# Brix Levels; it's relevance to cannabis carbohydrate loading and enzymatic breakdown.



## lolapug2175 (Aug 27, 2008)

Recently I have become more fascinated with the practice of carbohydrate loading during the various periods of the flowering cycle in a hydroponics system. It was something that I had never payed close attention to, as developing, managing and maintaining an optimal salts regiment is an incredibly advanced task in and of itself. I feel like it has taken a lifetime to just to understand advanced supplemental nutrients in hydroponics and how to implement them optimally in conjunction with the standard base elements. 
I though I would initiate this topic in a thread after seeing a lot post pertaining to adding Molasses or a 'Simple Syrup Concoction' as a method of Carbo loading during the flowering cycle of a plant. most of the post read like this 'Just through some molasses in the nutes bro!!'. These post make very little sence to me. It is my understanding that at a molecular level the pant cannot uptake these available carbohydrates due to the size of the molecule being to large. It would seem that some type of enzymatic would have to be administered to help break down the molecule to a smaller form so that the plants root system my uptake these carbs. This limited understanding of this process has left me with questions pertaining to the use, method and benefits of this process.

1.) Has anyone experimented with this process of pre-engaging the break down of the carbohydrates? 
2.) What methods were used?
3.) what types of formulas were administered, Carbohydrate vs. Enzymatic?
4.) During what period of the cycle was the process applied?
5.) How Does all of this relate to the Brix levels of the plant?
6.) What metabolic process or physical processes of the plant benefit from all of this?


----------



## MrBaker (Aug 27, 2008)

Hell of a first post. I've been asking myself some of these questions for about a year. I'll make some initial comments before I retort to your questions. 

I've always thought, "Wait, plants can't take in carbohydrate through the roots. They make carbohydrate in the leaves." Later, after reading more opinions and doing more research a couple reasons made sense for addition of a "sugar" under some conditions. 
- Molasses often comes with micro-nutrient amounts of sulfur and some other elements that are taken up by the roots. So, the carb part of the molasses didn't seem to be the important part for the plant directly in the uptake regard.
- Also, I thought that maybe in a grow medium of soil or more likely outside the molasses mix could encourage helpful soil bacteria/fungus to live around the roots of the plant. Maybe bacteria break down the carbs and then the plant takes in whats left.
- Another thought is that maybe the addition of molasses to the nutrient delivery would change the tonicity of the immediate area around roots, and the change in tonicity triggers the roots to act differently, somehow increasing bud growth/size (whatever molasses promises).
- I hadn't thought of carb being broken down outside the root and then being shuttled in and/or osmotically brought in. But what breaks it down?

The general opinion is to administer the carbs during flowering to bulk up on the buds. Never seen any opinions saying any time other than the flowering portion of the plant's life. 

As far as how all of this relates to the amount of sugar dissolved in the plant's fluid and tissue...good question. Plants make their own sugar in their leaves and the uptake in roots is controlled by controlled addition and subtraction of salt/water/nutrients/elements in order to create equilibria shift. 

(rhode island. neither a road nor an island...discuss)


----------



## born2killspam (Aug 27, 2008)

Alot more of the nutrient cycle happens outside of the roots than most ppl realize.. Plants secret sugars and carbs from their roots into the rhizosphere area just adjacent to the roots.. These are reducing agents that bacteria and protozoa can use as an energy to do alot of molecular work like fixating and binding nitrogen etc.. These bacteria can penetrate the intercellular regions of the roots and as the plants roots become low on their own carbohydrate reserves near the end of flowering, this becomes more important.. Its not the carbs that the roots are uptaking, its more like the energy the carbs possess.. The bacteria are just hardworking little Doozers, spending alot of energy they recieved from carbs to make the molecules/ions the plant needs.. In a way you aren't feeding anything to your plant directly, the molasses is for the microbes..
Fermentation is all about keeping microbes happy.. Wine making stores have some pretty slick concoctions for energizers and nutrients.. Protozoa and bacteria tend to have similar tastes and compete for everything too.. I think molasses could be a thing of the past for me the next time I get around to growing.. I'm an avid fermenter, and when I feel old school I use no extra boosters, just molasses for my rum washes, and the yeast do love that, but if I add the yeast micronutrients and energizer in the form of DAP (diammonium phosphate) which is also an excellent fertilizer, I get explosive yeast activity.. I feel dumb that I never put 2+2 together when I was growing, I had all the stuff, but I hadn't really 'thought about the purpose' of the molasses, I just added it because it was suggested on overgrow.com (rest its soul)..

Edit: Also, extended dark cycles are linked to rapid carbohydrate depletion.. It makes sense because the plant senses less energy coming in to use to produce ATP etc, so in symbiotic form it dumps whats in its roots already to feed these buggers so they can do the energy intensive work.. So this begs the question of whether molasses does anything at all in a Lowryder grow..


----------



## lolapug2175 (Aug 27, 2008)

Mr Baker, great comments! This brings up a few more relevant questions that have developed as a result of my inquiry to the validity of this practice. I was not aware there was enough sulfur in Molasses to be significantly beneficial to a flowering plant or at leased not more than is available the nutrient solution itself. I have considered the possibility that this could be beneficial for pro-biotic cultures however in most hydroponic regiments the time, duration and medium render this most likely not beneficial to the cultures. Most production growers administer this practice during the time when they are significantly impacting the cultures due to the processes of breaking down the salts between nutrient changes and tapering PPM values. If you couple this with most typical mediums being non fibrous, it is hard to keep these cultures in and around the root mass of the plant. 10-14 days is not very much time to regenerate a newer culture so it leads me to believe that the primary objective of this process is to provide the plant with excess carbohydrates to assist with the building of plant mass. I have read rumors that it improves taste and aromatic quality of the fruit as well. Having seen no supporting scientific evidence of this, I would have to assume that Molasses, 'Sugar concoctions' 'Apple Juice' and Cyders are merely just a myth!! I am aware of companies making commercially products catering to this such as Advanced Nutrients 'Carboload', Technaflora 'Sugardaddy' and Humboldt Nutrients ' Humboldt Honey'. All of which make the same claims growers who implement Molasses Myth ( Greater plant Mass, accentuated smell and flavor). I made a few calls to all of the above vendors regarding this theory relative to their products. Both Advanced nutrients and Humboldt Nutrients made similar claims in regard to the benefits however Humboldt Nutrients stated that their product had to be used in conjunction with a proper enzymatic. Obviously this enzymatic would facilitate the breakdown of the carbohydrates for osmotic absorption. The explanation that I received from Humboldt Nutrients was by far the most scientifically plausible however it raised more questions. What is the corollary of the brix index in relation to actual plant mass? Is carbo-loading actually a beneficial process? If it were to be beneficial what could be obtained from this process (mass, flavor, etc.)? What would be the most appropriate method to carry out this process? 


