bud weight

Im growing 14 northern lights plants in a grow box set up with soil, mother earth feed, a 400hps and two 200w red spectrum eco-lights. Grew them from seed no problems and now they are on there 25th day of flowering. They look good smell good and are crystaling nicely.
So my question is this what can I do at this stage to fatten out the buds?

I'll post some pics tomorrow...

Welcome nixdorf
Bloom nutes.
Molases.
CO2
I might would find some low watt blue spectrum lights also.
The broader the spectrum of light the better.
You might want to look into carbonated water for the o2

Happy growing

Carbonated water?

ummmm...no molasses i have heard so many horror stoies about molasses i wish they would take that thing down....ne way i use carboload big bud an bud blast...all with terific results...

I have yet to find any botanical research which indicates that plants can assimilate sugars at all.

One thing for sure, whether your plant cares about molasses or not, fungus, mould & bacteria will love it. Sounds like a recipe for disaster.

Al, here you go:

“Molasses and Plant Carbohydrates”
Sugars relating to plant functions for maximum economic
production
Printed by permission of Texas Plant & Soil Lab, Inc., Texas Plant & Soil Lab, Inc. SOIL—WATER—PLANT TESTING & CONSULTING
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS that affect when and how much sugar to use:
a. How much nitrate is in the soil, and plant sap (petiole test).
b. Soil moisture conditions.
c. Sunlight intensity.
d. Temperature.
e. Wind
f. Fruiting stage / load
g. Growth / vigor [shade lower leaves]
The right amount at the right time can improve fruiting and produce normal
plant growth with less attraction for disease and insects.


Needed for healthy plants - fruit production - plant development &
maturity.
Roots take nutrients from the soil and transport them up the stalk thru the
petiole (stem) to the leaves where the sunlight aids the production of
photosynthates (sugars are not the ONLY product of photosynthesis)
carbohydrates (C, H & O), principally glucose (C6H12O6) and then other sugars
and photosynthates are formed.


Plant Sugars and other photosynthates are first translocated (boron is
essential to the translocation) to a fruiting site. If fruit is not available, the
sugars, along with excess nitrates, spur the rapid vegetative growth of the plant
at the expense of creating fruiting bodies (first sink) for the storage of the sugars.
Once the proper balance of environmental factors (heat units, light intensity, soil
moisture, nutrient balance, etc) are met, the fruiting buds form and then fruit
formation gets the first crack at the sugar supply.


Any excess sugars are then translocated to the number two sink, (growing
terminals,) to speed their growth. The left-over sugars, etc. then go to the
number 3 sink, (the roots,) to aid their growth. Here the new root hairs take
up nutrients to help continue the cycle of sugar and other photosynthate produc-
tion, fruiting, growth of terminals and roots.
ADDED SUGARS CAN AID THE PLANT IN SEVERAL WAYS:
-
MOLASSES is probably the best outside source of many sugars, such as table
sugar, corn syrup and several more complex sugars such as polysaccharides
found in humus products.
- Sugar can be added to the soil in irrigation water, drip & pivot being the most
effective.


* In the soil it can:

- Feed microbes to stimulate the conversion of nitrates to the more
efficient NH2 form of N to synthesize protein more directly by the plants.

- The roots can directly absorb some of the sugars into the sap stream to
supplement the leaf supply to fruit where it is most needed, and ALSO directly

feed the roots for continued productive growth.
- This ADDED sugar can also help initiate fruiting buds in a steady-slow
fashion while maintaining normal growth.

-EXCESSIVE amounts of ADDED SUGARS applied foliarly can shock the
plant resulting in shortened growth internodes, increased leaf maturity & initiation
of excess fruiting sites. This can be a short term effect lasting only a few days.
Pollination, soil moisture, nutrient balance and sufficiency as well as
adequate light for photosynthate production decide how much of the
induced fruit can mature.

hearmenow said:

Al, here you go:

Click to expand...

Thanks for that- it's a start, but not quite what I'm looking for.

I am looking for a scholarly botanical research paper. It will probably come from the botany department in some university. What you've posted is a discussion from someone who thinks that added sugars will have a benefit simply because the plant makes some simple sugars as an internal process. Unfortunately, this writer doesn't actually offer any proof that added carbohydrates pass through the root barrier nor that the ones you add will mimic the function of the plant's own sugars. They just have given a rough description of why they think it works and (sort-of) how to apply it.

