Calcium Carbonate Foliar Spray...?

Discussion in 'Advanced Growing Techniques' started by cazmeron, Jun 28, 2011.

  1. #41 AgMan, Jul 21, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 21, 2011
    Oh my god, you seriously don't read things do you? I assume you must scan and take things out of context. Let me break it down for you.

    First of all Wiki is not a reputable source for anything.

    H2O does not completely dissolve CaCO3, it has a saturation point, but definitely dissolves. If you took the time to read the entire article it talks about weak acids and bases changing solubility... That would mean reading at least 3/4 of an article, probably something foreign to you.

    No kidding, I highlighted the point that diffusion within stomata does not occur through and transport mechanism (this includes anything else).

    Obviously you don't know how a meta-analysis works... Considering there is no peer reviewed studies of calcium carbonate for foliar application a meta-analysis is all there is, in an effort to make comparisons. Such as other molecules and minerals' ability to infiltrate leaves that are of relatively the same size and polarity...

    Again meta-analysis. Plants are plants, physiology is homologous. Obviously, there are difference here and there but basics are basics.

    Again, read, read, read. I stated that this article shows how it may be finding its way through the cuticle. Perhaps it is not the stoma, but does not negate calcium carbonate infiltration into leaves. Furthermore, it suggests that the use of a surfactant would be necessary for actual stomatal infiltration.

    Your equations are correct but you lack understanding...

    You did a little more than just "suggest" in your posts, such as accusations that I work for a company, or suggest I didn't earn by MS. I aced four years of chemistry, how about you?

    If ignorance is bliss, you must be living in Nirvana...
     
  2. #42 AgMan, Jul 21, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 21, 2011
    I'm done with your Wikipedia based scientific understanding, post whatever BS you want after this. Your stupidity wins hands down, logic can't compete with ignorance...

    Have a good one!
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. there's no point winning a gold medal at the special olympics and i can already sense the argument devolving into a pissing contest. no point.

    if CalCarb "works" for you, more power to you. you're entitled to your own opinions. you can spend your money how you please. this is america after all.

    i've had my say and hopefully others will find what i've presented helpful.
     
  4. I have no direct knowledge of the product but do recall a product years ago that showed a chart showing the angle that the leaves would be at after immediatly adding the product.
    I dont recall the name but do know it was from Alaska,where a lot of indoor pioneers started to ply the trade.I do recall that this product also worked by manipulating the plants stromata in some way more than likely to use more CO2,but have no experience first hand of pro or con.I would think it could make a plant dry out quicker due to the jump in shedding water at a higher rate.
     
  5. #45 cazmeron, Jul 21, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 21, 2011
    Well here's what i think. I would imagine generic municipal water has many weak acids that are capable of dissolving CaCO3. I am not a scientist, just an experimenter. What i would guess tho is If experimented with in a anaerobic/air tight container, i suppose their could be a considerable AND unknown amount of dissolved CO2 in the water, which i believe we've established the stomata can uptake (the CO2, lol...). So in this way, there IS some amount of CO2 being supplied. I also believe this supply can account for perkier leaves. This all sounds good and all, but here's the kicker. It seems as though the supply would be used up very quick as the water can evaporate, and the CO2 can diffuse from the water too. Overall, it seems there is a considerable CO2 production, and also a considerable amount of CO2 loss. It obviously really cant be said at this point with scientific confidence whether these treatments significantly benefit your plants or not (whether its worth the dollar really...).

    frankly tho, im with dunny on this one. i goin with what works for me. And in my case, this powder fits in my budget alot easier than a lot of the other stuff out there.

    Despite all the misinformation, i might as well give it a spin seeing as its not too big of a deal for a small op. Im guessing tho that its only gunna be worth my time if apply it fairly often tho...

    Now i have a new question tho, would adding say... are humic/folvic acids (or by adding soil humus or compost) capable of more efficiently breaking this down? It seems this is the process that occurs when the lime in is soil so i guess it could help.

    Anyways, these studies are awesome. at this point i dont care if theyre irrelevant as you guys have once again reminded me how much there is to learn about this stuff and when your ripped on some sweet tooth like i am right now.... thats some inspiring shit.
     
  6. oh yea, and my free samples :p
     
  7. this guy can't make a qualified response based on relevant scientific facts so he leaves a lame/immature message on my profile.


    sorry bro, you got trolled by science. science is a tricky dick rat bastard i tell you.
     