Good to see the wheels knowledge spinning!!


----------



## lolapug2175 (Aug 27, 2008)

Great post Born2killspam!! This raises a very appropriate question. Is the purpose of carb-loading directly affecting the plant or is assisting the metabolic process of the 'reducing agents'?


----------



## born2killspam (Aug 27, 2008)

Those options aren't at all mutually exclusive.. But the reducing agents themselves don't have metabolic processes, the organisms use the sugars and carbs which are the reducing agents to liberate energy.. It boils down to calories more understandably than brix, or specific gravity.. Reducers get oxidized when they reduce.. Another form of oxidation is combustion, so its not tough to see how energy comes about here.. Molecular processes are a give and take energy scenario.. Much of the energy given off as heat/light is absorbed by another molecule , causing it to do something (with or without another molecule) that can put it into a position where it can assist another energy unfavorable reaction before we could detect the energy was ever emitted.. Sorry about the badly written remedial chem lesson, I'm pretty sure you already know these things, so I won't bother with details like the differences between molecules, ions, atoms etc..
In short: We are the Gods, our plants are our annointed chosen ones, and soil microbes are the slaves that serve them.. Give them this day their daily molasses, and they won't trespass against you..


----------



## lolapug2175 (Aug 27, 2008)

Phenomenal reply Born2killspam!! This is a very important part of the process for us (the community) to understand. So... please correct me if I have misinterpreted you. It seems that you are stating the plants benefit only from the practice of carb-loading by providing carbohydrates to assist beneficial microorganisms. These organisms use these carbohydrates to produce energy. This energy is used to carry out their process of reducing elements that the plants may absorb. Is this correct?


----------



## born2killspam (Aug 27, 2008)

And in regards to flavor it can be improved with molasses etc I think, but not nearly in the way alot of ppl talk about.. 
First of all, molecular reactions can be really fussy about how much energy is in an available packet.. Sunlight on the bud doesn't provide the right type of energy needed to make all the desired reactions occur 'directly'.. Specific carbs, and amino acids etc are needed for that, and nutrients in specific forms are required to make those.. That must occur in the plant because we've pretty much accepted that they don't travel directly from the molasses.. But the plants own stored supply of simple easy to utilize carbs is depleting (it does still have carbs, but they're mostly pretty complex and specialized), so at this point its not the best at tweaking these within the roots etc, but we want more carbs to become complex and specialized, for optimum bud which still requires the simpler energy initiators way down low..
Perhaps plants have evolved to dump their sugars to the soil as a reserve factor to avoid runaway growth from converting them to more complex forms thus depriving it of the simpler things it still needs to make typical conversions and painting itself into a corner.. N P & K are really energy oriented elements.. Phosphorous is pretty much involved anywhere energy is transported in living organisms I think, Nitrogen forms an enormously strong triple bond with itself, and potassium is a powerful anion.. Anything that can give you alot of energy is going to take alot of energy to load/prepare, and thats what the microbes do with those high octane carbs/sugars..
I'd stake alot on my belief that the improvement comes from facilitating healthy, and well balanced maturation over forcing the plant to settle/make due.. Making sure anything up inside those buds got to do its full job, and isn't just camping out undesirably..
Not much different than how curing apparently breaks down chlorophyl and allows various spontaneous desirable changes to occur


----------



## born2killspam (Aug 28, 2008)

lolapug2175 said:


> Phenomenal reply Born2killspam!! This is a very important part of the process for us (the community) to understand. So... please correct me if I have misinterpreted you. It seems that you are stating the plants benefit only from the practice of carb-loading by providing carbohydrates to assist beneficial microorganisms. These organisms use these carbohydrates to produce energy. This energy is used to carry out their process of reducing elements that the plants may absorb. Is this correct?


Sorry I missed this post earlier, but basically yea.. Not that it makes a difference, its all part of the same ecosystem you want to thrive.. Thats why when I did hydro I used a double resevoir system, one of which contained a nitrogen fixating bacteria and goldfish..


----------



## lolapug2175 (Aug 29, 2008)

Thank you for all of your comments Born2killspam!! I have been doing a bit more research to back up the information you have provided. After reviewing several online technical journals explaining this process in great depth, I crossed this information with a few phone conversations to various commercial nutrient vendors. Post speaking to members of their technical staff I would seem that there is various scientific proof that this is not a myth and this practice can assist microorganisms. Confirming this fact has left me with a few questions. How does providing a substance for microorganisms to convert to energy support claims of adding weight to the fruit/flowers of a plant? How does this relate to the brix levels of a plant? 
It would seem that the benefits 'carb-loading' a specimen would have an extremely indirect effect on the brix levels. With theoretically perfect conditions how much would this 'carb-loading' practice benefit the pant? Considering no conditions are perfect how much will this really benefit a plant? (1%, 5%,... 25%). 


By the way all external references did support/affirm that providing carbohydrates will not directly benefit a plant. 


Best!
-LP


----------



## born2killspam (Aug 29, 2008)

Does brix mean anything in solid material? I've always known it to be a liquid solution measurement.. I guess sap brix could be measured, but it wouldn't be that meaningful beyond telling us the s.g. since we don't exactly know the composition..
How much it can help the plant would be highly variable.. If the plant still had the resources to do those reactions itself in the roots unimpeded to the maximum extent the plant could draw these products up then I doubt it would be of any benefit at all.. These organisms are tweaking basic nutrients etc.. The plant still needs alot in late growth to finish what it has started in the bud etc in a healthful manner..
My hypothesis is that 'flushing' is a misnomer.. I think once nutrients are in the bud they are there to stay.. But the plant needs time to finalize the product that it endeavored to create, and thats in short supply since the plant's own energy supplies to make certain basic conversions is dwindling.. Luckily some nice organisms downstairs are willing to help 'knead the bread' to provide the plant with some easier to work with building blocks to put together as only it knows how.. Atleast when you flush you're preventing more unprocessable stuff from getting up to the buds so the plant doesn't fall further behind..
My guess is it helps unhealthy more than it does healthy ones, and as I mentioned, I did read that extended dark periods stimulates that carb dump.. Thats why I think it would be interesting to experiment with this using lowryder type genetics as well..
These are just hypotheses btw, but I have spent more than a few sleepless nights pondering this


----------



## normlpothead (Aug 30, 2008)

Great thread...


