The Myth of Foliar Feeding

Roguejim said:
http://puyallup.wsu.edu/~linda%20chalker-scott/Horticultural%20Myths_files/Myths/Foliar%20feeding.pdf
Click to expand...
 
I think that calling this work a "paper" is being rather generous, if anything it might qualify as an article.  It seems to rely primarily upon a survey of practises in the industry, a loose citing of a half-century old study and a couple of strong servings of conjecture.
 
It is certainly not scientific and it brings no NEW information to the table, nor does it even propose the need for a qualified and controlled study (which would be useful and meaningful).
 
I didn't read the piece, but thought I'd chime in. I don't foliar feed, simply because I prefer to get the maximum benefit from my ferts. I do know my plants enjoy a good misting, but that's all I do for the foliage. I suppose it's possible that I could absorb SOME vitamin C through the dermis by dumping a gallon of orange juice over my head, but it'll get to my bloodstream faster through the ol' belly. Not saying foliar does or doesn't work, just saying I don't do it.
 
geeme said:
So I read the article. It seems a human analogy might be appropriate…. One could feasibly shove small food particles up the nostrils, selectively close off the passages to the lungs, and get nutrients into the body by this alternative method to the mouth. You'd have to have extreme process control to ensure no food got into your lungs, but it's possible. Similarly, we could all bypass the mouth and instead take all of our nutrients through IV. 
 
We could…. but should we? 
Click to expand...
Should we? Well I've eaten at a few places where the food was so bad I felt that it might be better to shove the food up my bum and save it the trip.

In all seriousness, I have come across articles that made claims of foliar feeding being quicker and more efficient in terms of the overall absorption when compared to feeding via the roots. That said I don't think the intent was to replace feeding via the root zone, but rather to show the efficiency of foliar feeding between the two.

Neil
 
I'm on my phone or I'd do this myself. Can someone Google "Vegetable Field Trials Spray-N-Grow Agriculture", and copy/paste the trial to this discussion? The trial was conducted by a Prof. A.E. Nightingale. Very interesting.
 
Roguejim said:
I'm on my phone or I'd do this myself. Can someone Google "Vegetable Field Trials Spray-N-Grow Agriculture", and copy/paste the trial to this discussion? The trial was conducted by a Prof. A.E. Nightingale. Very interesting.
Click to expand...
I fell for the Spray-N-Grow crap once as well and used it. It worked pretty good but the soil I am using now works better and I am not at the mercy of mixing bottled stuff. :cool:
 
ikeepfish said:
Fulvic acid in and of itself has no nutritional value, as an acidic component of humus it's beneficial as a chelating agent in soil because it can carry 60x its molecular weight in nutrients.
Click to expand...
 
Meant to press quote and liked/unliked instead. The things you do while sipping coffee with a straw :D
 
All I meant to say originally was that, at least to my understanding, it reacts in a similar way in nutrient foliars, aiding transport into the plant.
 
But now I am thinking you were saying spraying fulvic alone as a foliar? Poked around a bit and there is some support, but also inconsistent results with wheat. Probably was just dodgy advice though, I can find studies that support adding chemical nutes to increase microbiology :rofl:
 
Proud Marine Dad said:
I fell for the Spray-N-Grow crap once as well and used it. It worked pretty good but the soil I am using now works better and I am not at the mercy of mixing bottled stuff. :cool:
Click to expand...
How is Spray-N-Grow "crap" and "pretty good"?  This is confused.
Here are some field trials with Spray-N-Grow.  What conclusions can be drawn?
 
http://spray-n-growag.com/pepper-trials/
 

Pepper Trials

A.E. Nightingale, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus
Horticultural Sciences
Texas A&M University
Date: 1990
Location: Dale Flukinger Farm -Waller, Texas
An equal number of uniform rows of Serrano and Jalapeno peppers were selected from a larger field for comparing Spray-N-Grow treatment with control. The following are the harvest dates and yields of each.

