Molasses?

ta2drvn said:

OK Tech....


I'm done debating this with you, more harm seems to come than good from it for this forum and my intent was for it to be someplace I and others could come to for reference on the subject of 'molasses' not a couple of guys bicker back and forth over semantics.








PS. On a side note, I said it before and I'll say it again... I could care less about the names you like to call me or the manner in which you feel you need to convey your message. Having said that, you have contributed some very enlightening information and has helped me gain more insight into this and other subjects related and for that I do thank you for your input and posts, but, I still think your a........... no I'll leave it with a thank you for the posts.

Click to expand...

ta2drvn said:

Based on what has been posted and what I have looked up, don't see a reason it would HURT during veg vs. flower. It has some trace minerals and would help feed the micro-organisms in your soil. Probably better things out there for veg time, but I don't see it doing harm under normal conditions.

Click to expand...

born2killspam said:

During veg time the plant is still quite capable of doing most of the work that the micro-organisms would do.. Late in life they tend to dump alot out of their roots for some reason, and that leaves them lacking proper balance internally, so they rely more on the helpers.. Count me in the boat that believes it causes no harm early, but less benefit will arise from the practise early..

Click to expand...

techhead420 said:

I actually regret the name calling, this discussion would have been better without it and for that I apologize.

Click to expand...

techhead420 said:

Well Einsteins, here's a peer reviewed white paper that demonstrates how inefficient adding carbos to soil is. Only 0.6% uptake to new shoots. Unfortunately this process also lowers oxygen levels in the root zone. Low oxygen levels will encourage fungi and harmful bacteria.

ABSTRACT:
"The flow of carbon from roots into the rhizosphere represents a significant C loss from plants. However, roots have the capacity to recapture low molecular weight C from soil although this is in direct competition with soil microorganisms. The aim of this study was to investigate the behaviour of glucose in rhizosphere and non-rhizosphere soil, the plant’s potential to recapture sugars from soil and translocation and utilization of the recaptured sugars.

In microcosms containing maize plants we injected14C-glucose into the rhizosphere and followed its uptake into plants, upward and downward transport in the plant and soil, evolution as 14CO2 and incorporation into the soil microbial biomass. These fluxes were compared with non-rhizosphere soil. Glucose was rapidly mineralized in soil and the rate of turnover was significantly greater in the rhizosphere in comparison to non-rhizosphere soil. The amount of glucose captured by the maize plants was low (<10% of the total 14C-glucose added) in comparison to that captured by the soil microbial biomass.

Only small amounts of the 14C-glucose were transported to the shoot (0.6% of the total). The degree of glucose capture by maize roots whilst in competition with soil microorganisms was similar to similar experiments performed for amino acids. We conclude that while plant roots can recapture low molecular weight C from the rhizosphere, intense competition from soil microorganisms may reduce the efficiency of this process."

https://www.uni-hohenheim.de/~kuzyakov/K_SBB_2006_Glucose-Uptake-Maize.pdf​

Click to expand...

techhead420 said:

Bottom line, you people have not been able to back up your claims with a peer reviewed white paper that molasses, sugar or carbs have any positive benefit for plants. Yup, molasses has some nutes that can be a benefit for plants but what's bullshit is that NONE of you can back your claim that carbs or sugars can benefit any part of the plant. Until you people can do that then you're just speculating (only a dumbass would assume I was talking financial speculating and I never said these complanies were greedy I said to take claims with a finacial incentive with a grain of salt, those are pretty wise words).

Anecdotes are the resort of the mediocre mind and unfortunately mediocre minds tend to confuse anecdotes with evidence. You people are giving nothing but anaecdotes.

Yet once again, why can't you people back up your claims by providing just one source that empirically demonstrates that molasses, sugars or carbs has any benefit to a plant, leaves or roots? Give the damn link people!

I'm not offereing opinion as some knucklehead has suggested, I'm saying you people are bullshit for making claims that you can not or will not back up with evidence. There's a word for people who make claims that they can not back up: crackpot.

Yet again, you have no theory. Although I do admire your copy and paste skills perhaps you should read the definition of theory that you posted. You have no body of evidence from which you can make a future prediction in a given system. Bullshit.

"OK, I admitted I was wrong..... "....first smart thing you've said now back up what you say.

"Looks like another noob mistake, you are correct

...but the claim seems to imply (at least to my one way focused eyes...LOL) that it aids directly to soil which indirectly benefits the plant."

Look Einstein, these people are making a claim that they are not backing up and they have a financial incentive (I'm still laughing about that "financial speculation" reference. Wow man... just wow) to make this claim. What are they going to do, come out and say we have this great product but there is not a shred of proof to back our claim up.

Click to expand...

techhead420 said:

Rude? Don't be so sensitive there, Nancy-boy. I'll get you a tissue.

Yet again, you all can not back up your calims. Yawn.

In terms of molasses, how do you know that the sugars aren't throwing off the osmatic pressure in the root zone making uptake of nutrients more difficult? That's why we actually test and then make claims rather than make claims that one can not back up like a crackpot would.

BTW Einstein, companies don't care if they get busted out for making bad claims, there's plenty of suckers out there.

Click to expand...

techhead420 said:

Jesus Christ again, as I already stated before, proving a negative is an invalid arguement philosophically, scientifically or legally. Anyone with a 1st year scientific education would NEVER make an arguement of "prove me wrong". It is a logic falacy that mediocre people resort to when they have no other arguement to make which is why I'm quick to point out that my claim is EASILY falsifiable. Come on people, you all are not even trying. Give valid arguements to support your claims, not BS.

Negative proof - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Click to expand...

techhead420 said:

Man, very funny and witty post. I love your humor.

Look, I don't give a damn if I'm an ass, if I can get people to think a little bit and actually look to see if there's anything behind these claims then great. People tend to accept urban legends and anecdotes as fact. All I'm saying is do a little research to see if there's anything to it. That's all I'm saying and so far there is no research to back up any claim so maybe we should have a little empiricism instead of passing off speculation as fact when for all we know there could be no effect or even a harmful effect (does the sugar throw off the osmotic pressure in the root zone making the uptake of nutrients more difficult by the roots?).

Your claim of Carboload working is simply conjecture. Have you've done a side to side experiment so that you can back your claim with empiricism? You know as well as I do, considering all of the factors that go into making a healthy and high yielding plant, that if there is no side by side comparison then other factors can and will play a part in the productivity of a plant. Is asking one to back a claim with empiricism so much to ask? Wouldn't that add to one's credibility?

I make a simple falsifiable claim. There are 100 years or so of research papers to draw from for ANY type of plant. NASA alone has spent millions in SBIR grants coming up with techniques for high sugar content (thus yield) in plants. Is NASA so stupid that they would over look adding carbos to plants? Where is the research to support this urban legend?

Click to expand...