

Shit like that has me a bit annoyed, and I'm frustrated with the volume of disinformation. Like, shut the fuck up and mind your own business or I'm not going to keep silent while you act like an asshole. Not you, I just mean generally

I realize I'm acting like a dick sometimes. Just bear with me, I respect all of you guys.


----------



## BarnBuster (Aug 11, 2016)

Gary Goodson said:


> I also dont think I've ever read Rm3 saying get your sulfur from pumice.


Jack's Citrus as I remember (or Aquagold, not sure)


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 11, 2016)

BarnBuster said:


> Jack's Citrus as I remember (or Aquagold, not sure)


I wasn't arguing that he said sulfur comes from pumice, just that a little bit was needed of any fertilizer, according to him, as Gary had said "pumice probably doesn't contain enough." Which it does, anyway, if it isn't processed and cleaned and such. I was only taking a leaf from RM3's book, not putting words in his mouth. All I'm saying is, just because you guys aren't willing to experiment doesn't mean you have to shit on me for doing research and forming a hypothesis.


----------



## Cx2H (Aug 11, 2016)

"the fact that Sulfur compounds help awaken the flowering genes in the cannabis plant and also contributes to the flavor and aroma of the ripened buds." - Potassium sulfate 3000 B.C


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 11, 2016)

Like, @Gary Goodson, you personally think that molasses doesn't do anything, and there are actually a large number of people who think the opposite. Yes, molasses would definitely be more efficient in AACTs, but the same process that takes place in AACTs happens in the medium with nutrients, microbes, and molasses.

To say that it doesn't work would be to say that AACTs don't work. It's just less efficient, as there's less forced air in the medium than there would be, bubbling a tea.

And the nutrients in molasses are useful and available to the plant after the microbes cycle them. I also don't think they are selective and will eat all nutrients as their population increases; they will not focus solely on the molasses.


----------



## Gary Goodson (Aug 11, 2016)

Don't tell me what I think! I said I use molasses for AACT and it's not as effective in the soil. 

You make it sound like molasses is a stand alone fertilizer

It is NOT responsible for your trichome production. As you seem to think. Do you see how silly you sound to the whole forum?


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 11, 2016)

Gary Goodson said:


> Don't tell me what I think! I said I use molasses for AACT and it's not as effective in the soil.
> 
> You make it sound like molasses is a stand alone fertilizer
> 
> It is NOT responsible for your trichome production. As you seem to think. Do you see how silly you sound to the whole forum?


I didn't tell you what you think, I misinterpreted it. I also NEVER said that molasses was standalone. It's incomplete. Please stop putting words in my mouth.

C'mon, man. I respect you. We're friends. Please be easy, I am not looking for a fight.

So, what macronutrient is most responsible for trichome production? I believe it's potassium, but I'll check quickly.


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 11, 2016)

It is. So, there are 800mg of potassium in my molasses. Almost a gram. So yes, molasses does boost trichome production through potassium content.


----------



## Gary Goodson (Aug 11, 2016)

fuxk it, keep pouring gallons of molasses on your plants man.

Do you


----------



## BarnBuster (Aug 11, 2016)

too bad @chuck esteves isn't around. he loved these molasses threads


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 11, 2016)

Gary Goodson said:


> fuxk it, keep pouring gallons of molasses on your plants man.
> 
> Do you


I don't pour it on, I water it in, man.


Look, most tric enhancers are potassium silicate. The thing is, in organics, you use microbes and organic matter, not salt bound chelates (hence the silicate part). If potassium is in the molasses, it's available to the microbes, which will eventually make it available to the plant.


----------



## Gary Goodson (Aug 11, 2016)

Olive Drab Green said:


> I don't pour it on, I water it in, man.
> 
> 
> Look, most tric enhancers are potassium silicate. The thing is, in organics, you use microbes and organic matter, not salt bound chelates (hence the silicate part). If potassium is in the molasses, it's available to the microbes, which will eventually make it available to the plant.


Oh well idk how my plants get the potassium they need since I don't use molasses in my soil...


Whatever will I do?


Edit: most trich enhancers a potassium sulfate


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 11, 2016)

Gary Goodson said:


> Oh well idk how my plants get the potassium they need since I don't use molasses in my soil...
> 
> 
> Whatever will I do?
> ...


Potassium sulfate, silicate, details. They are potassium bound to a salt. 

And, you can surely get potassium elsewhere, I'm just saying to say molasses doesn't contribute to trics is a fallacy, based on its potassium content and the ability of microbes to quickly turn it into plant food.

You seem to think I think that molasses is a necessity. I'm only saying it's one correct way to "skin a cat."


----------



## Gary Goodson (Aug 11, 2016)

I just dont lie to myself about what I'm doing and why I'm doing it.


That's all... Again, for like the 10th time, I use molasses.... But only as food for microbes.


I'm done with this man. How long have you been growing?


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 11, 2016)

Gary Goodson said:


> I just dont lie to myself about what I'm doing and why I'm doing it.
> 
> 
> That's all... Again, for like the 10th time, I use molasses.... But only as good for microbes.
> ...


Doesn't matter how long I've been growing. What I'm stating is simply Biology 105.


----------



## Gary Goodson (Aug 11, 2016)

Olive Drab Green said:


> Doesn't matter how long I've been growing. What I'm stating is simply Biology 105.


It sure as fuck does!

Let me get this right, you have a cheap led, mg soil, I'm guessing a small tent, 1-2 plants total aaaaaannnnnd you're trying to school me on molasses? Does that sum things up?


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 11, 2016)

Why is it despite me delivering a well-reasoned and evidenced argument to you that you just write it off like I'm inexperienced and therefore stupid? It seems more like a personal issue with me, and I don't even know at what point you started having beef with me.


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 11, 2016)

Gary Goodson said:


> It sure as fuck does!
> 
> Let me get this right, you have a cheap led, mg soil, I'm guessing a small tent, 1-2 plants total aaaaaannnnnd you're trying to school me on molasses? Does that sum things up?


What I am stating is a macrofield above horticulture. We are talking biology. This knowledge I'm reiterating transfers over, even if you have only limited experience growing. Anyone as intelligent as you should be able to make sense of what I am saying. And I don't use a tent.


