@@Tetrahedonism strange. Here’s what I wrote: I haven't seen any research on that. In general though, I'm very wary of systemic inputs because they end up in the final flower and can have health impacts (typically pesticides and PGRs).

@@kisorganics thanks for the reply but it was the comment to that what you stated i can still see it in my history but its for some reason not shown

I haven't seen any research on that. In general though, I'm very wary of systemic inputs because they end up in the final flower and can have health impacts (typically pesticides and PGRs).

@@kisorganics Clear, would be great to ask this Dr. Maybe because there is many scientific evidence that this is a strong antiviral and i was wondering about the effect of a foliar application of this on a HLV infected plant and i know there is research of systemic use of silver and other metals for IP management in cultivation but NOT in relation to HLV in Cannabis while it could potentially be a great (non toxic) solution if it work also against viroids as it does with virusses maybe even only as a cleaning agent. Btw i do know it stops ethylene production and reverses plants in high enough doses but maybe far less would work who knows..

I ran some trials with malted barley years ago in our tomato greenhouse and didn't get a significant plant response. That being said, many growers swear by the use of malted barley. I haven't seen any real research on the subject in relation to plants, so I typically default to telling folks to try it out in their environment and see if they notice a difference. The good thing about it is that it's very affordable and not very time consuming, so it's an easy experiment.

Not all causes of this leaf angle are detrimental or negative. It appears there are multiple variables that can cause this response. If it's an extreme angle then I'd be more concerned but if it's 45 degrees or less then I wouldn't worry about it. It can also just be a properly hydrated and happy plant.

Thanks for the idea, I'll definitely give it some thought!

I think the context is to evaluate a principle, technique, or concept outside of just whether or not it occurs in Nature, or the idea of "What would Mother Nature do." I believe I say it in the talk, but I do think that many concepts that occur naturally are quite beneficial and good cultural practices. But basing an agronomic decision on whether is happens in Nature or not is short-sided in my opinion and that's what Lee Briese articulates better in his podcast. I hope that better clarifies things.

Agreed. Though I would still argue natural systems are still worth comparing to conventional agronomy. For example the negative effects of applying conventional fertilizers with large salt indexes in a huge bolus as is often done is improved by the application of various carbon sources alongside. Clearly this idea comes from, at least in part, examining the ratio of C:N in nature. Similarly, research also supports that smaller regular fertilization is better than bolus fertilization. Again, it's clear to me that this idea is to move towards how fertility works in a natural system. While neither are "natural", these concepts are at least in part meant to align conventional approaches such that they are not completely working against natural existing systems of nature. Just my $0.02 love the podcast.

@@Spencer_Plant_Projects appreciate the discussion. I'm not sure the concept of carbon based fertilizer efficiency came from looking at C:N ratios in nature. Can you send me links to that? I do agree that greater frequency and lower application rates in general are better when possible (it's always a labor/cost analysis). Some of our "best practices" in agriculture or horticulture are similar to what happens in nature, but my point (and I think Lee's as well) is that we need a better standard or metric to evaluate whether or not we should be doing something than if it occurs in nature. We should be looking at if it increases yield, plant health, reduces disease, improves soil health, etc....first and foremost and then if it happens to fall into the framework of biomimicry or soilfoodweb then that's great, but it should be the ruler or standard for our decision making process, but rather than should be data and research driven. Basically, science should be agnostic and not based around any methodology or theory. Does that make sense?

@@kisorganics yeah that makes sense but I guess it's just not as impactful of a distinction for me. I specifically see where you're coming from with the dogmatic aspects of the soil food web school of thought, though. See the review article "Carbon-Based Slow-Release Fertilizers for Efficient Nutrient Management" I think C:N ratio is so fundamental in soil science and ecology that it's never mentioned in the way you are asking but is constantly referenced as the a high level indicator that has a lot baked into it. It's a stretch for me to think that scientists investigating carbon sources for agronomic purposes such as fertilizer use efficiency had a completely naive approach when deciding to pursue studies on biochar or humic substance application. To me it seems almost implausible that given the education required to get to academia scientists wouldn't be exposed to a class or a paper where they talk about how carbon and nitrogen cycle differently in different ecosystems based on the C:N ratio. Nothing in biological/natural sciences (including agronomy) is properly contextualized or really makes sense unless it's in light of ecology or evolution regardless of how abstracted from "nature" it is.

@@kisorganics yeah I understand the point you're trying to make now. Obsessing over the purity of what "natural" means and becoming dogmatic about it is a big issue. I do however, think that nothing in the natural sciences (i would include agronomy in this) is properly contextualized except in light of ecology and evolution. As a scientist myself I think the bar you set that science should be agnostic and not based around a methodology or theory is extremely high and idealistic as well as a bit conflicting with the sentence prior. As far as I know most science IS based on methodology and theory and ideally it's looked at in the context of the things you mentioned. Controlled environment agriculture or conventional ag is still largely controlled by ecological and evolutionary principles (nutrient cycling/fertilizer use efficiency and pest pressure are obvious ones) so I don't think its inappropriate at all to bias towards looking at natural systems as a guide to drive research and ag approaches. Your point is valid though, because there are other factors that make "biomimicry" approaches unfeasible (cost, complexity) and should be evaluated as such. As for the C:N part... see the Review: Carbon-Based Slow-Release Fertilizers for Efficient Nutrient Management section 5.2.3. The authors don't even bother to cite "The C:N ratio has a critical effect on the mobility of N in the soil" because C:N is such a ubiquitous concept in ecology and soil sciences. I find it hard to believe that someone who was educated in the field to the level of publishing academic papers never was exposed to the concept that C:N ratios having a strong impact on how labile nitrogen is in a particular ecosystem.

