I have used molassas to feed my girls. What does every one think about the use of Molassas for growing has anyone used it and have an opinion
Might be good to feed yeast if you're making beer... but otherwise, I haven't found any information that says plants can assimilate sugars.
http://www.planetganja.com/highsociety/archive/index.php?t-8911.html Yes, molasses is fantastic for your soil plants and for feeding young seedlings.
Advanced Nutrients selling their “CarboLoad†product for $14.00 all it is is blackstrap molasses Schultz® Garden Safe 3-1-5 Liquid Plant Food is made from byproducts of sugarbeets which is a form of molasses Now look for information!
I can buy commercially made additives (supposedly to enhance flowering) that have beeswax in them, too- but there's no evidence for that, either. Just because there's a product on the shelf doesn't mean it either works or has any science behind it. That's like thinking that a newspaper couldn't print something if it wasn't true. Don't think I haven't looked for evidence that plants can assimilate sugars. I'm looking for a peer-reviewed piece of botanical science- nada so far. You're welcome to look too! You don't know what 'byproducts' Schultz is talking about. Could be sugar beet peelings, not sugar beet molasses. Racing fuel and road tar both come from oil wells but they're not interchangeable.
i use it, it contains micro n.p.k. nutes, & trace elements, and carbs. helps buds swell up, and produce more resin. best for flowering, but can be used all the way through. blackstrap is the best though any all natural mollassas will do. got at groger's
Sweet Organic 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’t always live up to the hype. Advanced Nutrients who produce large lines of products (usually with large accompanying price tags) claiming to be a series of “magic bullets” - unlocking the keys to growing success for new and experienced growers alike. I 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. Imagine, if you will, I'm off to the local hydroponics store, purchasing a bottle of the wonder product - “Super Plant Carb!” (not it’s real name) - and then dragging it back home. With a sense of expectation our I open the lid, hoping to take a peek and a whiff of this new (and expensive) goodie for my wonderful plants. I am greeted with a familiar sweet smell that it takes a moment to place. Then the realization hits me. . . Molasses! The “Super Plant Carb!” smells just like Blackstrap Molasses. At the thought that I just paid something like $15 for a liter of molasses, I was pissed. Surely I told myself there must be more to this product than just molasses. So I dips into the sweet juice ever so slightly, and brings it up to have a taste. I had discovered the essence of this product. It was indeed nothing more than Blackstrap Molasses, a quick taste had confirmed that I had wasted my time and effort lugging home a very expensive bottle of plant food additive. Molasses is something we already use for gardening. 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. The fertilizer companies are like growing fat with huge profits from the wallets of unsuspecting consumers. Let us assure you it’s not the vision of bigger plants floating in front of their stuffed mouths that led these executives in their attempt to “pounce” 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’s Shultz own description of their product. “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.” That sure sounds good, I agree 100% with all the claims made in that little blurb of ad copy. But here’s the problem, Shultz isn’t exactly telling the public that the bottle of “fertilizer” 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’t believe go ahead and look for yourself at the fine print on a Garden Safe bottle where it says - “Contains 3.0% Water Soluble Nitrogen, 1.0% Available Phosphate, 5.0% Soluble Potash - derived from molasses.” The only problem I see, is that animal feed additives shouldn’t be retailing for $7.95 a quart, and that’s the price Shultz is charging for it’s Garden Safe product. While I don’t find that quite as offensive as Advanced Nutrients selling their “CarboLoad” product for $14.00 a liter, I know that it’s terribly overpriced for sugar processing wastes I live near a sugar plant. So, just as you no know I gave you the sweet truth about molasses.
ok, you've now proven you can copy text from another website. You haven't proven plants can assimilate sugars. This could be the most uninformed thing I've read on a cannabis board in about 7 years: There's so much wrongness in that one that I'll comment no further. Plants produce their own simple sugars by photosynthesis, using nutrients found in soil like nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium to make cellulose, the building blocks of all plants. However, they won't be too interested in eating complex carbohydrates. In all likelihood, most wouldn't pass the plant's root barrier. The only beneficial mention I can find about molasses is as an organic soil conditioner, feeding microorganisms in the soil- but not the plant you're growing. Molasses thus has no place in hydroponics, unless you're interested in massive fungal growth in tanks. This is wives' tale stuff, out there with growing with LEDs. Come up with a peer-reviewed piece of botanical science writing that says multicellular plants can use sugars as a food and I'll believe it. Until then, I'll grow cannabis plants in my systems and nothing else, thanks.
