silicate???

churchhaze said:

Please post some links to studies. Telling us to do a google search isn't helpful and contributes nothing. I've read a few studies, but nothing I've found showed conclusively that adding silicates will affect yields. There really aren't that many studies when compared with other elements, in fact, most of the results lead to pot growing forums. By comparison, search for studies on phosphates and you'll find a ton of studies on the effects of different phosphate concentrations on various things like metabolism, conversion of sugars to starch, etc going back almost 100 years.

Notice, I said in an earlier post that I've read studies showing plants uptake Si, but they made no conclusion on whether that had any affect on growth and quality, only speculation. That's why you should post a link to your study if you have a good one that one of us hasn't read yet.

Click to expand...

plants can uptake some harmful chemicals and transfer them to consumers through smoking or eating, this doesn't make these chemicals good for plants. there are plastic containers that are not for growing that could leach toxins into plants! is silicon good to smoke or eat anyway? i hope to find a conclusion to this topic

Here's my initial thoughts.

K2SiO3 is 50.7% K by mass
KOH is 69.7% K by mass

This means 1g of K2SiO3 will provide the same amount of potassium as 0.727g of KOH provides.

So if you were using 1.50g of K2SiO3 in experiment, you would add 1.50g*(0.727) = 1.09g of KOH to the control.

Doing this would ensure both the control and the +Si specimens get the same boost in potassium.

Please check my math for errors as I did this roughly based on molar masses.

TonightYou said:

Anyways, that's my thought process, if ya have any ideas on that method by all means chime in.

Click to expand...

churchhaze said:

Here's my initial thoughts.

K2SiO3 is 50.7% K by mass
KOH is 69.7% K by mass

This means 1g of K2SiO3 will provide the same amount of potassium as 0.727g of KOH provides.

So if you were using 1.50g of K2SiO3 in experiment, you would add 1.50g*(0.727) = 1.09g of KOH to the control.

Doing this would ensure both the control and the +Si specimens get the same boost in potassium.

Please check my math for errors as I did this roughly based on molar masses.

Click to expand...

That math looks damn good! Ah the days of working with molar mass. That is something to take into consideration as well as the source for the K as there are a couple of different preparations I've looked at.

Side note: I emailed Jack's over the weekend, awaiting a response from their technical team, a nice lady emailed me back. I found once a more detailed makeup for what chemicals made up Jack's. I thought they had it on the site, but I can't seem to find it. Yes I can find the basic info, but I was looking for what sources they used as there are a couple concoctions to reach those NPK levels.

I will post my email when I get a response, and I may have to eat my words, but we shall see. I'll throw it in the Jack's thread when I get a response.

The Benefits of Silicon I can vouch for....whatever is holding you back from using it, let it out. It is a vital element.

Oh I'm using it. Just a bit of a science geek and want to quantify how it works and why. Nothing wrong with wanting to further understand the mechanisms and limitations of using it. My observations with some lit review, makes me believe it's worth while.... just not exactly as scientific as I'd like

TonightYou said:

Oh I'm using it. Just a bit of a science geek and want to quantify how it works and why. Nothing wrong with wanting to further understand the mechanisms and limitations of using it. My observations with some lit review, makes me believe it's worth while.... just not exactly as scientific as I'd like

Click to expand...

Glad to see the geek out, I did my research on findings of tomato farmers and claims of 20+ per cent yield increase. Getting down with the science is great until you got it but don't know it. Good luck amigo.

With regards to yield, I didn't weigh in my little experiment. I was more interested in the fact that strains I previously had to support were more self supporting in nature. Kinda kicking myself for not weighing and comparing the two now

I have noticed increased weight, thicker branching, bigger plants, and overall strength.....big branches=big buds.

Found these articles, maybe they will help?

http://www.firt.org/sites/default/files/Scarbrough_Silica_in_Plant_Nutrition_presentation.pdf
http://hortcom.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/nutrifert_silicon-role.pdf

Right off the bat, in the first link, about halfway through, it starts pitching you a product called Excellerator and telling you all about their company.

Then they go on to list that their product contains 39.3% silicon, 24% calcium, 1.8% iron, and all the important trace micros. This is clearly a marketing pitch and hardly counts as a credible scientific study even if it was formatted as such (which it wasn't. A set of results isn't enough).


The second link is from a company called nutrifert which sells the product Amorsil Max, listed in the figure showing the differences in roots with and without their product. I looked up that product and it says it's 72% SiO2 equivalent, 11.5% calcium, and 45% potassium oxide equivalent. Because of this, their informative document lacks all credibility as well.

For the reference, a properly formatted scientific study will include a theory, hypothesis, a description of the apparatus, results, and a conclusion based on the results. A study isn't a bunch of anecdotes, even if the anecdotes come from seemingly credible sources, and posting only results in a marketing paper does not adequately describe the apparatus.

cannabis love said:

Found these articles, maybe they will help?

http://www.firt.org/sites/default/files/Scarbrough_Silica_in_Plant_Nutrition_presentation.pdf
http://hortcom.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/nutrifert_silicon-role.pdf

Click to expand...

I didn't scrutinize those links closely, thanks for pointing out that they were but advertisements. I did a further search, and found this article on the usda.gov website:
http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/may07/plants0507.htm

churchhaze said:

Right off the bat, in the first link, about halfway through, it starts pitching you a product called Excellerator and telling you all about their company.