It's my understanding that complex carbohydrates feed the microorganisms in the soil rather than feeding the plant. The sugars are food for them, and are too big to be absorbed by the plant.

I use AN carboload, and sweetleaf (molasses mix).

The carboload is food for the microorganisms that break down the sugars into edible form for the plant... 

To grow beneficial bacteria and fungus, AN tarantula, piranna, voodoo, carbo load is their food.

This is what your talking about, I'm just not as scientific... Nothing I've read is incorrect on this thread... 

Most people don't understand the whole molasses thing, they think it's like adding KoolAid. Good posts.


----------



## born2killspam (Aug 30, 2008)

Yes it basically iswhat I'm talking about.. If I was growing at the moment though, I'd try playing with some of the yeast energizers/micronutrients they sell at beer/wine ,aking stores for fermenting.. Might be more bang for the buck, fermentation is one area they've studied micro-organism response quite thoroughly in..


----------



## normlpothead (Aug 30, 2008)

Kinda like the thread about feeding beer to your plants... 
Just using the ingredients to make the beer... Instead of actual beer.

I use the AN line, with Sensizym, I think that their products simplify all the hard work, and put it into a bottle.

I've used AN for 4+ years, and they have more and more products as time goes by, so I've researched what their products are composed of, and what they do for the soil...

I'm finding some of their stuff is able to be made out of ordinary crap you can get at specialty stores, like brewing stores.

Sweet Leaf- Molasses base with other micronutes.

Sensizym- typical enzyme that breaks down complex sugars... What is this comparable to?
Yeast?


----------



## thcheaven (Aug 30, 2008)

normlpothead said:


> Sensizym- typical enzyme that breaks down complex sugars... What is this comparable to?
> Yeast?


Ok, Self admitted Dumbass here, but if we add yeast, wouldnt the yeast produce alcohol? wouldn't the alcohol be bad for the roots? Or, is my understanding of yeast wrong, don't they all produce alcohol as a by product?


----------



## normlpothead (Aug 30, 2008)

I don't know...

Yeast eats sugar, and has byproducts... But I doubt it would create enough alcohol to matter.

Anyone know what type of enzymes are best?

What is in Sensizym?

I don't have any problems shelling out$ for AN, but would like to know what I'm paying for.


----------



## born2killspam (Aug 30, 2008)

The action of breaking complex sugars and carbs is enzymatic.. In fermentation the primary enzyme is called alpha amylase, but there are other amylases involved as well depending on the carbon chain getting broken up.. Yeast themselves to produce these enzymes, but not in sufficient quantity to thrive in only a complex carb environment.. Thats what the processes of malting, and mashing are for.. Malted barley etc supplies the amylase which can be found in good quantity in any germinated sprout.. This, acid, and heat break up the carbs by cleaving them into simpler sugars that the yeast will selectively steal oxygen and nutrients on based on difficulty..
Now when I say thrive, I mean hyper-thrive.. Fermentation gets some hardcore yeast activity going on.. Yeast are truely masters at surviving harsh environments though, they are virtually inactive, and most will die, but its amazing what you can actually cultivate from.. (I retrieved live sacharomyces carlsbergus from a bottle of Carlsberg beer)..
Also, contrary to popular belief, yeast do not consume sugar (sucrose).. They simply take its oygen when there is no other oxygen available.. They actually need a balanced diet to reproduce/thrive, and sucrose is built ONLY from hydrogen, carbon and oxygen.. Even in the presence of sugar, if there is easier to get O2, then the yeast won't produce much alcohol at all.. The vast majority of reactions yeast participate in have nothing to do with converting sucrose to ethanol, but in an anaerobic environment like what exists in fermentation, that is by far the most noticable due to the CO2 production.. 
Many (if not all) other protozoa, and bacteria behave the same way.. Using the same cultivation techniques, certain fermentations actually aim for bacterial growth.. Sounds off I know, but thats what 'sour mashing' is..



> I'm finding some of their stuff is able to be made out of ordinary crap you can get at specialty stores, like brewing stores.


I guess that kind of confirms my hypothesis.. Just out of curiousity what stereates if any are in the AN products, and do they encorporate diammonium phosphate?


----------



## OrarkCray (Aug 30, 2008)

Carb loading will not benifit your hydro plant. That being said carbo loading can help a plant in pro-mix (or similar soiless mix) with a large pot. Carbo ,oading can create a huge fungal colony whose only benefit from living is giving the plant nitrogen.(and minute levels of other nutrients.) I think carbo loading would be better during the growth cycle to develop a good fungal colony in a large pot. I still think that a plans weakest link in terms of gowth will be light so the carbs won't do much, your better off with spending the extra cash on some good nutrients.


----------



## OrarkCray (Aug 30, 2008)

born2killspam said:


> Does brix mean anything in solid material? I've always known it to be a liquid solution measurement.. I guess sap brix could be measured, but it wouldn't be that meaningful beyond telling us the s.g. since we don't exactly know the composition..
> How much it can help the plant would be highly variable.. If the plant still had the resources to do those reactions itself in the roots unimpeded to the maximum extent the plant could draw these products up then I doubt it would be of any benefit at all.. These organisms are tweaking basic nutrients etc.. The plant still needs alot in late growth to finish what it has started in the bud etc in a healthful manner..
> My hypothesis is that 'flushing' is a misnomer.. I think once nutrients are in the bud they are there to stay.. But the plant needs time to finalize the product that it endeavored to create, and thats in short supply since the plant's own energy supplies to make certain basic conversions is dwindling.. Luckily some nice organisms downstairs are willing to help 'knead the bread' to provide the plant with some easier to work with building blocks to put together as only it knows how.. Atleast when you flush you're preventing more unprocessable stuff from getting up to the buds so the plant doesn't fall further behind..
> My guess is it helps unhealthy more than it does healthy ones, and as I mentioned, I did read that extended dark periods stimulates that carb dump.. Thats why I think it would be interesting to experiment with this using lowryder type genetics as well..
> These are just hypotheses btw, but I have spent more than a few sleepless nights pondering this


 Just quoting your hypothosis "I think once nutrients are in the bud they are there to stay" I disagree politely. When you put a plant into increase dark periods (24 hrs or more) a decrese in nitrogen will be seen in the tips of the plant. Because the nitrogen in a plant stayes fairly constant in a plant after curing I belkeive a lengthy dark period will potentially increase the taste of the product(like tomatoes.) The main reasoning your hypothosis is false is the fact that nutrient levels will differ greatly in plant matter. Again I mean everything politely.