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 11, 2016)

The natural world doesn't curve its laws around horticulture.


----------



## Gary Goodson (Aug 11, 2016)

Olive Drab Green said:


> Why is it despite me delivering a well-reasoned and evidenced argument to you that you just write it off like I'm inexperienced and therefore stupid? It seems more like a personal issue with me, and I don't even know at what point you started having beef with me.


No man, I've just noticed that lately you believe everything that comes out of your mouth to be the word of God.


I'm not sure if you noticed that or not


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 11, 2016)

Gary Goodson said:


> No man, I've just noticed that lately you believe everything that comes out of your mouth to be the word of God.
> 
> 
> I'm not sure if you noticed that or not


I didn't notice it, because that is a misperception you have. In fact, that is the attitude I am fighting against.


----------



## Gary Goodson (Aug 11, 2016)

Olive Drab Green said:


> I didn't notice it, because that is a misperception you have. In fact, that is the attitude I am fighting against.


Lol you literally said molasses is the best thing since sliced bread and I said no it isn't and then all this happened


----------



## Gary Goodson (Aug 11, 2016)

My whole point is I don't think you are getting as much out of molasses as you think you are.


Deal with the fact that you might be wrong.

I have actually ran with and without molasses and haven't noticed a difference.

Can you say the same?


----------



## Yodaweed (Aug 11, 2016)

Olive you are having too much hubris man, chill out with the chest bumping your just a small fish in a big pond.


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 11, 2016)

Gary Goodson said:


> Lol you literally said molasses is the best thing since sliced bread and I said no it isn't and then all this happened


I definitely didn't say that, Gary. This further leads me to believe I somehow upset you, and your issues with me are personal. I'd like to discuss them if possible, in private. Because I would like to find out where this is coming from. All I said was that molasses works. Maybe not your argument, but the argument here was that it didn't.

Do you know why salts build up in synth setups? Because the nutrients are bound to salts. Potassium silicate or sulfate for instance. At some point, the nutrient is severed from the salt (the bond is broken), with pH playing a role in this, and the plant takes it up.

In organics, we use the actual chemical, not chelated. Like how Desoxyn is methamphetamine hydrochloride and actual glass is just pure methamphetamine. We get these nutrients from the microbes eating and deteriorating the organic matter, breaking it down into a form useable by the plan. Think of the raw form as that chelated form as in synths, and the microbes break the bond, so to speak. 

If I can iterate all of this, lucidly, I don't understand why you feel like you want to argue the point. These are facts. All I want here, from this site, are facts and fun. You have to admit: This site is full of bullshit information that even you, at one time, believed in. I'm trying to eliminate that.


----------



## greasemonkeymann (Aug 11, 2016)

Olive Drab Green said:


> So, what macronutrient is most responsible for trichome production? I believe it's potassium, but I'll check quickly.


short answer is NONE of them are, they collectively are.
photosynthesis is what is responsible man
NOT any one macro, that I promise you.
where are you reading this info from?


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 11, 2016)

Yodaweed said:


> Olive you are having too much hubris man, chill out with the chest bumping your just a small fish in a big pond.


I'm definitely not showing hubris, I'm simply defending what is correct information, so it can't get swept to the wayside as the Bullshit Express plows through the science,interfering with people's ability to learn.


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 11, 2016)

greasemonkeymann said:


> short answer is NONE of them are, they collectively are.
> photosynthesis is what is responsible man
> NOT any one macro, that I promise you.
> where are you reading this info from?


Again, this is partly true. But potassium has been identified as one of the biggest contributors. It's what the plant uses to fuel its trichome production. You drink milk for its calcium, right? And when you drink it, there are millions of little microbes in your stomach that break it down into nutrients that your stomach can absorb properly. Why is this so hard for you to understand?


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 11, 2016)

Just like calcium in milk builds strong bones, and strong plant matter, potassium contributes to trichome production in a big way.


----------



## BarnBuster (Aug 11, 2016)




----------



## Yodaweed (Aug 11, 2016)

Olive Drab Green said:


> I'm definitely not showing hubris, I'm simply defending what is correct information, so it can't get swept to the wayside as the Bullshit Express plows through the science,interfering with people's ability to learn.


Sometimes you are just not right man, i'm gonna have to say you are full of hubris at this point, you should take a step back and reevaluate yourself, having this much issue with admitting one was wrong is a serious character flaw and you cannot grow if you cannot learn from your mistakes, I make pleanty of them I argued so hard at @greasemonkeymann about something I WAS WRONG ABOUT, I admit I was wrong and we moved on from it and I hope we are more friendly because of it, you gotta earn peoples respect.


----------



## Gary Goodson (Aug 11, 2016)

Olive Drab Green said:


> I definitely didn't say that, Gary. This further leads me to believe I somehow upset you, and your issues with me are personal. I'd like to discuss them if possible, in private. Because I would like to find out where this is coming from. All I said was that molasses works. Maybe not your argument, but the argument here was that it didn't.
> 
> Do you know why salts build up in synth setups? Because the nutrients are bound to salts. Potassium silicate or sulfate for instance. At some point, the nutrient is severed from the salt (the bond is broken), with pH playing a role in this, and the plant takes it up.
> 
> ...



Have you done it with and with out molasses? 
Did you run a side by side?


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 11, 2016)

Yodaweed said:


> Sometimes you are just not right man, i'm gonna have to say you are full of hubris at this point, you should take a step back and reevaluate yourself, having this much issue with admitting one was wrong is a serious character flaw and you cannot grow if you cannot learn from your mistakes, I make pleanty of them I argued so hard at @greasemonkeymann about something I WAS WRONG ABOUT, I admit I was wrong and we moved on from it and I hope we are more friendly because of it, you gotta earn peoples respect.


Look, I have no problem admitting when I am wrong. But I've explained, thoroughly, why I'm right. The only point you're trying to drive home to me is I come off arrogant, and I'm sorry that I do, but that doesn't make what I'm saying wrong or invalid.

I truly am sorry that I rub you all the wrong way, it's something I'm trying to deal with, myself.