Then they go on to list that their product contains 39.3% silicon, 24% calcium, 1.8% iron, and all the important trace micros. This is clearly a marketing pitch and hardly counts as a credible scientific study even if it was formatted as such (which it wasn't. A set of results isn't enough).


The second link is from a company called nutrifert which sells the product Amorsil Max, listed in the figure showing the differences in roots with and without their product. I looked up that product and it says it's 72% SiO2 equivalent, 11.5% calcium, and 45% potassium oxide equivalent. Because of this, their informative document lacks all credibility as well.

For the reference, a properly formatted scientific study will include a theory, hypothesis, a description of the apparatus, results, and a conclusion based on the results. A study isn't a bunch of anecdotes, even if the anecdotes come from seemingly credible sources, and posting only results in a marketing paper does not adequately describe the apparatus.

Click to expand...

See! I knew we could be friends! Someone who can judge source material. I may have a few pdfs I collected (I save everything, love this digital world we live in) which are peer reviewed. When I get home I'm going to see if I can dig them up

there is still nothing conclusive, the readings i made said that plants normally contain silicon but no conclusion as to weather feeding silicon is of any benefit. what's most confusing is that formulas from professional farmers never mentioned silicon containing additives. silicon apparently requires a high ph to dissolve so feeding silicon must be done separately or foliar which adds complication but if it is really beneficial, it is worth it, just not worth trying it with no scientific background as to WHAT THE HELL I AM DOING! still hoping to find an answer

From my experience it works as advertised.
Spider mites were a constant in my garden, usually under control but always present. Finally got my hands on mighty wash, sprayed my whole garden a couple of times and started to add pottasium silicate to my rez. Havent seen a mite or sprayed anything in over a year.
That being said, i think overdosing it is causing my product to burn poorly with a nasty taste. So i am trying with 1/2 dosage for first 4 weeks of flower only.
I do flood and drain. Sog perpetual, in straight perlite. 10 Weeks flower.
The product i use is thick and syrupy, but the concentration is not listed or the k. The application rate is 1/4ml per litre.

famine said:

From my experience it works as advertised.
Spider mites were a constant in my garden, usually under control but always present. Finally got my hands on mighty wash, sprayed my whole garden a couple of times and started to add pottasium silicate to my rez. Havent seen a mite or sprayed anything in over a year.
That being said, i think overdosing it is causing my product to burn poorly with a nasty taste. So i am trying with 1/2 dosage for first 4 weeks of flower only.
I do flood and drain. Sog perpetual, in straight perlite. 10 Weeks flower.
The product i use is thick and syrupy, but the concentration is not listed or the k. The application rate is 1/4ml per litre.

Click to expand...

IME spider mites cant really be controlled, they have to be eliminated completely. i doubt that they are not appearing only because you are feeding with potassium silicate additive. i am interested to know about the perlite medium in flood and drain, how often do you flood and doesn't it hold excessive water? is it reusable? i use it for keeping mother plants mainly because it holds moisture for a long time and i don't have to water often, but for my flood and drain i use growrocks and flood like 8 times per day

anybody who says that Silica doesn't have an application for use with marijuana growing is misinformed lmfao , silica increases resistance to drought ,temperature changes , nutrient overloads, pests, diseases and it also increases trichomes and finishes flowering times quicker then usual . all you gotta do is Google Ed Rosenthal and the word silica and you'll find all the information you need

ever since I started using silica in conjunction with soul synthetics I've never had a pH problem or any problems of any sort and I couldn't be happier using it

Silica also happens to be the most present compound in the earths soil and crust besides oxygen so just a simple understanding of science will show you how important silica can be for the cannabis plant

Thank you for your input. I'll keep the "science" thing in mind.

(another anecdote with reference to more anecdotes)

Just so you know, aluminum is very abundant in the earths crust as well. To suggest plants need something because it's abundant in the crust is poor speculation. Plants will actually uptake aluminum if the pH is too low, and this is not a good thing. Aluminum is toxic to plants and to humans.



Also, for all you "organic" growers out there, notice how dirt is more "dangerous" than hydro in terms of toxic chemicals. My hydroponic formulations contain way less than 8.1% aluminum (more like 0%)

northeastbreedersgroup said:

Silica also happens to be the most present compound in the earths soil and crust besides oxygen so just a simple understanding of science will show you how important silica can be for the cannabis plant

Click to expand...

If you read more clearly, you'll see that nobody here is denying the usefulness of silica. We're only doubting the usefulness and putting it under scrutiny. There's a huge difference.

That being said, I really doubt the effects you're noticing are from the added silicates. I'm not going to explain again how potassium silicate contains a certain percentage of potassium based on its empirical formula and molar mass. All the positive effects could have come from the added potassium as that's what potassium is known to do in the first place. Potassium regulates osmotic pressure. It's also responsible for controlling stomata opening and thus controlling drought resistance.

Considering those effects are exactly what potassium silicate users claim to get, don't you think it's worth questioning whether those desired effects came from the Si or the K?

10 years ago, everyone was afraid they might find glass in their weed. Now, everyone insists weed needs more glass or it won't grow right. I've been wondering recently if the glass dust problems from a decade ago had anything to do with people feeding their plants silicates, although i sort of doubt it.

northeastbreedersgroup said:

anybody who says that Silica doesn't have an application for use with marijuana growing is misinformed lmfao

Click to expand...