  8. No offense intended, but you have not been employing any science. Real science is the testing of a prediction. You are merely predicting that a product does not work. You refuse to test it, therefore we can get no further with you. You can only reassert non-belief, and no matter how much you assert, you are only guessing and your guesses may reveal a lack of understanding. It's 20 or 30 bucks to find out if it works as advertised, and if it's different than plain calcium carbonate powder (micro-fine powderization would be different). Pony up and do a real test, or get out of the way!

    I came here with interest in a product, and to learn about it from users --not to be discouraged by those who religiously refuse to try it. If you believe a product must be fake because of marketing hype, then pretty much nothing with a brand name is any good.

    Skepticism cannot replace testing.
     
  9. the 1-post neo-puppets... the worst kind of all -,- (of course theres no certainty in that, but i hope you too realize you look extremely suspicious around here right now)

    Frankly, im a small op. 20-30 dollars is a significant amount of dough for what i really think im buying into. Also, i think you might be missing the point. At this point, i dont think it's about whether it will or will not work. It's also not about me or someone else sacking up and testing it ourselves. The purpose of this post is to determine if its worth paying buying in a small operation's budget, which it has been proven here, IS OBVIOUSLY not worth it, SINCE YOU CAN BUY CaCO3 for FAR LESS.

    With that said, i do not disagree with you in that skepticism cannot replace science (FTFY)

    In this case tho, we are not discouraging the observation of controls and treatments about whatnot, we are only establishing that for me, its not worth my time and money to use. If anyone has the time and resources to make some real science, then go for it, but theres no need to "get out of the way" otherwise.
     
  10. Would you say that your comments in this thread are more fairly characterized as progress, or as an impediment to progress?

    If I look extremely suspicious, that could indicate paranoia. The thing you cite is that I have never posted before. So what? Focus on what was said.

    Nothing has been proven here. We do have some evidence of possible success.
     
  11. I will be doing an empirical test soon, at the same time that I test different lighting 18/6, 20/4, and 24/0.

    In the mean time google "lithovit" it is a similar product to CalCarb and has been in use for over a decade in Europe. They are making a transition into the US market but RTI got a foothold first. Lithovit has a proprietary grinding machine and RTI uses PCC (precipitated calcium carbonate), both used to make nano particles. Due to the age of CalCarb there is little evidence of results but Lithovit has several field trials on numerous crop species. There is also a better explain on the "how" provided by lithovit.

    Here is lithovit's powerpoints from an the international e-conference on Agricultural BioSciences. They are German so their English isn't 100% grammatically correct.

    http://www.m.elewa.org/IeCAB-Powerpoints-2010/IeCAB010-303a editor.ppt

    http://www.m.elewa.org/IeCAB-Powerpoints-2010/IeCAB010-303b Bilal.ppt

    http://www.m.elewa.org/IeCAB-Powerpoints-2010/1eCAB010-303c Bilal.ppt

    Second block has Application and Research:

    Download of comprehensive Lithovit documentation

    Lithovit's explanation of the science:

    Lithovit - Natural CO2 foliar fertilizer made from lime stone deposits

    Bottom line (for me), if it doesn't work how has it been around for over 10 years with positive results in Europe? RTI provides it cheaper for the US market. Lithovit is infact cheaper at the point of purchase, but a minimum of a kilo must be bought, and shipping on a kilo from Germany doubles the price...

    Does PCC from Micro-White on eBay work the same way for even cheaper? I assume it does...
     
  12. #52 Zagnut, Jul 26, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 26, 2011
    I assume that you are paying Xtreme Gardening for their super-small particle size. I assume it's a special process which you won't get on eBay --and that that's what accounts for the bio-availability. That's just what I assume. I'd have to buy some and compare.

    Nanogrinding (whatever they actually call it) is fairly new. When you make stuff really really small it can do new things. Some of what it can do is not very good, but that's a story for another day. In this use I think we are not harming anything.

    I have 2 autoflower seedlings in a pot, 3 1/2 weeks. I think I will A/B test them. I gonna pick up some tomorrow. I can post the progress if anyone would like that.

    If Cal-Carb is the bunk, there is Dutch Master Liquid Light we can try for even more money, but I expect that if anyone got even a 20% increase in yield they would not think about the price.
     

  13. I believe you are right about $$$ vs Tech.

    I would love your results, and when I'm done with my side by side I will post mine.