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 11, 2016)

Gary Goodson said:


> Have you done it with and with out molasses?
> Did you run a side by side?


I haven't, no, but the science still stands, man. Could I achieve it without molasses, using something else? Absolutely.


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 11, 2016)

My argument isn't that molasses is better than something else. The argument is "works vs. doesn't work," and I am definitely on the "works" side. But that doesn't mean molasses is the best thing since sliced bread, it's just another method among many ways of getting some of your macro and micronutrients via decomposition and fertilization.


----------



## Gary Goodson (Aug 11, 2016)

Olive Drab Green said:


> I haven't, no, but the science still stands, man. Could I achieve it without molasses, using something else? Absolutely.


Then you are in fact talking about something you have no experience on...


This could've ended a long time ago if I just asked you this question before.

you just lost a shit tone of credibility on this one man. Anyone can read some shit....


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 11, 2016)

It is quicker than, say, deriving your potassium and other nutrients from things that break down/decompose slower. I'm sure there are other, quicker and more potent things. Molasses is just effective, not the best.


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 11, 2016)

Gary Goodson said:


> Then you are in fact talking about something you have no experience on...
> 
> 
> This could've ended a long time ago if I just asked you this question before.
> ...


Dude. Fine. Believe what you want. But the shit you're saying about me? It's actually you that you're describing. And I love you, bro, you're cool as shit, but it's ignorant to think that I don't know my shit because I have only grown for 7 months. I am a college student, and I certainly understand the science behind it.


----------



## Gary Goodson (Aug 11, 2016)




----------



## greasemonkeymann (Aug 11, 2016)

Yodaweed said:


> Sometimes you are just not right man, i'm gonna have to say you are full of hubris at this point, you should take a step back and reevaluate yourself, having this much issue with admitting one was wrong is a serious character flaw and you cannot grow if you cannot learn from your mistakes, I make pleanty of them I argued so hard at @greasemonkeymann about something I WAS WRONG ABOUT, I admit I was wrong and we moved on from it and I hope we are more friendly because of it, you gotta earn peoples respect.


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 11, 2016)

Gary Goodson said:


> View attachment 3755055


----------



## greasemonkeymann (Aug 11, 2016)

Olive Drab Green said:


> Dude. Fine. Believe what you want. But the shit you're saying about me? It's actually you that you're describing. And I love you, bro, you're cool as shit, but it's ignorant to think that I don't know my shit because I have only grown for 7 months. I am a college student, and I certainly understand the science behind it.


yea but man, its not about your intellect skillset.
it's like reading abook on how to have sex.
you can read all you want but THERE IS NO REPLACEMENT FOR EXPERIENCE

same thing with automechanics, I see a LOT of tech-grads that know all there is to know about an internal combustion engine, but have ZERO clue on how to fix cars.
we all start somewhere my man.

[QUOTE="Olive Drab Green, post: 12858255, member: 924036
*I truly am sorry that I rub you all the wrong way, it's something I'm trying to deal with, myself*.[/QUOTE]

it's alright man, I understand that aspect of it
just remember the attitude received is often a reflection of the attitude given.
just try and be a lil more chill my friend.
we can all get along.


----------



## BarnBuster (Aug 11, 2016)




----------



## greasemonkeymann (Aug 11, 2016)

Olive Drab Green said:


> Again, this is partly true. But potassium has been identified as one of the biggest contributors. It's what the plant uses to fuel its trichome production. You drink milk for its calcium, right? And when you drink it, there are millions of little microbes in your stomach that break it down into nutrients that your stomach can absorb properly. Why is this so hard for you to understand?


alright...
first.
you are being condescending towards me now.
I don't appreciate that, and if you continue i'll embarrass your limited knowledge on cannabis growing.
you don't wanna bark at this tree man.
i'm a puppy-dog, but condescension I don't take lightly on


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 11, 2016)

Honestly, the biggest problem here is nepotism. Just like politics. You guys only give credence to people who have been waiting in line long enough, and that's why this site's information is so fucking convoluted. I have brought you guys good information. Testable and replicable information. But believe what you will and ignore everything else, I suppose. Love you guys, even if the attitude here doesn't bode well for the research.


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 11, 2016)

greasemonkeymann said:


> alright...
> first.
> you are being condescending towards me now.
> I don't appreciate that, and if you continue i'll embarrass your limited knowledge on cannabis growing.
> ...


How in the hell was I condescending to you? Don't be so sensitive. And, don't try to intimidate me. Because it won't work. Please, relax.

I truly don't understand how you guys aren't getting what I'm saying, because I do respect you as intelligent people.


----------



## greasemonkeymann (Aug 11, 2016)

Olive Drab Green said:


> *Why is this so hard for you to understand*?


this part.
It's condescending.

and i'm not trying to intimidate you, tryin to save YOU from the public humiliation
More so than you ALREADY have.
you know we are all laughing at you right?
in a couple years you'll be reading back on these....


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 11, 2016)

greasemonkeymann said:


> this part.
> It's condescending.
> 
> and i'm not trying to intimidate you, tryin to save YOU from the public humiliation
> ...


That was a legitimate question, not an ad hominem attack. Neither is this: Please don't be so sensitive. I respect you.

Public humiliation from what? I think anyone reading this can see the logic behind the science I explained to you guys, even if they are new.


----------



## Gary Goodson (Aug 11, 2016)




----------



## BarnBuster (Aug 11, 2016)




----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 11, 2016)

BarnBuster said:


>


I really hope not. Even if we disagree, we should be mature enough to just understand that we disagree. I am not actively burning either side of the bridge. I really hope the same for them.


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 11, 2016)

Regardless, I have yet to see anyone explain to me exactly why it doesn't work. I have explained, in detail, why it does. Like I said, think of the milk analogy and how it provides calcium to your bones. Microbes break it down, and your stomach absorbs it. Just like a plant in a medium utilizing microbes.