----------



## born2killspam (Aug 30, 2008)

Well, that being true, it may not mean the nutrients have left the flower, but merely converted into an unrecognizable form.. On the otherhand though, nitrogen does tend to form alot of volitile compounds that could essentially evaporate.. Ammonia being one of the major ones.. Depending on soil/climate, alot of farmers have a real problem keeping nitrogen in the soil..


----------



## normlpothead (Aug 31, 2008)

I don't know what is in the AN line, I know it works great, and know what each ingredient is supposed to do... 

I don't know what stereates or if diammonium phosphate is used...

Thanks for the great response spamkiller. +rep 4 you.


----------



## born2killspam (Aug 31, 2008)

Eh, I'm a science guy.. These are the threads I can really get into..


----------



## Seamaiden (Aug 31, 2008)

born2killspam said:


> Sorry I missed this post earlier, but basically yea.. Not that it makes a difference, its all part of the same ecosystem you want to thrive.. Thats why when I did hydro I used a double resevoir system, one of which contained a nitrogen fixating bacteria and goldfish..


 That would be two benthic bacteria species (nitrobacter & nitrosomonas), both of which essentially oxidize the goldfish's nitrogenous wastes (urine, or in the case of the freshwater fish, urea excreted through the gills primarily, it's all got to do with osmoregulation) into less and less toxic compounds. The goldfish, by the way, is known in fish circles for being one of the "dirtiest" freshwater fishes to keep for the amount of ammonia they seem to produce along with skin slime that breaks down into nitrogenous wastes as well, so great choice! There are also anaerobic bacteria that can further break down the final nitrate compound you're left with completely, actually breaking the nitrogen free completely and allowing it to dissipate as good old N! However, those bacteria require, obviously, an anaerobic environment and that, by necessity, must be a very low water movement area/filter.

This stuff is fascinating, in part because one of the "new" things in reefkeeping is the utilization of carbohydrates in the form of VODKA to help support those benthic nitrifying bacteria that break down the NH3. I was pretty amazed when I read it, people dumping vodka down into their sumps, and then watching nitrate levels fall through the floor! I don't know if this is used in conjunction with foam fractionation, or with refugia set-ups, bare-bottom, or what. (I used to work the trade and still read and use some forums.) From what I've read elsewhere, the molasses is indeed more directly beneficial to the microbes than it is to the plant. However, that being said, there seems to be a good deal of empirical or anecdotal evidence that there is a benefit to using it.


born2killspam said:


> Yes it basically iswhat I'm talking about.. If I was growing at the moment though, I'd try playing with some of the yeast energizers/micronutrients they sell at beer/wine ,aking stores for fermenting.. Might be more bang for the buck, fermentation is one area they've studied micro-organism response quite thoroughly in..


Yes, but aren't they interested in growing different things? Or are you saying that whatever the "thing" is, they all want to eat the same things? If so... I am incredulous, or at least interested in what you mean by that.


thcheaven said:


> Ok, Self admitted Dumbass here, but if we add yeast, wouldnt the yeast produce alcohol? wouldn't the alcohol be bad for the roots? Or, is my understanding of yeast wrong, don't they all produce alcohol as a by product?


That's just it, they DON'T all produce alcohol as a byproduct. Otherwise... (I'm a woman)...  certain types of infections would be more fun. EW! 

So, I think that the missing link here begins with Mycorrhizae and other soil microbes. My understanding of the function of Mycorrhizae (endo and ecto) is that they do two things; First, they encourage the proper type of root growth, that being the fine hair-like roots where the nutrient uptake actually takes place; Second, they also break down nutrients and minerals, and act essentially as tiny little Agents of Chelation, because they are basically chelating nutrients. This seems to be _very_ well documented.

I know y'all are speaking specifically of hydroponic/aquaponic growing, but the plant is the plant is the plant, and what it requires to grow and live and thrive is what it requires. At this point I figure if I can learn about coral reefs well enough to emulate that environment and grow corals and other reef inverts/vertebrates, i can learn about this!  This is a GREAT thread, too, by the way, these are things that are new to me and I really REALLY love it. 

Of course, the goldfish inspired me to actually post something here. I am such a fish geek.


----------



## born2killspam (Aug 31, 2008)

Yea, you definately seem to know your fish, and aquatic ecosystem stuff.. 
I'm interested in the brew additives mainly because they seem to boost whatever microbial colonies happen to be present in a fermentation (whether desired or not).. Obviously the goal is to make the yeast happy, but if there is some kind of bacterial infection when you start a fermentation, then the bacteria totally outcompete the yeast (with or without special additives).. But it becomes brutally obvious that there is an infection quite a bit sooner with the energizers/micronutrients, so logic dictates that alot of these micro-organisms have similar tastes.. I'm just shooting at the broad side of the barn on this one..
And thanks for bringing up the chelating agent point.. I meant to mention that earlier, but kept going off on tangents.. Thats something ppl can read up on directly and easily get the gist of alot of these reactions..


----------



## dvsdsm (Aug 31, 2008)

This reminds me so much of the conversations I would have with my Botany Prof. Weeden (yes that was his real name, well known in the Botany community, largest Herbarium in the US outside of the Ivy League) in college. We'd sit at the bar on fri nights and go over the weeks material. And I'd ask alot of questions about my "tomato's"  Intellectual stimulation over a few beers and a few trips out to the car to "make a phone call"  <---"Phone call" 
+reps if i could leave em Spam


----------



## born2killspam (Aug 31, 2008)

Glad to hear you have a botany prof.. Get that guy involved in this conversation..


----------



## dvsdsm (Aug 31, 2008)

Had... Gradumacated back in 03. Def gonna put this together in an email for him to review. Busy guy though, might take a while for him to respond.