 

[SIZE=x-small] [/SIZE]

[SIZE=x-small]Serrano[/SIZE]

[SIZE=x-small] [/SIZE]

 

 

 

[SIZE=x-small]Jalapeno[/SIZE]

 

[SIZE=x-small]Date[/SIZE]

[SIZE=x-small]Treated[/SIZE]

[SIZE=x-small]Control[/SIZE]

 

 

[SIZE=x-small]Date[/SIZE]

[SIZE=x-small]Treated[/SIZE]

[SIZE=x-small]Control[/SIZE]

[SIZE=x-small]6/13[/SIZE]

[SIZE=x-small]105 lbs.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=x-small]87 lbs.[/SIZE]

 

 

[SIZE=x-small]6/17[/SIZE]

[SIZE=x-small]117 lbs.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=x-small]75 lbs.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=x-small]6/29[/SIZE]

[SIZE=x-small]169 lbs.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=x-small]117 lbs.[/SIZE]

 

 

[SIZE=x-small]7/3[/SIZE]

[SIZE=x-small]183 lbs.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=x-small]112 lbs.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=x-small]7/14[/SIZE]

[SIZE=x-small]189 lbs.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=x-small]123 lbs.[/SIZE]

 

 

[SIZE=x-small]7/18[/SIZE]

[SIZE=x-small]214 lbs.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=x-small]119 lbs.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=x-small]7/30[/SIZE]

[SIZE=x-small]239 lbs.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=x-small]130 lbs.[/SIZE]

 

 

[SIZE=x-small]8/4[/SIZE]

[SIZE=x-small]228 lbs.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=x-small]115 lbs.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=x-small]8/14[/SIZE]

[SIZE=x-small]245 lbs.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=x-small]149 lbs.[/SIZE]

 

 

[SIZE=x-small]8/18[/SIZE]

[SIZE=x-small]225 lbs.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=x-small]113 lbs.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=x-small]8/29[/SIZE]

[SIZE=x-small]254 lbs.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=x-small]139 lbs.[/SIZE]

 

 

[SIZE=x-small]9/3[/SIZE]

[SIZE=x-small]218 lbs.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=x-small]109 lbs.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=x-small]9/13[/SIZE]

[SIZE=x-small]257 lbs.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=x-small]133 lbs.[/SIZE]

 

 

[SIZE=x-small]9/19[/SIZE]

[SIZE=x-small]234 lbs.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=x-small]121 lbs.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=x-small]9/29[/SIZE]

[SIZE=x-small]241 lbs.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=x-small]137 lbs.[/SIZE]

 

 

[SIZE=x-small]10/7[/SIZE]

[SIZE=x-small]216 lbs.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=x-small]103 lbs.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=x-small]10/14[/SIZE]

[SIZE=x-small]253 lbs.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=x-small]126 lbs.[/SIZE]

 

 

[SIZE=x-small]10/20[/SIZE]

[SIZE=x-small]219 lbs.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=x-small]107 lbs.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=x-small]10/29[/SIZE]

[SIZE=x-small]228 lbs.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=x-small]123 lbs.[/SIZE]

 

 

[SIZE=x-small]11/8[/SIZE]

[SIZE=x-small]198 lbs.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=x-small]97 lbs.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=x-small]Total[/SIZE]

[SIZE=x-small]2180 lbs.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=x-small]1264 lbs.[/SIZE]

 

 

[SIZE=x-small]Total[/SIZE]

[SIZE=x-small]2052 lbs.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=x-small]1071 lbs.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=x-small]Yield Increase[/SIZE]

[SIZE=x-small]Serrano[/SIZE]

[SIZE=x-small]72.5%[/SIZE]

[SIZE=x-small]Yield Increase [/SIZE]

[SIZE=x-small]Jalapeno[/SIZE]

[SIZE=x-small]91.6%[/SIZE]
The first application of Spray-N-Grow was made once the transplants were established in the field. Three additional applications were made at 30 day intervals.
 
 
http://spray-n-growag.com/vegetable-field-trials-summary/
 
Vegetable Field Trials

A.E. Nightingale, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus
Horticultural Sciences
Texas A&M University
Date: Span of sevaral years
SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR MULTIPLE FIELD TRIALS
Bell Peppers: 160% yield increase by wt.
Serrano Peppers: 72% yield increase by wt.
Jalapeno Peppers: 93% yield increase by wt.
Tomatoes (Pres.): 52% yield increase by wt.
Tomatoes (Big Set): 60% yield increase by wt.
Pumpkins: 27% yield increase by wt.
Watermelons: 40% yield increase by wt.
Cucumbers: 175% yield increase by wt.
String Beans(Triumph): 187% yield increase by wt.
String Beans(KY Wonder): 163% yield increase by wt.
Purple Hull Peas: 75% yield increase by wt.
Peanuts: 32 – 50% yield increase by wt.
Spray-N-Grow treated plants were also healthier, more vibrant, more stress resistant and had a better developed root system.
All plots in Dr. Nightingale’s tests received the same fertilizer, insecticides, water, etc. Spray-N-Grow application was the only difference. According to Dr. Nightingale “fruit and vegetables produced by Spray-N-Grow treated plants were tastier, sweeter and more succulent.” The bell peppers from the treated plants had thicker walls and a sweeter flavor than the control plants.
Spray-N-Grow increased the sugar content on all plants tested – apples, grapes, and even tomatoes. Spray-N-Grow also caused most crops to mature early – some by as much as 2 to 3 weeks. Growers in Texas and Florida reported picking Spray-N-Grow treated squash 14 days before the control squash was ready.
Growers, researchers and agriculture businesses are also using and testing Spray-N-Grow on: hops, potatoes, eggplants, onions, garlic, mint, asparagus, etc.
 