I've poked around on the web but haven't quite found the paper I'm wanting to see before I start filling my reservoirs with sugars.

Incidentally, your link doesn't point to the text you have cited on the Texas soil tester's website. I've pored over that site and can't find that text.

ummm...no molasses..no good...

Al, ye of little faith!! Here's another source for you. I also have a couple other for you if you are still skeptical. I find these techinal studies mostly gibberish to me and I rely on the layman's interpretation but anyway, here you go:

Growth kinetics of Saccharomyces cerevisiae in batch and fed-batch cultivation using sugarcane molasses and glucose syrup from cassava starch.

Win SS, Impoolsup A, Noomhorm A.

School of Environment, Resources and Development, Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok, Thailand.

Growth kinetics of Saccharomyces cerevisiae in glucose syrup from cassava starch and sugarcane molasses were studied using batch and fed-batch cultivation. The optimum temperature and pH required for growth were 30 degrees C and pH 5.5, respectively. In batch culture the productivity and overall cell yield were 0.31 g L-1 h-1 and 0.23 g cells g-1 sugar, respectively, on glucose syrup and 0.22 g L-1 h-1 and 0.18 g cells g-1 sugar, respectively, on molasses. In fed-batch cultivation, a productivity of 3.12 g L-1 h-1 and an overall cell yield of 0.52 g cells g-1 sugar were achieved in glucose syrup cultivation and a productivity of 2.33 g L-1 h-1 and an overall cell yield of 0.46 g cells g-1 sugar were achieved in molasses cultivation by controlling the reducing sugar concentration at its optimum level obtained from the fermentation model. By using an on-line ethanol sensor combined with a porous Teflon tubing method in automating the feeding of substrate in the fed-batch culture, a productivity of 2.15 g L-1 h-1 with a yield of 0.47 g cells g-1 sugar was achieved using glucose syrup as substrate when ethanol concentration was kept at a constant level by automatic control.

PMID: 8730575 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Growth kinetics of Saccharomyces cerevisiae in bat...[J Ind Microbiol. 1996] - PubMed Result

Here's another, just for the hell of it:

NICE3: Sugarcane Molasses By-Product Used to Increase Fertilizer Efficiency


A joint cost-sharing grant program of:
U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Industrial Technologies and Office of Technical and Financial Assistance
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Pollution Prevention

Produced by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory,
a laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy
1000 Independence Ave., SW
Washington, DC 20586



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Partners: Michigan Biotechnology Institute
Uniroyal Chemical
Galbraith Laboratories
Hawaiian Commercial and Sugar Company
Cherry Marketing Institute
Michigan State University Department of Agricultural Engineering
SIC Code: 8733
Cost: $812,116 (Industry share: $434,174)
Energy Savings: 547 billion Btu (777 trillion joules)/yr
Environmental Benefits: Nitrogen fertilizers reduced by 50%; decreased carbon dioxide emissions; molasses waste reduction
Economic Savings: $21 million/yr
National Impact (2010): 100 trillion Btu (106 quadrillion joules) saved/yr
Applications: Agricultural, horticultural, and sugar industries; manufacturers of fertilizers and plant biostimulants
Contact: Bill Ives -- DOE's Golden Field Office: (303) 275-4755

Current trends in world population growth indicate that the demand for food will steadily increase, creating greater demand for fertilizers. In addition, fertilization of forest biomass was identified recently as the most cost-effective option for mitigating global warming. However, the fertilizers used in agriculture and other applications are a source of nitrogen pollution of the environment, and fertilizer use is limited in several countries.

The dilemma created by this situation could be resolved by increasing the efficiency of nitrogen fertilizers, thereby reducing the amount of nitrogen leached into ground water. With the help of a NICE3 grant from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Michigan Biotechnology Institute (MBI) and several partners plan to develop a method to increase fertilizer efficiency through the bioconversion of low-value molasses by-product to plant biostimulants.


Challenge: Currently, crops only use 50%-70% of applied fertilizer; the remainder flows through the soil or is lost in other ways, contributing to environmental pollution. The agri-chemical industry is aware of numerous products that claim to promote plant growth while reducing the amount of fertilizer needed. However, these products have not been developed commercially because of their inconsistent performance and complex formulation. Developing a cost-effective method to manufacture a consistent product should change the perception and value of these products.