----------



## greasemonkeymann (Aug 11, 2016)

Olive Drab Green said:


> That was a legitimate question, not an ad hominem attack. Neither is this: Please don't be so sensitive. I respect you.
> 
> Public humiliation from what? I think anyone reading this can see the logic behind the science I explained to you guys, even if they are new.


the fact that you don't know is precisely the problem.
it's alright

it's not a legitimate question.
I understand 100% on EXACTLY how the plant takes up, and uses all macros and micros.
I've read more books than you know, and I've been growing since 1989.
I grow orchids, violets, avocados, fruits, lavender, jasmine, bamboo, clerodendrons, all vegetables, hybrid tea roses, philodendrons, etc, etc, etc.

so asking me why I don't understand your explanation
is to me, condescending.

I think anyone that has been on this site understands that I have competent grasp on horticulture.


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 11, 2016)

greasemonkeymann said:


> the fact that you don't know is precisely the problem.
> it's alright
> 
> it's not a legitimate question.
> ...


So explain to me, the hangup/flaw in my logic instead of just telling me that I'm wrong. Where am I going wrong, if you understand exactly how it works?


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 11, 2016)

Because you don't feed a plant in organics, you feed the soil, specifically the microherd, which feeds the plant.


----------



## Gary Goodson (Aug 11, 2016)

Olive Drab Green said:


> I really hope not. Even if we disagree, we should be mature enough to just understand that we disagree. I am not actively burning either side of the bridge. I really hope the same for them.


Nope, no bridges burnt here, but I will be skipping right over your posts in the grow section from now on. You have no experience to go off of. 

I've always gone after newbies that think they know what they're talking about. It's kinda my thing, keep the newbs in check. 



Olive Drab Green said:


> So explain to me, the hangup/flaw in my logic instead of just telling me that I'm wrong. Where am I going wrong, if you understand exactly how it works?


Do you not understand that I have ran a side by side????? Wtf is wrong with you?


----------



## Gary Goodson (Aug 11, 2016)

Again, we all know how to read


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 11, 2016)

Gary Goodson said:


> Nope, no bridges burnt here, but I will be skipping right over your posts in the grow section from now on. You have no experience to go off of.
> 
> I've always gone after newbies that think they know what they're talking about. It's kinda my thing, keep the newbs in check.
> 
> ...


I do know what I'm talking about. If you can't tell me why I'm wrong, why are you saying I'm wrong?


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 11, 2016)

And, if you ran a side by side, did you run it to an excrutiatingly detailed degree? Did you run the same strain? What did you do? What was the result? Are there any reasons you might be wrong? Have you replicated it a second time to confirm, or did you only do it once?


----------



## Gary Goodson (Aug 11, 2016)

Olive Drab Green said:


> I do know what I'm talking about. If you can't tell me why I'm wrong, why are you saying I'm wrong?


I'm not saying that molasses doesn't contain NPK values or that it doesn't feed the heard. 


It's just not doing all the wonderful things you think it is doing.


Olive Drab Green said:


> And, if you ran a side by side, did you run it to an excrutiatingly detailed degree? Did you run the same strain? What did you do? What was the result? Are there any reasons you might be wrong? Have you replicated it a second time to confirm, or did you only do it once?


Run the test yourself man, I can't believe I've wasted this much time on this subject.


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 11, 2016)

Gary Goodson said:


> I'm not saying that molasses doesn't contain NPK values or that it doesn't feed the heard.
> 
> 
> It's just not doing all the wonderful things you think it is doing.
> ...


What wonderful things do you think I think it's doing?


----------



## Gary Goodson (Aug 11, 2016)

You got nothing bro, you read some shit and believe it to be true.... 

Like talking to a Christian all "prove God doesn't exist!"


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 11, 2016)

i simply think, like anything else that contains potassium, that it's contributing to trichome growth due to its richness in potassium. Anything else that can be broken down by microbes that provide abundant potassium would be just as good.


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 11, 2016)

Gary Goodson said:


> You got nothing bro, you read some shit and believe it to be true....
> 
> Like talking to a Christian all "prove God doesn't exist!"


Dude, YOU have nothing, and I don't mean any disrespect. I've asked you to tell me how I've got nothing, and you can't. Don't you think it's possible that maybe you could be wrong? Even potentially? I may be wrong, too, but the science behind it is all adding up.

Christians explain things in miracles, I'm actually thoroughly explaining my shit.


----------



## Uberknot (Aug 11, 2016)

So.....what about beets or beet juice?



Olive Drab Green said:


> Anything else that can be broken down by microbes that provide abundant potassium would be just as good.


----------



## greasemonkeymann (Aug 11, 2016)

Olive Drab Green said:


> So explain to me, the hangup/flaw in my logic instead of just telling me that I'm wrong. Where am I going wrong, if you understand exactly how it works?


well shit man, "since I understand exactly how it works..."
because you falsely attribute molasses/potassium to glandular trichome production.


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 11, 2016)

Uberknot said:


> So.....what about beets or beet juice?


I dunno, what's the nutrient content, and does it pose any problems with going rancid? I believe, as it's a plant, it can be composted like anything else. I dunno, though, I dunno what it's made of, fiber-wise.


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 11, 2016)

greasemonkeymann said:


> well shit man, "since I understand exactly how it works..."
> because you falsely attribute molasses/potassium to glandular trichome production.


Falsely? Potassium does have a big role in trichome production, probably second only to genetics.


----------



## Gary Goodson (Aug 11, 2016)

Olive Drab Green said:


> Dude, YOU have nothing, and I don't mean any disrespect. I've asked you to tell me how I've got nothing, and you can't. Don't you think it's possible that maybe you could be wrong? Even potentially? I may be wrong, too, but the science behind it is all adding up.
> 
> Christians explain things in miracles, I'm actually thoroughly explaining my shit.


And real world experience is backing me up. I'm telling you what I've done and you haven't done a damn thing but read some shit. 

I have said this over and over. I ran a side by side and could not really tell a difference. What more do you want?


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 11, 2016)

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=does potassium help trichome production cannabis

Everything I'm seeing concurs. Potassium is a major player in trichome production.


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 11, 2016)

Gary Goodson said:


> And real world experience is backing me up. I'm telling you what I've done and you haven't done a damn thing but read some shit.
> 
> I have said this over and over. I ran a side by side and could not really tell a difference. What more do you want?