<o></o> <o></o> 1. I never laid claim to the fact that plants could use sugars, I believe that was you.<o></o> 2. I have personally polled over 1000 organic growers that reported nothing but enhanced results using molasses. How many have you spoken with?<o></o> 3. I have personally harvested at least 10 times each time one of 2 plants received molasses and the one that did had fatter, stickier denser buds.<o></o> 4. I personally READ the bottle of Shultz and it states that Molasses is the base from which the nutrients are derived. Perhaps YOU have not.<o></o> 5. I suggest that before you attempt to use abusive statements and defend an OPINION of which you have no clue, that you take some time to mind your manners and get your facts straight.<o></o> 6. I would like to know how many growers YOU have personally polled about the use of molasses and where you even get the basis for forming your opinion.<o></o> 7. Obviously the all knowing <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comffice:smarttags" /><st1:State w:st="on"><st1lace w:st="on">AL</st1lace></st1:State> has omnipotently overlooked a little thing called Dyslexia, with the advent of Cut and Paste people afflicted with this can now search the web for someone who has already typed what they wish to say and paste that on to the page. We just have to hope that they can spell (but that is what spell checker is for)change some he's to she's or what not. BTW This is also cut and pasted from another site, do you know how much work went into first finding the properly worded paragraph and then adapting it. I did actually go to the store, I did actually buy some carbo crap, I did actually taste it. Why, just so I can tell pampas pricks like you that I actually did what the paragraph says and I agree with every word as well.<o></o> <o></o> Now since you do not have at least 4 grows using pairs of pants (I have at least 10) and 1 of every 2 gets molasses and the ones that did have noticeably bigger, fatter, stickier buds and the ones that did not were obviously smaller and yielded less.<o></o> <o></o> AND<o></o> <o></o> You have not polled at least 100 let alone the 1000 that I have personally spoken too about their personal use and subsequent yield enhancements.<o></o> <o></o> It is obvious that the one who is uninformed is in fact you, closed minded, opinionated and uninformed. Never give your opinion to people with LESS experience than you while pretending to be knowledgeable when you are in fact clueless. You would not be damaging your harvest by false info but now you are causing someone else to make your mistakes and they may not be able to recover. <o></o>
Now THAT'S some scientifc research, baby! I don't give a rat's if a million people do something with no science to support it. You then have a million people doing something for which there's no scientific evidence. Doesn't make it right OR effective. Just means it probably doesn't kill them straight off. Could I interest you in a little moondust? Let we forget- you were the one who asked for opinions. FYI- my op is totally free of 'magic sauces.' No hard science, no way it gets in my op.
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5487772-description.html http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6083293.html Discusses uses of carbs and plant life etc. May not be exactly what you're looking for, but does prove that things w/ molasses are being done scientifically and patented. And.. http://www.haworthpress.com/store/ArticleAbstract.asp?sid=Q9LKQWJLXSX79LLT0T31LLDA9997DECC&ID=6826 Abstract: The influence of effective microorganisms (EM), a commercially available microbial inoculant containing yeasts, fungi, bacteria and actinomycetes, was evaluated in field trials of commercially produced, irrigated vegetable crops on ''organic'' farms in Canterbury, New Zealand during 1994-1995, and in a laboratory incubation. EM plus molasses were both applied, at 10 L ha 1 in 10,000 L ha 1 water, three times to the onions, twice to the peas and seven times to the sweetcorn. EM plus molasses increased the onion yield by 29% and the proportion of highest grade onions by 76%. EM plus molasses also increased pea yields by 31% and sweetcorn cob weights by 23%. A four week incubation at 30_C of loamy sand and 1% w/w pasture litter had treatments including a control, glucose, and EM plus glucose, and captured respired carbon (C) using NaOH traps. By the end of the incubation the glucose treatment had respired 38% more C than the control. The EM treatment respired an additional 8% more C than the glucose treatment. Using EM stimulated C mineralization in the laboratory incubation, but a corresponding increase in mineralization of organic nitrogen, phosphorus and sulphur was not measured.
