Well, I changed my name, and had all my posts and account removed. This was due to the fact that I used my very uncommon username that my coworkers know and could easily connect the dots via Google... I was a staunch House & Garden user, and if you want to talk about ridiculously over priced, just look at them. Comparatively this is cheap in my eyes. Well excuse me for actually taking the time to get a Master of Science in Agriculture and seeing the connections quite easily... I have taken inorganic, organic, and biochemistry; graduate level molecular cell biology, undergraduate/graduate level soil sciences, and horticultural sciences (those are just the few that pertain to this discussion). I do agree that the claims are inflammatory, particularly the "nanotechnology" part, consider that can merely mean finely ground... "Revolutionary" can mean nothing more than never done/thought of before. It still does not negate its potential as a viable means to increase CO2 This can only be proven if they post a study; namely, one where 3 sets of plants have been grown. One as a control (nothing being done), one with CalCarb at atmospheric levels of CO2 (ie 0.03%), and one where CO2 was boosted to 0.1%. This I have not seen, so I cannot say. I am not positive it works since I changed many things at once rather than just adding this product (this was said in my first post). The only thing I have noticed were perkier leaves after application. I will take before and after photos and post them...
I believe "increases CO2 levels from 0.03 vol% (atmospheric level) to 0.1 vol%" is an example of using statistics to make something look better than it is. Another way of saying this is that the atmosphere contain 390PPM CO2 (actually 0.039%), and using CalCarb gives it the equivalent of 1000PPM intracellularly. The way they write it makes it sounds as if it is raising CO2 around the plant, which it is not, and cannot do. Furthermore, I assume that it may raise CO2 within the cell to 1000PPM on the first application but must diminish over time. For example, my plants seem perkier for about 3-4 days after application, so after that I assume there isn't much going on CO2-wise
Ok, well thats some awesome education. I hope to go to Oregon State and learn some similar stuff, but heres what this entire debate comes down to, more so than my previous question. If 12oz of CalCarb is $29 w/ shipping@ebay and 16oz of Calcium Carbonate is $7.25 w/ shipping@ebay What ingredient in CalCarb triggers slow release of CO2 that makes if different than plain calcium carbonate. (Presumably some kind of slow release acid source similar to how its advertised... ) If this can be figured out, than i will have enough confidence to try this stuff out.
Nothing at all. From what I can tell it is the same thing... If you get the cheap stuff and it is a smooth powder, suspends in water, and doesn't clog your sprayer, I'd say it is equivalent. Acid is not needed, it comes from the plant and its cellular processes (H+ protons) after being taken in through the stomata. I think the "slow release" just means it is "slowly absorbed" and then released in the plant. I have the benefit of a 30% discount at my local store (where it is a few dollars cheaper to start), so I pay $19. A few more bucks is worth supporting my local shop, and it last for a long time.
BTW, OSU rocks. Take soil science from James Cassidy, if you can. He was in the 80s rock band "Information Society", and is now a soil scientist and runs the organic growers club.
Here is micro-white's processor: Welcome to PCC MICROWHITE Further searching on eBay, I found this: Calcium Carbonate Limestone Powder 1 pound Pure CaCO3 | eBay It says it can be sprayed for ag purposes. Its a $1 ($7.50 for S&H...). I assume Micro-white can be sprayed at its fine particle size.
I just sent an email to XG asking about the two products above vs what they have. I'll post the reply I get when it comes... Here is a question for you, what products do you use to fertilize you plants? I am fairly certain they all have outrageous claims. I've used House & Garden, Canna, Advanced, Fox Farm, GH, and others. They all make outrageous claims, the only way to be sure is test them... I think CocaCola is better than Pepsi, not because of the ads but because I've tried them both. "Beastie Bloomz® is perfect for gardeners and growers who are ready to take their plants to the next level. "Floralicious allows users to experience flavors, aroma, and yield like never before!" Shooting Powder: "The impact that this late flower additive will have on your harvest can result in up to 30% increase in yield." "Big Bud provides the essential elements that not only aid in the development of buds but are known to increase both their size and quality - for heavier yields that taste great!" "CANNABOOST is CANNA’s powerful flowering stimulator. Specially developed for fast growing plants, it improves quality and increases yields."