Solution: Maximum plant growth depends on the availability of 17 essential nutrients. However, simply providing plants with these nutrients is often not enough. Certain compounds in soil must also be present to facilitate nutrient assimilation by the plants. Research has shown that specific fermentation products may facilitate uptake in plant tissue when added to fertilizers.
MBI, along with several state and industrial partners, is developing a method to convert by-products from sugarcane into specific fermentation products. The 3-year project has three phases. The first objective is to develop a cost-effective chromatographic process for separating sugarcane molasses into sucrose and raffinate. The second phase will focus on developing a process for producing and recovering plant biostimulants from the chromatographic raffinate stream. Finally, the biostimulants will be tested in controlled laboratory, greenhouse, and field trials.


Energy Savings: Application of the fermentation products could reduce the use of nitrogen fertilizers by 10%-50%. The new technology would save 547 billion Btu (577 trillion joules) each year in energy from fertilizer production. The average energy savings from reduced fertilizer use alone through the year 2010 would be more than 100 trillion Btu (106 quadrillion joules) annually.

Environmental Benefits: The use of nitrogen fertilizers could be reduced by as much as 50%, minimizing leaching into ground water and the rapid increase in atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide could be reversed by the increase in vegetation possible with this technology.

Economic Savings: Hawaiian molasses currently yields a net profit of $2.75 million annually. Using the proposed technology, that amount could soar to about $10.7 million. Furthermore, an increase of just 33% in fertilizer efficiency will reduce the amount of plant nutrients used by 10 million tons (9 million metric tons)/yr, resulting in savings of $6 billion annually. This proposed technology could reduce total annual costs by $21 million compared to the current technology.

Applications: In addition to potentially increasing crop yields, converting low-value sugarcane molasses by-product to plant biostimulants could have a significant effect on the viability of the U.S. sugar idustry. This technology could also be used in forest fertilization, which may have an important role in mitigating global warming.

DOE/CH100093/237
DE93017077
October 1993

NICE3: Sugarcane Molasses By-Product Used to Increase Fertilizer Efficiency

If those aren't enough, check out this 7 page report. I won't post here because it's coma-inducing. Happy reading!!

http://www.hawaiiag.org/harc/VEG3.pdf

An exerpt:

MOLASSES SOIL AMENDMENT FOR CROP
IMPROVEMENT AND NEMATODE MANAGEMENT
S. Schenck
Summary
Molasses was applied to soil through sprinkler irrigation system or by overhead boom sprayer. In
a papaya plantation on Maui where high and damaging populations of reniform nematodes had
caused a reduction in fruit yield and quality, the molasses applications lowered nematode soil
populations and resulted in marked improvement in the tree growth and harvestable fruit. When
applied to Chinese cabbage, there was a decrease in the numbers of Heterodera nematode cysts
following harvest. Preplant applications of molasses to onions improved plant color and onion yield
although no difference in soil nematode populations or in cyst number was observed. Molasses soil
amendments supply carbohydrates and alter the C/N ratio. This affects the soil microbial ecology,
usually resulting in lowered populations of plant parasitic nematodes as well as having other
favorable effects on plant growth. The specific mechanisms involved are not well understood and
vary with the crop, soil conditions, and nematode species present.

OK, I'll brave the risk of coma!

hearmenow said:

http://www.hawaiiag.org/harc/VEG3.pdf

Click to expand...

Discusses how to use molasses to suppress nematodes in rootmasses- not as a fertiliser or adjunct.

hearmenow said:

NICE3: Sugarcane Molasses By-Product Used to Increase Fertilizer Efficiency

Click to expand...

Discusses use of a molasses manufacturing byproduct- doesn't name what that substance is- but it's not molasses. Road tar and racing petrol both come from oil wells but are not interchangeable.

hearmenow said:

Growth kinetics of Saccharomyces cerevisiae in bat...[J Ind Microbiol. 1996] - PubMed Result

Click to expand...

Saccharomyces cerevisiae is a species of budding yeast, not a multicellular herbaceous plant.

I'd further be wary of applying any information which generally applies to herbaceous plants as applying necessarily to cannabis, though many growth adjuncts used for tomatoes will also work for cannabis. Some don't as cannabis doesn't produce a fruit, rather only empty bracts which would hold a seed if the plant were pollinated (aka buds).

Ok, I give. My take on those articles was that you get a positive results, in terms of yield and efficiency of your ferts. Again, I am no botanist but I have read about 15 articles, most NOT scientific, vouching for the benefits of molasses. I would say about 10 of those were by cannabis growers. I myself have used it with good results. Of course, I didn't do a blind study to see a comparison but I haven't seen or read of any negative outcomes, other than in hydro (clogging of lines). I had no issues with ants or sweet flies and my grow was inside and out. I would say if you aren't comfortable using it and you already are doing well with your own methods, don't use it. I'm not trying to force anything down your throat.