You just admitted you didn't run a second test, and you didn't bother explaining your parameters, so what you're saying backs you up doesn't, man. I really don't mean this in a condescending way. I'm being objective.


----------



## greasemonkeymann (Aug 11, 2016)

[QUOTE="Gary Goodson, post: 12858397, member: 885626

*Run the test yourself man, I can't believe I've wasted this much time on this subject*.[/QUOTE]
fuckin-A right, amen.

I am ignoring ODB from now on, I don't have time to educate selectively obtuse people.

if he believes its molasses doing ALL that fantastic stuff, just WAIT till he has a lockout issue.


----------



## Uberknot (Aug 11, 2016)

Olive Drab Green said:


> Anything else that can be broken down by microbes that provide abundant potassium would be just as good.





Olive Drab Green said:


> I dunno, what's the nutrient content, and does it pose any problems with going rancid? I believe, as it's a plant, it can be composted like anything else. I dunno, though, I dunno what it's made of, fiber-wise.


1.00 cup
(170.00 grams)

folate34%

manganese28%

potassium15%

copper14%

fiber14%

magnesium10%

phosphorus9%

vitamin C8%

iron7%

vitamin B66%


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 11, 2016)

If there is no difference, then maybe it's just all genetics. But try running your plant without any potassium in flower and see how high your trichomes stack.


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 11, 2016)

greasemonkeymann said:


> [QUOTE="Gary Goodson, post: 12858397, member: 885626
> 
> *Run the test yourself man, I can't believe I've wasted this much time on this subject*.


fuckin-A right, amen.

I am ignoring ODB from now on, I don't have time to educate selectively obtuse people.

if he believes its molasses doing ALL that fantastic stuff, just WAIT till he has a lockout issue.[/QUOTE]


Obtuse? I asked you for an explanation for your conclusion and you're getting huffy and ignorant. You're the one who's being obtuse.


----------



## greasemonkeymann (Aug 11, 2016)

Olive Drab Green said:


> https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=does potassium help trichome production cannabis
> 
> Everything I'm seeing concurs. Potassium is a major player in trichome production.


you dumbshit
you are using potgrowing forums as your references??
where's the SCIENCE?
you see the problem is, taking stoners' conjecture is a fool errand.


----------



## Gary Goodson (Aug 11, 2016)

Olive Drab Green said:


> You just admitted you didn't run a second test, and you didn't bother explaining your parameters, so what you're saying backs you up doesn't, man. I really don't mean this in a condescending way. I'm being objective.


Nope I never said that


Olive Drab Green said:


> If there is no difference, then maybe it's just all genetics. But try running your plant without any potassium in flower and see how high your trichomes stack.


And I'm not talking about potassium. I'm talking about molasses 

But wow you are dense man


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 11, 2016)

Uberknot said:


> 1.00 cup
> (170.00 grams)
> 
> folate34%
> ...


I'd need to look how the DVs translate to milligrams, but maybe.


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 11, 2016)

greasemonkeymann said:


> you dumbshit
> you are using potgrowing forums as you references??
> where the SCIENCE.
> you see the problem is, taking stoners' conjecture is a fool errand.


Not pot growing forums, I used different resources form google.
You are the ones being arrogant and obtuse, and you're further cementing that. I'm only trying to have a scientific discussion with you guys.


----------



## Gary Goodson (Aug 11, 2016)

I'm out... 7 month expert. GTFO


----------



## Uberknot (Aug 11, 2016)

Olive Drab Green said:


> I'd need to look how the DVs translate to milligrams, but maybe.


NUTRITION INFORMATION
Amounts per 1 cup (136g)

Calorie Information
Amounts Per Selected Serving%DV
Calories58.5(245 kJ)3%
From Carbohydrate50.5(211 kJ) 
From Fat1.9(8.0 kJ) 
From Protein6.1(25.5 kJ) 
From Alcohol0.0(0.0 kJ) 
Carbohydrates
Amounts Per Selected Serving%DV
Total Carbohydrate13.0g4%
Dietary Fiber3.8g15%
Starch0.0g 
Sugars9.2g 
Fats & Fatty Acids
Amounts Per Selected Serving%DV
Total Fat0.2g0%
Saturated Fat0.0g0%
Monounsaturated Fat0.0g 
Polyunsaturated Fat0.1g 
Total trans fatty acids~ 
Total trans-monoenoic fatty acids~ 
Total trans-polyenoic fatty acids~ 
Total Omega-3 fatty acids6.8mg 
Total Omega-6 fatty acids74.8mg 
Learn more about these fatty acids
and their equivalent names

Protein & Amino Acids
Amounts Per Selected Serving%DV
Protein2.2g4%
Vitamins
Amounts Per Selected Serving%DV
Vitamin A44.9IU1%
Vitamin C6.7mg11%
Vitamin D~ ~
Vitamin E (Alpha Tocopherol)0.1mg0%
Vitamin K0.3mcg0%
Thiamin0.0mg3%
Riboflavin0.1mg3%
Niacin0.5mg2%
Vitamin B60.1mg5%
Folate148mcg37%
Vitamin B120.0mcg0%
Pantothenic Acid0.2mg2%
Choline8.2mg 
Betaine175mg 
Minerals
Amounts Per Selected Serving%DV
Calcium21.8mg2%
Iron1.1mg6%
Magnesium31.3mg8%
Phosphorus54.4mg5%
Potassium442mg13%
Sodium106mg4%
Zinc0.5mg3%
Copper0.1mg5%
Manganese0.4mg22%
Selenium1.0mcg1%
Fluoride~ 
Sterols
Amounts Per Selected Serving%DV
Cholesterol0.0mg0%
Phytosterols34.0mg 
Other
Amounts Per Selected Serving%DV
Alcohol0.0g 
Water119g 
Ash1.5g 
Caffeine0.0mg 
Theobromine0.0mg 


Read More http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/vegetables-and-vegetable-products/2348/2#ixzz4H3NKqC69


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 11, 2016)

You don't take information you're given because someone asserts you're wrong and they are right. So, as I asked you before, where is the flaw in what I'm explaining that you see that maybe I do not?