hahahaha, well here is where you are mistaken. I use all organic soil building amendments. These are generic and trustworthy products like kelp, hydrolysate, and blackstrap molasses, which don't need flashy marketing to earn their business. Yet despite their genuineness, flashy labels try to exploit consumers with them anyways. The smart thing to do is start at basic-level ingredients learn all the major soil components and nutrients. By this i mean things like EWC, Azomite, various meals, minerals, etc.. In this way, i can dial in all of my ingredients via a water-only soil, rather than dealing with all the absurdly marketed products out there and risk getting hustled. Had I known from the start that this was only finely ground CaCO3, I would would give it a spin. So i am, lol. I think this, in combination with a yeast source, will provide PLENTY of C02 for a stealth pc case... I hope this will ease* my CO2 source issues. thanks again for the valuable input on this stuff too.
Honestly, that isn't much different or any less expensive than what I use from XG. Its just a bunch of meals (bone, meat, and feather), Xtreme Tea is EWC that you brew up for reproduction of microorganisms (fed with molasses), Azos is a nitrogen fixing bacteria that does not require a symbotic relationship with roots, and Mykos which is Glomus intraradices (the only fungus that has any chance of binding with hops, the closest thing to mj in scientific literature), plus bat guano at the end (mix to a 3.33-6.66-0.66 ratio). I also use Sea-90 from seaagri.com (93 minerals, $25 with no shipping for 10lbs which lasts me over a year; much cheaper than kelp, about the same as Azomite but can be watered into soil), and Fossil Fuel Humic Acid. I spend more of Happy Frog soil per month than fertilizer, but I really like Happy Frog soil... I estimate that I spend less than $25/month on 24 flowering (10gal smart pots), and about ~54 veg in various stages. This is a far cry from the ~$200/mo I was spending on that fancy shit listed above, and I am seeing significantly better results. The most expensive thing is Xtreme Tea which I use every other week ($5 per application for all of my plants) to aid the breakdown of the organics with bacteria. Its just a home brew organic tea, I brew up 5 gallons for $5 and give 1cup per plant (~80 plants) then water it in. The best part is not having to mix 5 products in different ratios for every set of plants in their various stages. I use to spend about an hour water 24 plants, now it takes about 20min...
Shit, if its just a pc case, yeast is all you would need, that might even be too much. The biggest issue with CO2 supplementation is having the heat ducted from the lights separate from the room so CO2 levels can actually rise. My lights and room ventilate at the same time (1200CFM) so I can't add CO2 with gas, it'll just be a waste. Calcium carbonate is the closest I can get to CO2 supplementation.
Here is my before and after shot. Left Photo: Taken just as the lights were shutting off yesterday morning. I sprayed Calcarb about 5 hours before lights on that day. Right Photo: Taken just as the lights were shutting off this morning.