Cayennemist said:
I like to break it down to reason. Why would a plant evolve to have the ability to absorb nutrients through the stomata?
 
One possibility is...
 
Bird Crap! The white in bird poop is VERY high in Uric Acid  a.k.a Urea Nitrogen
Click to expand...
I thought the stomata were on the underside of the leaf. I've never seen bird crap on the underside of a leaf, or, very rarely.
 
I am starting to think paranoid thoughts that A&M exists solely to provide "studies" for industry. Example of an article frequently quoted by the humic/fulvic industry, though still an interesting read.
 
A few quotes from ATTRA
 
Foliar feeding has been used as a means of supplying supplemental doses of minor and major nutrients, plant hormones, stimulants, and other beneficial substances.
 
Applications may also be used to aid plants in recovery from transplant shock, hail damage, or the results of other weather extremes.
 
There is general consensus, however, that foliar fertilization should not be considered a substitute for a sound soil-fertility program.
 
One of the touted benefits of foliar fertilization is the increased uptake of nutrients from the soil. This notion is based on the belief that foliar fertilization causes the plant to pump more sugars and other exudates from its roots into the rhizosphere. Beneficial microbial populations in the root zone are stimulated by the increased availability of these exudates. In turn, this enhanced biological activity increases the availability of nutrients, disease-suppressive biochemicals, vitamins, and other factors beneficial to the plant. It is this rationale, in good part, that reinforces the use of foliar fertilization in organic agriculture, where the philosophy of feed the soil, not the plant prevails.
 
Overall, the economics of foliar fertilization is dependent, first, on how successful applications are and, second, on whether or not the same nutrition might have been supplied more economically through another means.
 
And they also happen to mention my favorite (untried :mope:) method of spraying....
 
ELECTROSTATIC! ZZZAAAP!
 
Two technologies that appear especially applicable to foliar fertilization deserve to be mentioned. The first is the use of electrostatic sprayers, which impart a charge to the spray particles and cause them to adhere more readily to plants. The second technology, known as Sonic Bloom™, uses sound to increase the leaves' absorption of nutrients.
 
The lazy-mans way of perfectly coating a plant :rofl:
 
A link on perhaps why plants have evolved to uptake nutrients through foliage.

Roguejim said:
I thought the stomata were on the underside of the leaf. I've never seen bird crap on the underside of a leaf, or, very rarely.
Click to expand...
 
The majority are located on the underside, though they are prevalent all over the plant, including stem and upper leaf surfaces.
 
KingLeerUK said:
 
I think that calling this work a "paper" is being rather generous, if anything it might qualify as an article.  It seems to rely primarily upon a survey of practises in the industry, a loose citing of a half-century old study and a couple of strong servings of conjecture.
 
It is certainly not scientific and it brings no NEW information to the table, nor does it even propose the need for a qualified and controlled study (which would be useful and meaningful).
Click to expand...
It`s not supposed to be a paper, it`s supposed to be the opinions of a Professor who works with plants. An expert opinion, if you will.

There is no doubt that micronutrients can enter plants via the leaves, but in very small quantities, relatively speaking.  Foliar feeding is able to correct acute deficiencies in the very short term, such as acute magnesium deficiencies. It cannot correct the overall problem, which is a soil-based problem. If you spray stuff onto a plant then hope it gets washed into the soil via rain, I don`t understand why you wouldn`t just add whatever it is to the soil. 
 
I think a good analogy is filling your mouth with fruit juice, then spitting it all out and hoping nutrients are taken up by the buccal membranes. Tiny amounts may be taken up, but not enough to do anything tangible. Your mouth hasn't evolved to do that and neither have the leaves of a plant.