I think the miscommunication here is... Not that the plant uptakes the molasses sugars, but rather, its the microrganisms in the soil that break it down and feed off of it. Soil "tea" is alive my friend, and it enjoys molasses
That's it! I'm adding some molasses to my next watering, good thing I got a whole bottle lying around from when I made beer!
If you can popssibly point out 1000 people or more that use it and have enhanced results then yes, unless you are going to be selling me Peters 20-20-20 at 20 times the cost. Then I will make a post about how people can get peters 20-20-20 at the store for much less. P.S. Thank you for playing devils advocate it really made this thread interesting. May you yield well and prosper.
1 Tbsp per gallon of water... also you should put like 4 tbsp water per tbsp of molasses in a pan and heat it then add the molasses so you can dilute it to PPMs instead of glop. People who use hydro if you just add molasses your whole eco system will crash. You must dilute the molasses and break it up into the water you are adding. My Water Mix For Flowering. 1 Gallon R.O. Water 1 Tsp Lemmon Juice (Brings PH to 6.5 for my water) 1 TBsp Molasses (diluted in hot pan with 4 tbsp water) 1/4 tsp Peters African Violet Food (something like 12-34-14) 1 gallon of water and I get about 1/2 cup run off my babys loved it
All well and good- but great discoveries by preponderance or by accident are rare as toad hooves. If molasses actually worked as a plant food, not a soil conditioner, Miracle Gro would list it on every label. However, products like 'Carbo Load' (a term used in human athletics nutrition but meaningless for plants), sold for use in hydroponic systems, where there is no soil and which purport to add some character or another to cannabis grown in hydro are pretty clearly "snake oil." Money for nothing. No worries; one of the peeviest of my pet peeves is cannabis growing supply companies which exploit the lack of hard science about cannabis growing. Companies which sell 'magic sauces,' where there is only the flimsiest evidence for beneficial effect of a product- if any evidence at all- deserve none of our trade. Governments, particularly the US government, have deliberately NOT cooperated with research into cannabis. NIDA have refused for years to authorise cannabis research and (as required by US law) provide the cannabis for such research. Then the bastards turn around and say there's "no evidence" to prove cannabis is a fairly harmless substance. Assholes. In food and drug safety, there's a list of materials called "GRASE" for "Generally Recognised As Safe and Effective." In cannabis growing, our GRASE list should include stuff we KNOW is safe & effective from real, live botanical scientific research i.e. most nutrients based on N, P & K, micronutes etc., H2O2 as an antimicrobial, and so on. Molasses is one of those things which may have limited use as a growing adjunct in certain conditions, the main condition being that one is growing in soil. Molasses and other sugars have no purpose in common hydroponics as there is no soil and should not be any microbes to feed. I'm working hard to keep microbes in my hydro systems suppressed! I certainly don't want to give them a free lunch! The patent information is interesting and seems to corroborate some real science out there with regard to feeding microbes in soil, but let's keep in mind that under US law, no patented inventions actually have to work. They just have to be novel innovations which are appropriately described.
Yeah, verrrry successful at growing tiny, stretchy little plants that yield next to nothing- which is, I'm sure, exactly what you meant. I won't begrudge anyone the right to experiment and innovate- and good on these sods who are forking out hundreds of bucks for new, seriously powerful LEDs and are trying to grow plants with them. However, experiments as such shouldn't ever be confused in any way with methods of growing which actually work! If you really want to grow some dope and don't have loads of cash to play around with re-inventing the wheel, information about building practical, secure and highly productive grow ops exists all over the place. However, it's occasionally hard to know the difference. Break it down to first principles- what does the plant need and how do you propose to provide it? Use common measurements for comparison. HPS is the tool for flowering indoors as it gives the plant what it wants- high-intensity light in the correct range of spectra. Neither LED nor CFL can make the intensity of HPS. One notion that noobs should be disabused of- regularly- is that the latest is ALWAYS the greatest. Ain't necessarily so.
More importantly, if you must do this, make sure you bring the mixture to a boil. This is particularly important with the lemon juice, which if fresh and unpasteurised, can introduce pathogens. This is probably not a big deal in soil, but in common hydro systems, the "eco system" is comprised of one thing only- the cannabis plant. Ideally, there will be no other competing organisms in the system at all. Failing to boil the mix before adding it to a hydro nute tank would quickly result in an accumulation of cloudy pathogenic gack in the solution, if not treated with an antimicrobial like H2O2.