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 11, 2016)

Uberknot said:


> NUTRITION INFORMATION
> Amounts per 1 cup (136g)
> 
> Calorie Information
> ...


Potentially, yes, if composted or broken down in some way by microbes, although I'm not sure how well or how fast they break down.


----------



## greasemonkeymann (Aug 11, 2016)

Olive Drab Green said:


> If there is no difference, then maybe it's just all genetics. But try running your plant without any potassium in flower and see how high your trichomes stack.


the leibigs law. would severely lower trichomes.
that's how it works man, not BECAUSE you have molasses, but because that's how plants work.
take ANY one macro/micro from them and ALL growth (including your precious trichomes) will suffer.

maybe I spoke too soon, maybe it's not selective obtuseness
maybe it's unintentional.

NOBODY is arguing that potassium isn't needed.
we are arguing that BSM doesn't do shit for trichomes AT ALL, if your soil is already properly assembled.

PERIOD

http://soils.wisc.edu/facstaff/barak/soilscience326/lawofmin.htm


----------



## Gary Goodson (Aug 11, 2016)

Olive Drab Green said:


> You don't take information you're given because someone asserts you're wrong and they are right. So, as I asked you before, where is the flaw in what I'm explaining that you see that maybe I do not?


Just run the side by side and then come back and apologize to me....


I used molasses for years and years. It's wasn't a fluke or a bs side by side. Ime it's better used in AACT for microbe production than it is in the soil.


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 11, 2016)

greasemonkeymann said:


> the leibigs law. would severely lower trichomes.
> that's how it works man, not BECAUSE you have molasses, but because that's how plants work.
> take ANY one macro/micro from them and ALL growth (including your precious trichomes) will suffer.
> 
> ...


Right. If your soil is properly assembled, you don't necessarily need it. I never argued that.


----------



## greasemonkeymann (Aug 11, 2016)

Olive Drab Green said:


> Not pot growing forums, I used different resources form google.
> You are the ones being arrogant and obtuse, and you're further cementing that. I'm only trying to have a scientific discussion with you guys.


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 11, 2016)

Gary Goodson said:


> Just run the side by side and then come back and apologize to me....
> 
> 
> I used molasses for years and years. It's wasn't a fluke or a bs side by side. Ime *it's better used in AACT for microbe production than it is in the soil.*


I said this. It's more efficient, because the microbes will populate much faster due to forced oxygen and organic material in the solute, and the nutrients will be broken down before they're applied.


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 11, 2016)

I'm confused. Where was the disconnect?


----------



## Gary Goodson (Aug 11, 2016)

Olive Drab Green said:


> I'm confused. Where was the disconnect?


Your very strong opinion on something you never tested.

That molasses is the bees knees in soil.


----------



## Uberknot (Aug 11, 2016)

Beet greens are even better I think?


----------



## greasemonkeymann (Aug 11, 2016)

Gary Goodson said:


> Your very strong opinion on something you never tested.
> 
> That molasses is the bees knees in soil.


retiring from this thread, and he is on ignore.
Dr.who is wrong, I am wrong, you are wrong, we are all wrong, his plants are way better than anyones, his miracle grow is awesome, molasses makes your trichomes stack on like nothing, makes your dick grow longer, your wife/gf hotter, your car faster, and it cures cancer too.
yee haw.


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 11, 2016)

Gary Goodson said:


> Your very strong opinion on something you never tested.
> 
> That molasses is the bees knees in soil.


Why do you keep saying that? I never said that. I said I agree with its use in soil. And I believe, as products for trichomes are made of potassium _sulfate_ (or silicate), as you said yourself, that potassium has been identified as the macronutrient responsible. I just argued that a tablespoon of BSM has nearly a gram, which is a pretty good sized amount. That was my argument.


----------



## Uberknot (Aug 11, 2016)

greasemonkeymann said:


> molasses makes your dick grow longer
> yee haw.



Really???


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 11, 2016)

greasemonkeymann said:


> retiring from this thread, and he is on ignore.
> Dr.who is wrong, I am wrong, you are wrong, we are all wrong, his plants are way better than anyones, his miracle grow is awesome, molasses makes your trichomes stack on like nothing, makes your dick grow longer, your wife/gf hotter, your car faster, and it cures cancer too.
> yee haw.


Cool, thanks, bro. Love you, too.


----------



## Gary Goodson (Aug 11, 2016)

Olive Drab Green said:


> Why do you keep saying that? I never said that. I said I agree with its use in soil. And I believe, as products for trichomes are made of potassium _sulfate_ (or silicate), as you said yourself, that potassium has been identified as the macronutrient responsible. I just argued that a tablespoon of BSM has nearly a gram, which is a pretty good sized amount. That was my argument.


Hey, you asked the question, I just gave you my answer.


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 11, 2016)

Gary Goodson said:


> Hey, you asked the question, I just gave you my answer.


Right, I just think you misinterpreted how strongly my assertion was. If you can find another source rich in potassium, that would work just as well. Like I said, it was work vs. not work, not is better vs. doesn't work.


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 11, 2016)

And as I said, the only other thing that contributes, probably more so than the potassium, is genetics. But you can't feed and fuel those genetics to their greatest potential without the proper nutrients. BSM is not a complete nutrient, it's just got a good source of extra potassium and other micronutrients.


----------



## BarnBuster (Aug 11, 2016)

beets make my poop red so I don't like them. I wanna know if i'm bleeding internally

whoops, sorry wrong thread


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 11, 2016)

BarnBuster said:


> beets make my poop red so I don't like them. I wanna know if i'm bleeding internally
> 
> whoops, sorry wrong thread


My brother was drunk one time. He goes "Damn.. These beets are so fresh.. Snap.." He bit into it, ate it, and rubbed it on my chest. Joke was on him, though. The next day, he thought he was dying from alcohol poisoning when he went to take a shit.


----------



## VTMi'kmaq (Aug 11, 2016)

Uberknot said:


> Really???