----------



## MrBaker (Aug 31, 2008)

It is to my understanding that not it is possible that not all plants form relationships with mycorrhizae, but may do. I'm not sure if cannabis or even any other N loving plant for that matter forms this type of relationship even if it seems beneficial to the plant. Soybeans fix N back into the soil, and their realtionships with N-fixing agrobacterium are well documented.

Everyone seems to be in agreement that micronutrients (if any, like sulfur) are probably good for the plant, and that the sugar portion of the molasses is for bacteria and/or fungi living within the soil, and products of the bacterial/fungal digestion are good for the plant. 

I'm glad a lot of you said things that were correct and insightful, so I didn't have to say them (no typing = ). Next Time I get a chance to look more closely at soil when its dumped from the pot, I'm going to look for mycorrhizae. Anything that gives the plants more stuff to eat, and/or expands the rhizopshere...I'm all for. 

I used to ask my botany/plant phys prof about my "tomatos" too. 

@ fish tank lady. You're pretty awesome if you're growing corals. I'm trying seagrass in a weird shallow custom made tank with only some hermit crabs.  We'll see how it goes.


----------



## bicycle racer (Sep 1, 2008)

if you can do reef tanks cannabis is childs play. that was my job for 6 years aquarium maintenance and yes in aquaponics goldfish or koi(carp really) are great because of there waste levels and ease of care there are other good choices but goldfish are cheap. i ussually add bogwood or peat products to drop ph and increase tannins and humic acids ussually i end up with a ph of 6 to 6.5. not best ph for goldfish but they will handle most anything you have no idea. i wait until nitrates are in the hundreds and use this water(with added supplements) on organic soil grows with good results. sorry a little off subject but if you have access to aquarium water preferably with bogwood or peat applied it is a great living source of good water just make sure no rock salt/methelyne blue/copper or other medications etc..etc... were added for the fish as this will kill or stress plants. as far as sugars(botanicare sweet) i use them mainly to strengthen microbiological populations in the soil which in turn makes nutrients more available to the plant. i do notice a large difference in root mass when i use tarantula and piranha with carbs as opposed to plants that were not inoculated with these fungus and bacteria species i think these products tend to work symbiotically with the living aquarium water for a overall healthy microbiological population. afterall bacteria make the world go round you have more bacteria in your gut than you have cells in your body and without them your health will be poor i feel in soil grows the same is true.


----------



## normlpothead (Sep 1, 2008)

Like Bicycle Racer said, 
Quote: I do notice a large difference in root mass when I use tarantula and pirahna with carbs as opposed to not.

Me too.

I noticed an extreme increase in yield when I started creating fungus and bacteria colonies in the soil. And root mas was outstanding.

At the time I did this I was still using the 3part non organic line, and basically this is what made me switch to organics. Such a dramatic increase in root size and yield got me intrested in organic compounds, and how they benefit the plant.

I'm not very scientific, but understand what you're talking about... Just don't know all the chemical names.

Does anyone know what fungus and bacteria pirahna and tarantula are made of?

I wish I still had my 125 saltwater bowfront aquarium, had to leave it with the house... I bet it's a crappy goldfish home now... With stupid plastic crap that makes bubbles... Stupid crap.


----------



## Seamaiden (Sep 1, 2008)

born2killspam said:


> Yea, you definately seem to know your fish, and aquatic ecosystem stuff..
> I'm interested in the brew additives mainly because they seem to boost whatever microbial colonies happen to be present in a fermentation (whether desired or not)..  Obviously the goal is to make the yeast happy, but if there is some kind of bacterial infection when you start a fermentation, then the bacteria totally outcompete the yeast (with or without special additives).. But it becomes brutally obvious that there is an infection quite a bit sooner with the energizers/micronutrients, so logic dictates that alot of these micro-organisms have similar tastes.. I'm just shooting at the broad side of the barn on this one..


Logic does dictate this, and this is something I didn't know (but MIGHT have, had my husband continued brewing these past three years, and he makes a _fine_ hefeweizen, peach, oh God). This addresses my question exactly, thanks.


born2killspam said:


> And thanks for bringing up the chelating agent point.. I meant to mention that earlier, but kept going off on tangents.. Thats something ppl can read up on directly and easily get the gist of alot of these reactions..


Just knowing that it makes nutrients more "bio-available", better and more easily utilized by the organism in question, then that's enough. I can't speak to how these processes work on a molecular level, and I'm not sure it's something that needs addressing, at least not initially. Maybe, though... hm. Anyway.


MrBaker said:


> It is to my understanding that not it is possible that not all plants form relationships with mycorrhizae, but may do. I'm not sure if cannabis or even any other N loving plant for that matter forms this type of relationship even if it seems beneficial to the plant. Soybeans fix N back into the soil, and their realtionships with N-fixing agrobacterium are well documented.


I... I seem to recollect something about that, root vegetables maybe? I'm gonna put up something from my Dr. Earth Organic 5 fertilizer, I think knowing genera and species can be helpful when trying to sort some of this stuff out.


MrBaker said:


> Everyone seems to be in agreement that micronutrients (if any, like sulfur) are probably good for the plant, and that the sugar portion of the molasses is for bacteria and/or fungi living within the soil, and products of the bacterial/fungal digestion are good for the plant.


I think that's the general consensus, and.. I think the research supports this (but I didn't bookmark what I found when I was searching up Mycorrhizae).


MrBaker said:


> I'm glad a lot of you said things that were correct and insightful, so I didn't have to say them (no typing = ). Next Time I get a chance to look more closely at soil when its dumped from the pot, I'm going to look for mycorrhizae. Anything that gives the plants more stuff to eat, and/or expands the rhizopshere...I'm all for.


Then you're gonna love Dr. Earth. The Organic 5 is for veggies, including root veggies (so.. ignore what I said above). I need more, so I'm going to get their fert for the acid loving plants (azalea, rhododendron, evergreens), in part because I have issues with hard, alkaline (well-buffered) water.


MrBaker said:


> @ fish tank lady. You're pretty awesome if you're growing corals. I'm trying seagrass in a weird shallow custom made tank with only some hermit crabs.  We'll see how it goes.