    I have used liquid light + penetrator (I think its called saturator now). I got a free sample that was good for 4 applications. It made my leaves point straight up, then I got some problems on the third application... First, the leaves twisted upside down, and than I had some weird leaf burn. It honestly look like acid burnt the surface of the leaves, the epidermis ruptured, the spaces between the veins shriveled, and went lime green. Maybe I mixed it wrong (too strong?) or my lights were too close. I used it with penetrator which claims to destabilize the cuticle when wet (allow whatever to penetrate leaves), and then stabilize the cuticle after drying. Perhaps the cuticle was stripped but not replaced very well (again possibly a mixing problem?). I read a post from someone who had similar problems at 100% recommended dose, but was pleased when with results at a 60% dose. Maybe I'll try it again some time, but my experience put some fear in me...
     

  14. i actually did a side by side using liquid light (and penetrator) about a year ago when i got both for free at a show. 12 clones from same mother, 6 controls, 6 sprayed with liquid light every 3 days right before lights went on.

    my conclusion was inconclusive for vege. the plants i sprayed appeared to be growing more vigorous. however, it wasn't a dramatic difference, but they were definitely not doing worse than the controls.

    for flowering, the plants i applied liquid liquid to were significantly impacted negatively. the bud formation became distorted and stunted. they were much smaller/twisted/shriveled and had noticeably lower pistil density. so much so that I just pulled the plants around week 3 of flower. the buds looked like complete garbage compared to the control buds and it was a total waste of space and electricity.

    it's also really expensive at ~$80 for both the liquid light and penetrator. maybe others have had difference experience though.
     
  15. #55 Zagnut, Jul 29, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 29, 2011
    Ordered from Amazon instead, so will have to postpone the start of the test. I have one more batch to germ when the seeds show up. I will probably only leave one control, I dunno yet. Would be better a group of controls but I need yield. These are autos outside and the days are shortening so I'd like to get whatever help I can to increase photosynthesis. I'm only permitted 6 adults (even though an auto is about 1/6 of a real adult). My plants look happy but compared to journals I've seen of the same strains grown indoors under 18/6 or 20/4, mine look disappointing in terms of the growth rate. I will be looking for increased growth rate, and shorter time to finish more than increased yield, but I'll take that too, of course, if I can get it.

    I've read anecdotes by people who really like Liquid Light, FWIW.
     
  16. I was hoping for genetic similarity, but my 2 test subjects have expressed themselves as that classic comedy duo, tall & thin and short & stout. I'm not sure what can be gained from a direct comparison. Clones is the obvious answer for a test with only 2 subjects, so I shot both of them and will tell what I can tell. I can compare them both as a group to my last 3, but that is also compromised because I have changed my nutrients some. If either of these can outgrow the last 3 it will be a positive. If both do, then even better, but autos can finish anywhere from 12 to 20", so you really need to compare 2 rather large groups --maybe a 1/2 doz or more each.

    Science may have to wait for next season, but at 1/4 teaspoon per 12 oz sprayer, I can do a lot of experimenting for my 20 bucks.
     
  17. i used it on my girls and they have shown more color and stand up more, the only thing i noticed is that i think i used them wrong cus i seen in one of the earlier posts say that you drop the bag in. i opened it up and thew the powder in. but they did show better signs. i also got them as a sample.
     

  18. You do open the sample pouch, so its all good.
     
  19. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8ifgzjtKq4]Vinegar + Baking Soda - YouTube[/ame]

    cheap CO2 for your garden.
    --

    I agree, calcium carbonate should be way cheap. "proprietary" is kinda silly when talking about such a simple molecule.
     

  20. Well that is good for a couple of minutes of CO2 :D

    CaCO3 is cheap as a soil amendment but as this foliar spray stuff goes, you have got to pay for the R&D process and packaging (not to mention the sales staff, web designers, marketing, management, shipping, etc.). :rolleyes:

    From my reading into a similar product from a company called Lithovit, their method of grinding (high speed impact) results in very jagged structure with different chemical properties that are much more reactive. I assume CalCarb (produced as a precipitation reaction) lends itself to producing similarly jagged latices. Normal grinding produces a sphere shape, and apparently non-reactive, which is what soil amendment type would be...

    [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wmc33Of85mg]Lithovit Animation - YouTube[/ame]

    Earlier, a link was posted to a cheaper source (about 1/6 the price) of the same stuff sans packaging/marketing (precipitated calcium carbonate). 1 lb Micro-White Calcium Carbonate Limestone Free Ship | eBay

    When I am out of CalCarb, I plan to buy this instead and see if it works the same way.

    Either way, its cheaper than buying CO2 in a tank.
     

Share This Page