All i got is blackstrap....but im drinkin


----------



## Dr.Pecker (Aug 11, 2016)

Potassium does not increase resin production. If it does, please provide a link for me to catch up on the subject. As far as I know it promotes air exchanges with plant stomata and moisture exchanges between plant cells. It helps prevent transplant shock and produces fatter stems. You can easily overdo it with potassium and lock out magnesium so be careful. https://www.ipni.net/ppiweb/bcrops.nsf/$webindex/84CBB51751971AB3852568F000673A10/$file/98-3p04.pdf http://www.adonline.id.au/flowers/the-potassium-myth/


----------



## Uberknot (Aug 11, 2016)

Dr.Pecker said:


> Potassium does not increase resin production. If it does, please provide a link for me to catch up on the subject. As far as I know it promotes air exchanges with plant stomata and moisture exchanges between plant cells. It helps prevent transplant shock and produces fatter stems. You can easily overdo it with potassium and lock out magnesium so be careful. https://www.ipni.net/ppiweb/bcrops.nsf/$webindex/84CBB51751971AB3852568F000673A10/$file/98-3p04.pdf http://www.adonline.id.au/flowers/the-potassium-myth/



ohh nice to know about that lock out....um is there some place that shows which nutes lock out the other?


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 11, 2016)

Dr.Pecker said:


> Potassium does not increase resin production. If it does, please provide a link for me to catch up on the subject. As far as I know it promotes air exchanges with plant stomata and moisture exchanges between plant cells. It helps prevent transplant shock and produces fatter stems. You can easily overdo it with potassium and lock out magnesium so be careful. https://www.ipni.net/ppiweb/bcrops.nsf/$webindex/84CBB51751971AB3852568F000673A10/$file/98-3p04.pdf http://www.adonline.id.au/flowers/the-potassium-myth/


If this is the case, then this is the fundamental flaw I was asking for, in which case, I am sorry. I will do some more background research regarding potassium being a myth as it pertains to flowering, but if you are right, I truly am sorry.

Regardless, even if potassium is a myth, molasses is still useful as a fertilizer. Not that it's better than any other fertilizer, but it won't harm your plant and will at least contribute in a beneficial way. That was my main argument.


----------



## Dr.Pecker (Aug 11, 2016)

Uberknot said:


> ohh nice to know about that lock out....um is there some place that shows which nutes lock out the other?


I'm sure there is. Google is a great place to start looking. You might have to leave the marijuana forums and visit a botany website. Same rules apply for cannabis as they do for other flowers.


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 11, 2016)

I am looking as we speak, and what I'm finding says what we're disputing here is heavily contested all over. I'm not arguing one way or the other. But I'm getting sources for both, although most are saying it does, and the dissent says that the yea's are all misinformed.


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 11, 2016)

1."Growers should also be aware that a lack of potassium can result in sparse amounts of flowers. Thus, you should increase potassium during mid- and late-flowering. Avoid nutrients deficiencies and use Marijuana Booster." -The Weed Blog



2."In order to keep your plants growing strong during the flowering process, deciphering the proper amount of Potassium (K) your garden needs is vital. Potassium is a prime facilitator for carbohydrate metabolism. So, if your plants aren’t receiving the right amount, the plant’s sugar production slows dramatically which makes it difficult for your plants to store necessary energy they need to develop buds.

When a Potassium deficiency occurs, plant growth not only stalls, but it also affects the quality of buds, which will decline without proper nourishment. Using Potassium supplements during this stage of your garden’s lifecycle will aid in keeping the quality of your plant’s buds at optimal levels." -http://the420times.com/2015/03/exploiting-the-power-of-potassium-for-your-cannabis-plants/


3."At this stage, using a PK formula will ensure your plants get adequate phosphorus and potassium - the nutrients needed most at this stage. Many gardeners use different techniques to develop hardness and ripeness, some include: adding molasses to your feeding schedule and using Bombastic by Atami. Often, gardeners will deliberately stress the plant mildly right at the end of the flower stage. 
Many of the desirable characteristics about Cannabis are largely a result of the biological defense mechanisms employed by the Cannabis plant. By creating somewhat stressful environment, you "trick" the plant into focusing its last energy at protecting itself from the stress and recovering which can lead to increased resin and potency of cannabinoids as well as an increase in essential oils. 
Light shocking (finishing the plants out with 24 to 48 hours of straight darkness) and PK spiking (adding very high levels of Phosphorus and Potassium) are two methods that when used in moderation on healthy thriving plants, consistently delivers a small but noticeable boost in quality that can often serve as the "cherry" on top of your sundae." -http://www.thenorthwestleaf.com/pages/articles/post/why-a-plants-final-3-4-weeks-of-grow-are-so-important


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 11, 2016)

Like I said, it's pretty contested, with most saying it is beneficial for what I had originally stated. Do you have any good plant chemistry resource sites?


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 11, 2016)

Also, every Cannabis fert company that makes a bloom booster uses potassium silicate or potassium sulfate as one of its main components. I mean, it seems to be the general consensus that potassium does increase flowering and resin production. I dunno what to think, Doc.


----------



## Chunky Stool (Aug 11, 2016)

Sulfur is the key. My last two grows using calcined clay turned out great! (kitty litter)


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 11, 2016)

Chunky Stool said:


> *Sulfur is the key*. My last two grows using calcined clay turned out great! (kitty litter)


Well, that's another huge one they're finding lately, and that one, I really want to try more extensively than I have.


----------



## Chunky Stool (Aug 11, 2016)

Olive Drab Green said:


> Well, that's another huge one they're finding lately, and that one, I really want to try more extensively than I have.


Healthiest root balls I've ever seen! My plants love that shit!


----------



## BarnBuster (Aug 11, 2016)

Chunky Stool said:


> Healthiest root balls I've ever seen! My plants love that shit!


sounds like a @RM3 soil mix


----------



## Dr.Nick Riviera (Aug 11, 2016)

LMFAO at the energizer bunny still going on about molasses.


----------



## Dr.Pecker (Aug 11, 2016)

Genetics is the biggest contributor to resin production. Ask any hashmaker they will tell you the same.


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 11, 2016)

Dr.Pecker said:


> Genetics is the biggest contributor to resin production. Ask any hashmaker they will tell you the same.