Same on the podcast with Chad,Tad was very quiet

Espoma product line is good, though I don't know if what the heavy metals are in their products, you should be able to reach out to them for the test results. And I am not familiar with that compost. If it's for ornamental plants, I wouldn't be overly concerned. Certain amendments tend to be "cleaner" than others, but it really is a case by case basis.

@@johnman559 Thank you. Btw, Tads air socks are a great effort but totally unnecessary. Lots of low velocity air moving in a vortex is optimal. A couple of 6" fans pointing up thru the canopy and a couple more up top facing down usually does the trick. 1 or 2 oscillating fans is not optimal though they may look cool. I learned early on: "don't cheap out on fans"...

Great question, I've reached out to Bluelab for an answer as I didn't find this product listed on the warranty page and we haven't had to deal with any warranty issues since selling them. On the plus side, they seem very robust and I'm not sure what could break on them, but it is an electronic product so that's always a possibility.

So I heard back from Bluelab and they have a 1 year limited warranty on the product. Honestly, I'm a little disappointed it's not a longer warranty on product at this price point. They did mention that they rarely have issues with them, which would fit from what I'm seeing on build quality. I will say that we will do everything we can on our end to offer customer support if someone has issues and get the meter from us.

Thanks for sharing!

Tell me you didn't watch the presentation without telling me you didn't watch the presentation.

With microscopy, it's not always about magnification or megapixels, it's the quality of the objectives or lenses that really determines what you can and cannot see. So I don't think your comparison is really apples to apples or fair, but you are entitled to your opinion. I would add the software is much better with Dino-lite as well, which makes a huge difference in user experience.

​@@kisorganicsIf the lenses are of good quality👍. 200x magnification is also better than 100x on the chinese stuff. I just found it weird why a higher mp would cost so much if it was not for better lenses. Like upgrading from 0.3mp to 2mp costs a dollar for the sensor.

Do you have any links to resources so I can compare?

​@@kisorganics Sure if I know what u mean? Cmos sensors?

@@leonordin3052 You said a comparable digital microscope can be bought for $4. I'm asking if you have a link or product I can purchase to compare quality. As I mentioned, the quality of the lens or objective is the most important variable when comparing microscopes, much more so than megapixels.

I believe so based on what I got from the interview myself.

We share a lot of information freely and so does Bryant. It costs money to produce the show, takes time to do and read research, run trials, etc….i believe it has value. For the cost of a soil analysis you can see the metrics and analysis. Or you can do it yourself. There’s a lot of free actionable information in the podcast beyond the target metrics.

​@@kisorganics I appreciate the immediate response. But I also notice that every conversation about nutrition is rendered half-useless if we do not talk and think about and from the same baseline. So the nutritional value of shows like this is reduced when the baseline is being hold behind a paywall. It just does not serve others as well, as it serves you for advertisement for your opinion (your opinion about plant nutrition is fixed in your products) I myself do not feel god (anymore) about buying an opinion. But hey the other half of it is useful enough for me to add to the register and with time helps me paint the big picture for myself. It is just sad knowing we, the community, did share freely amongst ourselves before the whole thing became a way for some to get rich fast. And now there are all these over advertised nothing burgers. I appreciate you anyway as a fellow human being and wish all the best to you guys, just don't think capitalism is the way to go - may the best win

@@Frei_Sinn I appreciate your opinion on this. The way I look at it is I’ve put hundreds if not thousands of hours into this podcast. It’s not making me money and it’s time I’m spending away from my family, my 4 year old. I’m working on valuing my time and 90% of the people who listen to the podcast don’t buy my soil or shop on our site or hit me up for consulting, so it’s not generating revenue that allows me to feed my family or pay my employees. We live in a capitalistic society and while I didn’t start the podcast with the intention of getting rich, I also don’t feel like I have to give all my time and knowledge away for free because it cost me time and money to acquire it too. I will always keep the podcast as a free resource and do my best to make sure it is focused on education and not advertisement, but I don’t want to hide the fact I’m a small business and just trying to get by, like everyone in the cannabis industry these days.

@@kisorganics I just typed for about 20 minutes and then accidentally lost all the text. Had some great stuff in there. However, I'm too tired from work and tend not to hold onto things I can't change for too long, so I just leave it like that. I hope you both find a better way to sustain yourself, and even more so, I hope you don't stop looking for one. Kant

@@Frei_Sinn no worries. Thank you for the polite discourse. And appreciate the feedback.

Great question! So this is not going to tell you what nutrients may be limiting but if you know your EC overall is low then it's a good sign to add some fertilizer. I would most likely go with a liquid application like Seaphos or fish hydrolysate as well as a dry amendment application depending on stage of growth. We will have a new bloom booster here very soon as well as our Nutrient Pack. Either would work or something with similar NPK. Hope that helps!