Oh, very cool! I had my own tanks YEARS ago, then got a job in the trade and got rid of my tanks. Then, a few years ago I got rid of the last of my equipment, and I am now kicking myself in the ass because I could have used a LOT of it (especially the lighting!) to move some of my garden indoors. The grass tank sounds interesting, will you have seahorses and pipefishes if it succeeds? 


bicycle racer said:


> if you can do reef tanks cannabis is childs play. that was my job for 6 years aquarium maintenance and yes in aquaponics goldfish or koi(carp really) are great because of there waste levels and ease of care there are other good choices but goldfish are cheap. i ussually add bogwood or peat products to drop ph and increase tannins and humic acids ussually i end up with a ph of 6 to 6.5. not best ph for goldfish but they will handle most anything you have no idea. i wait until nitrates are in the hundreds and use this water(with added supplements) on organic soil grows with good results. sorry a little off subject but if you have access to aquarium water preferably with bogwood or peat applied it is a great living source of good water just make sure no rock salt/methelyne blue/copper or other medications etc..etc... were added for the fish as this will kill or stress plants. as far as sugars(botanicare sweet) i use them mainly to strengthen microbiological populations in the soil which in turn makes nutrients more available to the plant. i do notice a large difference in root mass when i use tarantula and piranha with carbs as opposed to plants that were not inoculated with these fungus and bacteria species i think these products tend to work symbiotically with the living aquarium water for a overall healthy microbiological population. afterall bacteria make the world go round you have more bacteria in your gut than you have cells in your body and without them your health will be poor i feel in soil grows the same is true.


Ok, now I had been wondering specifically about methylene blue as an anti-fungal agent for use with clones. It's what's used not only for treatment of fish, but to find bad eggs when you're breeding, AND it's used by surgeons to determine dead, sick, or injured flesh (it turns kinda black when it's been soaked in the methylene blue, but it's also really cool) to be removed. So..! I'd been wondering, if you don't have something like H2O2 on hand, or if you're afraid it might burn the clone you're trying to generate (since I'm totally new at cloning), would the m.b. be a suitable alternative?

Anyone who's used this stuff knows you're gonna have blue fingers for a week.  At least it's a pretty blue.
________________________________________________________________________

Ok, SO! I've been giving my plants mycorrhizae (and other microbes, but specifically mycorrhizae) via mainly two, but occasionally three methods: A liquid plant food I call Hippie Juice that's sold as Super Plant Tonic (it smells like an anaerobic aquarium); Dr. Earth Organic 5 dry pre-mixed fertlizer which gets top-dressed and was mixed into the initial soil mix; and Gardner & Bloome--potting soil for initial potting and mulch for, well, mulching. I'll have to look up the Super Plant Tonic (although if you search on Ohsogreen he's got a thread on the stuff, you can find lots of information about it from a guy who's been using it for some time), but I'm going to post for you the specific microbe genera and speci information, which includes the numbers, in propagules, of each critter. 


> *Dr. Earth Organic 5 Microbe Roll Call*​Propagules/cc​
> 
> _Bacillus subtilis...................1430_
> _Bacillus cereus.....................1430_
> ...


----------



## DR. VonDankenstine (Sep 1, 2008)

All great technical advanced information-I take the no-brain-er easy way--"Make Tea Not War"-I use and mix enzimes/fugi/benificial microbes with sucanat and all my nutes and bubble them for 24 hours in a 5 gallon container. My plants love it. I use a brix meter during flowering to tell if I need to add or reduce my sucanat level in my tea, that's it.


----------



## Seamaiden (Sep 1, 2008)

Well... like I said, I'm new, never grown hydro/aquaponically (though I've grown some aquatic plants), and have focused my attention on what's more pertinent to my grow (like vermiculite... ha! ). But, just like with every other organism I've ever played around with, their needs don't really change, what changes is how the human responds to those needs. Does that make sense?


----------



## bicycle racer (Sep 2, 2008)

i think from my use of it methylene blue could be usefull as a direct possibly dillute application to plant tissue for fungal or bacterial problems it certainly will kill either but it is not selective as to which microbes it kills so as long as only applied to the plant and kept out of the soil or reservoir it might be usefull as it tends not to burn tissue ive accidentally dyed myself blue a number of times. a possible better choice might be a product containing tea tree extract(melaleuca) such as melafix(aquarium pharmaceuticals) or other. it is one of my favorite treatments for external fungal or bacterial problems on fish or people it works well and doesnt kill beneficial microbes as readilly as m.blue i have used it at dose with no destruction of the nitrogen cycle microbes. also it is a plant extract so obviously safer to use i would just spot test to see if terrestrial plants react poorly to it aquatic plants in my experience were not affected


----------



## lolapug2175 (Sep 3, 2008)

Many, Many, Many thanks to all you who are contributing with this thread!! By initiating this post I was hoping to dispel much of the misappropriated information surrounding the practice of carloading in the 'canna-culture'. Typical to complex topics of discussion, many different Threads may be sourced from the kernel. Due to the significance and the depth of information needed to even begin understanding the symbiotic relations of microorganisms and it's plant, I would like to initiate another thread specific to this topic. The knowledge dropped relating to this topic in this thread genuinely deserves a dedicated Thread. (for the topic of beneficial organisms see my thread titled 'The Symbiotic Rhizome Zone; Developing and sustaining active cultures.'
Delving further into the original topic of discussion.... I have been brushing up on my chemistry since the initiation of this post. I have been plagued by the simplicity of the answer to the question: &#8220;Can plants directly benefit from Carbohydrates?&#8221; The consensus answer was &#8220;No&#8221; However as I am beginning to further understand carbohydrates they come in a few different shapes and sizes. As I understand it carbohydrate molecules derived from plant saccharide ester are a small enough to be absorbed by the root. I also am beginning understand that there is a downside to this as it inherits the original form from the plant it was derived from, thus disabling the plant from assimilating and creating more complex amino acid chains. This maybe an inappropriate analogy however, from my understanding these act like keys. These keys can fit the lock but will not fully open the door. How correct is my understanding? Can this form of carb-loading be significantly beneficial? How can this form of carb-loading be implemented?