I said that, too. Genetics are even more important than fertilization. I'm with you, Doc. I'm trackin'.


----------



## buzzardbreath (Aug 11, 2016)

Dr.Nick Riviera said:


> LMFAO at the energizer bunny still going on about molasses.
> View attachment 3755203


Persistence beats resistance


----------



## jbmac (Aug 13, 2016)

I tested 1 tablespoon of molasses in 1 gallon of reverse osmosis water:

Ni 2 PPM
Ph 0 PPM
K 89 PPM (wow)
CA 155 PPM (wow)
Ma 38 PPM
Ir 0.41 PPM
Si 0 PPM


----------



## Dr.Nick Riviera (Aug 13, 2016)

jbmac said:


> I tested 1 tablespoon of molasses in 1 gallon of reverse osmosis water:
> 
> Ni 2 PPM
> Ph 0 PPM
> ...


how many ppms of each of those were in just the R.O water?


----------



## jbmac (Aug 13, 2016)

My test of RO water:

N 2
P 0.0
K 2
C 34 (Hanna meter can't handle RO water?)
M 0
I 0.8
S 2


----------



## coreywebster (Aug 13, 2016)

Uberknot said:


> ohh nice to know about that lock out....um is there some place that shows which nutes lock out the other?


----------



## Uberknot (Aug 13, 2016)

coreywebster said:


> View attachment 3756543



sweet!


----------



## jbmac (Aug 14, 2016)

found out my RO filter membrane was bad, that's why Calcium was so high


----------



## ganga gurl420 (Aug 22, 2016)

I don't know if it increases resin production. I really doubt that it will increase yields either after the university study I read. However I did find in the same study that when the plant was given different sugars including molasses, and then they inoculated the plant with fungi...the plants that were given the sugars had a greater defense against it.
That's worth it to me right there.

http://cropwatch.unl.edu/research-sugar-application-crops


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 22, 2016)

ganga gurl420 said:


> I don't know if it increases resin production. I really doubt that it will increase yields either after the university study I read. However I did find in the same study that when the plant was given different sugars including molasses, and then they inoculated the plant with fungi...the plants that were given the sugars had a greater defense against it.
> That's worth it to me right there.
> 
> http://cropwatch.unl.edu/research-sugar-application-crops


That's due to the bacteria and mycorrhizae. We're all up to speed on that. It's used in AACTs to feed the bacteria. I'd imagine the fungi may benefit at least secondarily.


----------



## ganga gurl420 (Aug 22, 2016)

Olive Drab Green said:


> That's due to the bacteria and mycorrhizae. We're all up to speed on that. It's used in AACTs to feed the bacteria. I'd imagine the fungi may benefit at least secondarily.


haha see I never bother with knowing all the fine details. I just know in moderation it's good for the soil.... I don't try to nerd out too much on this stuff. Take the fun out of it for me.


----------



## rob333 (Aug 22, 2016)

Dr.Pecker said:


> Genetics is the biggest contributor to resin production. Ask any hashmaker they will tell you the same.


2 words bro well 3 genrel hydro juicy


----------



## rob333 (Aug 22, 2016)

rob333 said:


> 2 words bro well 3 genrel hydro juicy


i have turnt bush weed that is pure shit into dripping with resin with that shit also resinater


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 22, 2016)

rob333 said:


> i have turnt bush weed that is pure shit into dripping with resin with that shit also resinater


I have heard mostly that it's a ruse, and I am also in the belief that it's all good genetics. If you can show me this resiny bush weed, I'd be much more apt to believe you.


----------



## rob333 (Aug 22, 2016)

Olive Drab Green said:


> I have heard mostly that it's a ruse, and I am also in the belief that it's all good genetics. If you can show me this resiny bush weed, I'd be much more apt to believe you.


sorry i dont have the best camara atm but its like there been snowed on


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Aug 22, 2016)

rob333 said:


> sorry i dont have the best camara atm but its like there been snowed on


And these are what strain? I doubt it's bush weed. Are you twisting the truth, even slightly?


----------



## rob333 (Aug 22, 2016)

Olive Drab Green said:


> And these are what strain? I doubt it's bush weed. Are you twisting the truth, even slightly?


ill tell ya what strain they are its called white trash strain from down the road from some chick with about a million kids i got a mate to score me for one it smoked like pure shit for 2 it was full of seed which hence were this came from


----------



## Afgan King (Aug 22, 2016)

Dr.Pecker said:


> Genetics is the biggest contributor to resin production. Ask any hashmaker they will tell you the same.


100% agree


----------



## Afgan King (Aug 22, 2016)

And I can guarantee 100% molasses does not increase trich production I can't believe this train of thought is still around


----------



## 2Beachbum (Aug 23, 2016)

ganga gurl420 said:


> I don't know if it increases resin production. I really doubt that it will increase yields either after the university study I read. However I did find in the same study that when the plant was given different sugars including molasses, and then they inoculated the plant with fungi...the plants that were given the sugars had a greater defense against it.
> That's worth it to me right there.
> 
> http://cropwatch.unl.edu/research-sugar-application-crops


I'm confused ffs You gangs girl...lol.
No you're dead on the M Density.Now not as good as the snake oil's.
Beech


----------



## 2Beachbum (Aug 23, 2016)

Afgan King said:


> And I can guarantee 100% molasses does not increase trich production I can't believe this train of thought is still around


Could start a flushing thread... Love those.


----------



## BarnBuster (Aug 28, 2016)

2Beachbum said:


> Could start a flushing thread... Love those.


go ahead, there are a whole new crop of "experts" in here now


----------



## Budgoro88 (Aug 29, 2016)

I use it next water I add in orca growth explodes shortly after just sayin


----------



## Afgan King (Aug 29, 2016)

Budgoro88 said:


> I use it next water I add in orca growth explodes shortly after just sayin


Because your adding microbials then feeding them with the molasses......there's better carbohydrates to feed them with


----------



## 2Beachbum (Aug 30, 2016)

BarnBuster said:


> go ahead, there are a whole new crop of "experts" in here now


ha ha there is a new one going now so you and the so called
" experts" will have some bashing to do.


----------