As for Spray and Grow, please tell me how much of the spray fell into the soil and how much was taken up by the plants leaves. If I spray fertilizer onto a field of plants, I expect to see increased production of crops, otherwise I`d be wasting my money. Talk about a bullshit experiment, sheesh.

The big problem is the total lack of real, controlled experiments (people refer to studies in the 1950`s because that`s when uptake studies were done using radioisotopes. Just because it was done in the 1950`s does not make it wrong, just ask Jim Watson and Francis Crick).
 
Anedotal evidence is not real evidence. Just because someone sprays something on a plant and sees an improvement does not mean there is a cause and effect relationship. If I look at a plant really hard for an hour and 5 days later it dies, did my psychic powers kill it?
 
Pr0digal_son said:
Click to expand...
I was gonna try it, but I don't have that kinda room in my place. Maybe outside, but then I have to contend with some idiots who use the yard for other purposes.
 
 
 
@nigel, some plant leaves can definitely absorb nutes, peppers might be able to in small amounts, so I'd use it for molybdenum(wow, spelled it right) deficiencies. And Watson and Crick were wrong. Everyone knows that genetic information consists of a little man who builds cells out of LEGOs, right?
 
Nigel said:
It`s not supposed to be a paper, it`s supposed to be the opinions of a Professor who works with plants. An expert opinion, if you will.

There is no doubt that micronutrients can enter plants via the leaves, but in very small quantities, relatively speaking.  Foliar feeding is able to correct acute deficiencies in the very short term, such as acute magnesium deficiencies. It cannot correct the overall problem, which is a soil-based problem. If you spray stuff onto a plant then hope it gets washed into the soil via rain, I don`t understand why you wouldn`t just add whatever it is to the soil. 
 
I think a good analogy is filling your mouth with fruit juice, then spitting it all out and hoping nutrients are taken up by the buccal membranes. Tiny amounts may be taken up, but not enough to do anything tangible. Your mouth hasn't evolved to do that and neither have the leaves of a plant.

As for Spray and Grow, please tell me how much of the spray fell into the soil and how much was taken up by the plants leaves. If I spray fertilizer onto a field of plants, I expect to see increased production of crops, otherwise I`d be wasting my money. Talk about a bullshit experiment, sheesh.

The big problem is the total lack of real, controlled experiments (people refer to studies in the 1950`s because that`s when uptake studies were done using radioisotopes. Just because it was done in the 1950`s does not make it wrong, just ask Jim Watson and Francis Crick).
 
Anedotal evidence is not real evidence. Just because someone sprays something on a plant and sees an improvement does not mean there is a cause and effect relationship. If I look at a plant really hard for an hour and 5 days later it dies, did my psychic powers kill it?
Click to expand...
 
Hmm...Is not Prof. A.E. Nightingale also an "expert"? 
 
Roguejim said:
 
How is Spray-N-Grow "crap" and "pretty good"?  This is confused.

 
Click to expand...
It is "crap" because of all the marketing hype. If you want to believe one "test" of it many years ago then be my guest.
I used it personally and it was better than not giving the plants anything but it did not wow me like their literature boasts.
If it were that great every cannabis grower in the country would be using it. Marketing sells! I don't believe everything slick marketers say. ;)
I suggest you read 'Teaming with Microbes' and 'Teaming with Nutrients' and you will see that foliar feeding is not what makes a plant grow best.
 
Proud Marine Dad said:
It is "crap" because of all the marketing hype. If you want to believe one "test" of it many years ago then be my guest.
I used it personally and it was better than not giving the plants anything but it did not wow me like their literature boasts.
If it were that great every cannabis grower in the country would be using it. Marketing sells! I don't believe everything slick marketers say. ;)
I suggest you read 'Teaming with Microbes' and 'Teaming with Nutrients' and you will see that foliar feeding is not what makes a plant grow best.
Click to expand...
 
Thanks.  Logical fallacy, factual inaccuracy, and false assumption aside, I will take your reading advice. 
 
On another note, can anyone comment on the effect of spraying flowers in the process of pollinating, with liquids of any type? 
 
Roguejim said:
Thanks.  Logical fallacy, factual inaccuracy, and false assumption aside, I will take your reading advice. 
 
On another note, can anyone comment on the effect of spraying flowers in the process of pollinating, with liquids of any type?
Click to expand...
I use foliar feeding with epsom salt to help pollinate my plants. When I remember to spray my plants, I always make sure to get under the leaves and into the flowers. Works great.

Neil
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top