Humbly, this is not my discipline. If the community can please help me clarify any inaccuracies in my description as well.
Best!
-LP


----------



## Seamaiden (Sep 3, 2008)

My mother's a dietitian, and she'll tell you that carbohydrate (or, hydrated carbons) come in all SORTS of shapes and sizes that greatly affect how they're utilized by a given organism. In this instance, I'm not sure you can really tease apart the relationship between the microorganisms plants require (beknownst to us or not) in order to utilize any nutrients, as I honestly feel that the issue of "carbo-loading" is almost innately tied up with microbes. Either way, link yer thread, please. Nevermind, found it.


----------



## lolapug2175 (Sep 3, 2008)

Seamaiden said:


> My mother's a dietitian, and she'll tell you that carbohydrate (or, hydrated carbons) come in all SORTS of shapes and sizes that greatly affect how they're utilized by a given organism. In this instance, I'm not sure you can really tease apart the relationship between the microorganisms plants require (beknownst to us or not) in order to utilize any nutrients, as I honestly feel that the issue of "carbo-loading" is almost innately tied up with microbes. Either way, link yer thread, please. Nevermind, found it.




Hi Seamaiden, Thank you for fallowing the fork I apologize to all for failing to link the new thread. 
Regarding your post... Point well noted! Describing the method of drinking the water with out discussing the glass can make for a difficult explanation. My intention was not to halt the tangent of microbes but to provide a more appropriate forum to delve further into this topic. 
Understanding that the primary benefit of carb-loading is to provide these microbes with a product that can be converted to energy for them to further assist their part in this symbiotic relationship. It's my understanding that there are forms of carbohydrates that can become available to the plant via the root system. The results of my recent experiments have been pointing me towards a thesis sustaining the idea that plants are like huge banks of transistors (switches, relays). One can gain access to certain functions of the plant by triggering these specific functions. Is there potential for inducing a ramp in energy pre-flower by supplying a type of carbohydrate that can be directly assimilated by the plant? Using An analogical example: If you give an Olympic runner amphetamines prior to a race they will exceed their natural ability. This is obvious not a sustainable practice as it put tremendous stress on the body of the performer (heart, muscles, liver). But what if we don't care about our 'Runner' as they will be disposed of post race? Can this idea be applied to the life cycle of a plant? I have not been able to find significant information/documentation supporting this and was wondering if any out there could share any relative knowledge.


----------



## Seamaiden (Sep 3, 2008)

I'm going to try for an analogy here, let's try using your Olympic runner. He's gotta be fast, he's gotta train before he gets those amphetamines. So, my analogy suggests, though I am no expert either (let me reiterate, HARDLY), that the microbes we may actually be supporting are like the runner's training or conditioning regime, that which makes him better able to run in the first place. In other words, if he doesn't train FIRST, giving him amphetamines won't make him into something he's not, which is fit to actually run fast.

Of course, he may have run off without me and I'm just talking out of my ass, too, so....


----------



## born2killspam (Sep 3, 2008)

I'd analogize the microbes more to the machine that mashes the peas and carrots and prunes so that old ppl don't have to chew..

Ok fine, I don't know if such a machine exists for geriatric food processing, but it should, and if it did exist then thats what I'd analogize the soil microbes to..


----------



## Seamaiden (Sep 3, 2008)

That's a good analogy, sort of, you're talking about a blender, food mill, food processor kind of deal. But think more in terms of pre-digestive juice, saliva (icky!), making certain foods better or more easily available for us to consume. They make it better or more easily possible for the plants to make use of the food that's there, that's how I interpret what I've read. I've just taken more clones, again using the Hippie Juice that's got mycorrhizae in it (also a very slight inoculation with a tea that's got mycos), and since some of these clones are from girls that are well into flowering, I'm hoping that the mycos will help facilitate that root growth that is so problematic with these types of clones. If it works, I'll take more clones of my Papaya if I can find branches that don't look like they'll give much bud.

I need to get some decent veg lights soon.


----------



## MrBaker (Sep 16, 2008)

@ Seamaiden....and anyone else that wants to listen.
First, not only am I pissed that you're married, but I'm pissed that you had access to fresh kick-ass hefeweizen. 
OK on more serious notes
- The seagrass tank is comin' slow because its takin' me a while to piece together directions from an old school aquarium fiend, aquarium science, and just getting a frickin' stubborn grass to grow. so far I've managed to keep most of it alive. The hermit crabs are supposed to be there for "clean-up" sort of like a plecostomus in fresh water, and they are hard to kill. I'd probably shit myself daily if I can get it to the point where I have seahorse and pipefish. 

Back on topic: I see that the focus has somewhat switched to "overclocking" the plants (ah crap computer analogy for plants), and additives for making the plants/soil microbes healthy. Perhaps the microbes are making all the "meth" we need for this runner, or maybe not enough research has been done on this subject...I vote both as of right now.

Regarding the mycorrhizae I do remember now that many evergreen trees like pine form pretty tight relationships with mycorrhizae. So, both cannabis and evergreens being acid-o-philes could point towards a possible relationship between mycorrhizae and canna-roots. The mycorrhizae would obviously greatly expand the "reach" of the roots, but I don't think the root structure would be expanded itself (but effectively it is because of the mycorr's reach). 

Another question, although related, would be whether N-fixing bacteria can be found within soil cultures inoculated with N-Fixing bacteria (aka HIPPIE JUICE ftw). Its hard to isolate a lot of agrobacteria. We may have to go with qualitative and quantitative outcomes to make a good guess on if Hippie Juice works. 

So thats a lot of words for not so many answers...I'm sorry for that. On the bright side, I'm seeing in the Dr. Earth roll-call a lot of microbes that do a lot of different things as far as metabolism needs and products. A wide variesty of plant needs may be satisfied by all the species listed, and others that may not be so well known (I always assume humans can know much more than we do.) I will look up those species of bacteria when I have time (chemist job over soon...must...get into...grad school), and then offer up some ideas even if microbio is not one of my strong suits. 

As far as my own roots from the last indoor crop...I used molasses for the entire flowering period in conjunction with nutes (my hippie juice is no where near as good as yours). That was ~10 weeks worth of use, and I can say with confidence that the size of rootballs, length of the roots, and amount of root hairs increased over the last crop that used molasses for maybe 5 weeks. I did not see any obvious mycorrhizae, but without using some kind of inoculation or soil from outside I didn't really expect to see it. I also had to water less..maybe because the root system was bigger.


----------



## Seamaiden (Sep 16, 2008)

I think that with the molasses you were, in essence, culturing microbes. The hippie juice is officially called Super Plant Tonic, by Blue Mountain Organics (they sell via eBay, pretty good peeps).