your chemistry makes me sad panda and makes your alma mater that awarded you the MS look terrible. stop stating extremely obvious but irrelevant statements. everything you said is fine and dandy, but unfortunately isn't at all relevant to the foliar application of calcium carbonate. I'm assuming you're mixing it with water. CaCO3 + H2O is a very unfavorable reaction. calcium carbonate does not dissolve in water very well. you would get: CaCO3 + H2O = CaCO3 + Ca2+ + (CO3)2- + H2O basically a small amount of Ca2+ and (CO3)2- ions floating around and undissolved calcium carbonate sitting at the bottom. i need you to explain how the plant uptakes the (CO3)2- at all. i assume you're going to say via the stomata of the leaves, but the guard cells are negatively charged when open, pretty much ensuring the (CO3)2- has no chance of passing through. however, you can soften it to dissolve in water by adding an acid. In which case you would get: CaCO3 + 2H+ = Ca2+ +CO2 + H2O (i'm only including the H+ proton portion of the acid since there's several different acids you can use) the issue with this is the CO2 would be instantly available but would not work to keep the CO2 levels constant; vent the room once and all the CO2 is gone. you mentioned the abundance of H+ protons inside the plant. therein lies another problem. the protons are INSIDE the plant. i wasn't aware plant leaves excrete protons. the reaction happens inside the plant you say? maybe you are aware of another way by which calcium carbonate can enter through the leaves? because i'm not. if you are really sold on this product you can do a proper side by side (still questionable and most likely too much work for most) or present me with the RELEVANT chemistry to explain how CalCarb delivers usable CO2 via foliar application. i have no problems admitting i'm wrong, i'm all for learning something new. but it's going to take more than non sequitur tidbits and ad hominem attacks. why are you being so mega defensive about a product you were given for free to try? i'd think you'd have an attitude more like caz and question whether it works and how it works before pouting off like you're getting paid to post. i mean, am i the only one who found it curious that you had such few posts and the majority of you posts were railing against H&G and pushing whatever brand it is your pushing? i find it amusing you are so quick to criticize but find it impossible to post something meaningful... on a side note, calcium carbonate IS used in agriculture as i'm sure you're aware, with the MS and all. in fact i'm sure tons of growers across the globe already know its use. it's a great source of calcium and magnesium and it reduces the acidity of soil to allow a greater rate of uptake for a wide range of essential elements . fantastic product. for your soil.
and to answer your questions, yes, ebay and saudia arabia pay me to contribute to the city and push their products. you sure caught me there.
Ugh. It's a fallacy to say something is insoluble, everything is soluble in everything to one degree or another... Table 2. Hardness ranges. Units are in mg/L of calcium carbonate. After Hem (1985). 0-60 Soft 51 – 120 Moderately Hard 121-180 Hard >180 Very Hard Read before you speak: Carbonate Chemistry So yes, it does dissolve, yes it does enter the stomata, and yes it does diffuse through intracellular air space. Pay particular attention to the introduction: JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie This article highlights the fact that CO2 (and anything else) has access to the mesophyll through pores rather than transport mechanisms. In fact stomata are big enough for undissolved calcium carbonate to enter when it is ground to 1 micrometer: Effects of Environmental Pollution (Auto-Exhaust) on the Micro-Morphology of Some Ornamental Plants from Sudan I'm sure you are well aware the stomata release water so I won't reference that, but now that you know that calcium carbonate does dissolve in water, and that undissolved calcium carbonate can enter the stoma, I'm sure you can see how the undissolve can eventually dissolve (ie water vapor condensation). Compounds other than CO2, and much larger than CaCO3, can enter a plant via stomata only and not the surface: Promotion of stomatal infiltration of glyphosate by an organosilicone surfactant reduces the critical rainfall period - Field - 2006 - Pesticide Science - Wiley Online Library How do you figure other negatively charged ions absorb in foliar applications? Pay particular attention to "Mechanism of Foliar Fertilization": http://www.fluidfertilizer.com/Foru...2009 Forum Proceedings/Derrick Oosterhuis.pdf This article suggest the cuticle is also permeable to small molecules (cations, anions, and neutral molecules) and even simple carbohydrate. So does this one: http://www.jstor.org/pss/2439056 Would you like more references that are not wikpedia garbage on other aspects of plant physiology? All I'm doing is posting my knowledge in a forum asking for knowledge, all you seem to be doing is hating... So the question is, why do you bother attacking something that you have done no more than look up on Wikipedia? If you had read all the post you would know that I had RMJL dump my account and posts because my username was unique enough to link to my personal info via google...