Happy growing!

I have been heading down the organic growers pathway so i've check out alot of books from the library. Many seasoned growers swear by the many benefits of adding sugar, preferably molasses (but others, case dependant), to their grows.

If you know about organics, the idea is to feed the soil, not the plant. Molasses is supposed to benefit both.

Just my 2c.

I did a quick google on this topic and I quickly found dozens of articles supporting the use of molasses. Most were just regular crop growers and I have yet to find one who says it fucked up his crop. Yes, these aren't pot growers but when you read about pumpkin growers, legume growers, flower growers, citrus growers, etc., vouching for it, I have to begin to think maybe there is something to this. Urban myth? I doubt it after reading all these testimonials and these studies I posted. That's just my take. I will continue using molasses until someone definitely can show me I am either wasting my time and money or that it can actually hurt my grow.

hearmenow said:

My take on those articles was that you get a positive results, in terms of yield and efficiency of your ferts.

Click to expand...

Yeah... unfortunately, that's not what those papers were talking about.

This doesn't mean that someone somewhere hasn't done some good research on adding sugars to ferts. Means we haven't found it yet.

I never thought you were trying to force anything on anyone, though I appreciate your sentiment.

There's things in the 'generally accepted as safe and effective' list for cannabis growing; common NPK type combination fertilisers, H2O2, pH adjustment solutions, etc.- the stuff none of us can get by without. Then there's things which are experimental or conjectured, where there's little if any good science around supporting the method or adjunct.

My big problem with molasses is that we DO know it will support and encourage growth of pathogens- but we don't know its specific effect on a multicellular herbaceous plant. Sugars in general are not among the items normally included by fertiliser and nutrient makers. We'd surely see it on the label. There's not even a preponderance of evidence that it is used commonly by home gardeners for soil or fertiliser enrichment, with or without any botanical science to support it.

Sometimes a rumour or wives tale will even give rise to commercial products! I believe 'Carbo Load' is one of those, where the molasses rumour was spread broad enough in the community that people started asking for such additives- or an enterprising supplier of stuff for growing dope simply decided to exploit the rumour. Just because there's a product on the hydro shop shelf doesn't necessarily mean that there's any science to support its existence.

I won't stop keeping an eye out for some good science on molasses or sugars as plant foods, but for now, because of the pathogen growth support, it remains in my 'probably more harmful than helpful' category.

I doubt you'll find any legitimate scientific organization spending thousands of dollars to determine if adding molasses to (illegal) cannabis crops is beneficial. The best we can hope for are studies of its effect on legal plants. As for old wives' tales, you are probably right on that one. However, call me gullible or plain stupid but if you tell me that adding moon dust will increase my buds and I can get moon dust for $2.29 a bottle around the corner and I research and all I find are postive results, I will be a moon-dust touting fool.

hearmenow said:

I doubt you'll find any legitimate scientific organization spending thousands of dollars to determine if adding molasses to (illegal) cannabis crops is beneficial. The best we can hope for are studies of its effect on legal plants.

Click to expand...

Fair point! I'd happily look at use of molasses in (legal) flowering plants and use that as a basis.

As for old wives' tales, you are probably right on that one. However, call me gullible or plain stupid but if you tell me that adding moon dust will increase my buds and I can get moon dust for $2.29 a bottle around the corner and I research and all I find are postive results, I will be a moon-dust touting fool.

Click to expand...

Nah, I don't think you're either gullible or stupid. However, I DO think that quite often, experimental or conjectured stuff gets popularised in the cannabis community and no-one back-checks to see if there's any science in it. At the end of the day, cannabis is still a plain ol' plant and it plays by the rules of botanical science.

umm, say... you wouldn't have any spare moondust, would you?

Moon dust.....hmmmm...all that interplanetary soil....virgin soil....hmmmm...there might be something there....

Anyways, on a different but related note, I know COs is beneficial, especially during veg but I made the determination that the cost and hassle wasn't worth the benefits for my grow. The yeast/sugar method or any other of those home recipes are just too suspect to me. I think you need significantly more CO2 to see any appreciable improvement than what's produced by the homemade methods. So I guess I am not as gullible or stupid as I am trying to convince myself I am. Just my take.