Shoot me a pm, I may know some people who might be able to help you with the seagrass. It's not at all commonly seen in hobbyist tanks, but sometimes in public aquaria and some of my friends do work for public aquariums still (one of them breeds cephalopods, specializing in some pretty neat cuttlefishes).

So, as far as the mycos, as I understand it, remembering that they not only promote hair root growth (which I don't think is going to really increase what we perceive as the rootball), but also, again in essence, chelate the nutrients, I'm not so sure that they're to be found only in acid-loving environs. Especially when I see them marketed for agricultural applications, ya know? Makes me think that they have a wider appeal, so to speak.

Stuff like Happy Frog and Dr. Earth also have them, as well as... Piranha I think some folks use (?) all will inoculate, and my own question is, and probably can't be answered unless I had the equipment, what says you _have_ to continue re-inoculation? If the molasses feeds them, then as long as you're ensuring a 'rounded' diet, wouldn't they continue on?

Nice bump, by the way.


----------



## DR. VonDankenstine (Sep 17, 2008)

Id like to get a really good microscope and brew some different batches of myo/ben fugi/and enzymes with carbs and see how they react before the plant feeds. I would also like to try some different water temperature and batch time to see the effect--I will have to start watching ebay to see if I can get a really good deal on one. I would think that one or two inoculations would be enough to start the soil ecology in the right direction-none of those products are cheap and most recommend doses throughout the plant cycle.


----------



## Seamaiden (Sep 17, 2008)

Exactly! It's the repeated dosing that I don't quite get. If they're a natural part of the ecosystem, then why wouldn't the initial inoculation (maybe over the course of a year?) event suffice?

In my searches I had found an outfit that would send a free sample of mycos for shipping, a few grams as I recollect. I didn't bookmark 'em, though.

I think you'd need something to aid the visual IDs, too, Dr. Von, some sort of reference book.


----------



## born2killspam (Sep 17, 2008)

Pretty lofty aspirations.. If I were you I'd just go to various forest areas and grab soil samples frim within rootballs.. That will be teeming with mycorhizzae..


----------



## DR. VonDankenstine (Sep 18, 2008)

born2killspam said:


> Pretty lofty aspirations.. If I were you I'd just go to various forest areas and grab soil samples frim within rootballs.. That will be teeming with mycorhizzae..


 Not really just time consuming. I fig would have to test and log about 200 samples. I'm not in a rush here so when I can get A deal on a micro I will set up a small lab project and go to it. I will stick with the growing medium I use and do before and after test with more than one growing plant. As far as id compairisons---the largest library in the world is only a click away.


----------



## Titan4jah (Feb 15, 2009)

this is one of the few REAL threads on RIU.....thank you!


----------



## born2killspam (Feb 16, 2009)

I miss this thread.. Thanks for the nostalgia..


----------



## DaveTheNewbie (Feb 16, 2009)

my understanding :
dont put molasses in hydro, put molasses in soil grows.
the molasses doesnt feed the plant, it feeds the soil.
when the soil gets fed all the little organic beasties thrive, and the plant gets fed from there.
i thought molasses just clogs up hydro systems ?


----------



## born2killspam (Feb 16, 2009)

It can, but doesn't necessarily.. I suppose it depends on the equipment.. When I was doing hydro I added a bacterial complex designed to break down fish waste, and actually had goldfish in the resevoir.. I don't know if molasses helped those particular organisms or not, but twas a successful crop..
With sterile hydro though its pretty pointless as far as I've read.. No beasties, no benefit..


----------



## plasmargon (Nov 6, 2009)

According to friends at Humboldt nutrients, the main need for the carbs (molases) are for food for the mycorrhizal/ bacterium to ferment. If growing in Coco the environment is much more conducive to perpetuation of these beneficials.

In Hydro I use a container with lid, with several 1/8th inch holes in the top and bottom. I fill the container with Hydroton pellets and put all the carbs and benies in there and it becomes a perpetual innoculant...just add molases. Everytime I change the reserviour I just put more molases in the container and replace it into the clean nutes thus perpetually fermenting the innoculants.


----------



## epicseeds (Jan 1, 2011)

We need more quality threads like this. 

Bump, hopefully we can reignite this discussion.


----------



## ecofrog (Jan 1, 2011)

normlpothead said:


> I don't know...
> 
> Yeast eats sugar, and has byproducts... But I doubt it would create enough alcohol to matter.


 the yeast will be in aerobic conditions so it wont make alcohol at all.


----------



## ecofrog (Jan 1, 2011)

normlpothead said:


> Great thread...
> 
> 
> It's my understanding that complex carbohydrates feed the microorganisms in the soil rather than feeding the plant. The sugars are food for them, and are too big to be absorbed by the plant.


 Ya, the sugar is too large for the membrane but the plant can excrete sugars and does regularly. That is typically how soil flora get their reducing sugars from the outside world. In return, they provide some of the work of manufacturing the building blocks like amino acids, chelated metals and other goodies. 

But sugars are also a chemical and a-biological reactions are also preformed such as reducing oxidized metals and being a catalyst for unique reactions that is a 'live soil'. 

One more item. While brix and sugars are great tasting when in liquid form for drinking such as wine or corn on the cob, Im not sure we ought to assume that the best tasting bud for smoking comes from its brix or sugar content. I could imagine sulfur, nitrogen and funky aromatic rings are what is giving the rich, different tastes of the different strains, not simple sugars or what the brix is looking to measure. 

But like everyone here, Im still trying to figure it out so if anyone has any references on the topic or comments, lets have em.


----------



## ecofrog (Jan 1, 2011)

born2killspam said:


> I'd analogize the microbes more to the machine that mashes the peas and carrots and prunes so that old ppl don't have to chew..
> 
> Ok fine, I don't know if such a machine exists for geriatric food processing, but it should, and if it did exist then thats what I'd analogize the soil microbes to..


 This is a very good analogy of soil flora, thanks for it as Im gonna steal it. But I would add that they are also the chef as they harvest in-organics in the soil such as chelating and mining for phosphorus and calcium.


----------



## frontflipfootie (Sep 12, 2012)

This might be the best thread (most technical, informative, interesting) on rollitup. I don't usually post, but feel compelled to thank LP, kill spam, and everyone else who posted.


----------