I assume you are referring to this post http://forum.grasscity.com/indoor-marijuana-growing/335248-house-garden-nutrient-results.html Apparently, you have a reading disorder otherwise you would have read that H&G was my favorite prior to XG. Again, someone asking for an experience and an opinion... Great comeback by the way...
hey ag man...anyone tell ya this is a stoner friendly forum and we really dont appreciate all the hyper babble and insults? get a grip man.. no reason to get shitty with folks... SLinger
Talk to dunny about this... I'm sorry, but I am not going to take false accusations and insults, and turn the other cheek.
i'm not sure if you're trolling me or if you actually buy into your own logic. tbh, i don't even know where to start. look, anyone can hop on google scholar, link a bunch of articles and and hope people are too lazy/stupid to actual see beyond your facade of erudition. there's nothing wrong with wiki "garbage." i only link it because its very accessible to regular people. if there's un-cited info, then i'd be suspicious, but for the most part, articles like the ones i've linked have all their facts substantiated via citation at bottom and the community corrects mistakes. it's not like i linked the wikipage for the jonas brothers. you're just being a snob if you're trying to patronize wiki, and an unqualified snob at that. anyways, onto these points of authority you claim... the first article you linked and quoted refers to dissolution rate of CaCO3 in water with CO2 dissolved in it (very weak carbonic acid,) which only supports my initial statement that CaCO3 dissolves in acid. thanks. still waiting for your equation showing how CaCO3 is supposed to completely dissolve in H2O in the absence of H+. i never said it doesn't dissolve. in fact, i gave you the exact equation for what happens when it dissolves. i stated it doesn't dissolve WELL (in regular water which i'm assuming has a ph between 7-8.) guess i'm not the only one with a reading disorder. second article talks about the diffusion of water and CO2 via stomata and mentions. "it does enter the stomata, and yes it does diffuse through intracellular air space." if by "it" you mean CO2, i agree. the introduction specifically states CO2, not CaCO3. third article, just the title is clue enough that its not relevant. "Effects of Environmental Pollution (Auto-Exhaust) on the Micro-Morphology of Some Ornamental Plants from Sudan." further reading confirmed my suspicions. not a single mention of "In fact stomata are big enough for undissolved calcium carbonate to enter when it is ground to 1 micrometer" or anything remotely related to this statement. please quote the exact part of the study you are pulling this from. i literally don't see anything mentioning anything close to this. this third article is equally irrelevant. it's a study on "Silwet L77" a wetting agent. actually its a little relevant in that it describes a method by which you can foliar feed, namely using something like Silwet L77 to. this fourth article is a real gem. but only because it further bolsters my arguments and position. unlike you, i'll take a direct quote: "However, there is some controversy about the importance of stomatal penetration into the interior of the leaf. Prior to 1970 there was considerable debate about the importance of stomatal uptake of foliar-applied nutrients. This debate largely subsided since it was shown that it was not possible for a water droplet to enter the stomata of leaves of higher plants due to the surface tension of water, the hydrophobicity of leaf surfaces, and the geometry of the stomate. Furthermore, ion uptake rates from foliar sprays are usually higher at night, when the stomata are closed, than during the day, when the stomata are open. Recently, new evidence was presented for the uptake of large anions through stomata indicating that stomata might indeed represent a possible pathway through which a limited amount of the nutrient might gain entry into the leaf. Generally, however, it is assumed that all liquid uptake of water and dissolved substances occurs exclusively through the leaf cuticle provided there are no surfactants present." couldn't have said it better myself. for the purpose of argument, let's just say CaCO3 DOES dissolve in water, and dissolves well. even in that case, as the quote above states, it wouldn't get past the stomata! furthermore, the small amounts that MIGHT get through is "a limited amount," so if it works, it doesn't work very well. if legitimate scientific arguments are considered hating, then by golly i'm a hater. are any of my chemical equation wrong or misleading? which ones and how. i CHALLENGE you to point out an error in my equations. i haven't injected any ulterior motives into my argument, such as saying X product is amazing. i've only suggested alternatives, because ebay and saudia arabia pay me to do so. thanks for linking me all these articles, learn something new everyday. but i'm still waiting for a relevant response. i'm starting to think it's not going to happen. but at least i don't think you're trying to peddle a product anymore. no company would be irresponsible enough to hire someone so misinformed to push their product. "read before you speak." yes, please do. it would be helpful to everyone including yourself.