JordanTheGreat
Well-Known Member
u cant disprove it bruh, so i dont care if your ears dont work...im done with you
sugar
- Thread starter g-13
- Start date
Al B. Fuct
once had a dog named
Oh, does that mean you're leaving without proving your point?
MAXIMUM FAIL.
Goodbye, loser.
MAXIMUM FAIL.
Goodbye, loser.
JordanTheGreat
Well-Known Member
u got a big mouth when its behind a computer screen...i dont know who you are where i gotta prove shit to you anyway. i hope it makes u feel better, as for me...im poppin bottles tonite sucka so have fun blogging square! 
Al B. Fuct
once had a dog named
You made a claim that plants can use sugar as a nutrient. When challenged, you could not support your claim. You still haven't proven your claim, keep saying you're 'done with [me]' but you keep coming back.
EPIC FAIL.
EPIC FAIL.
Zhu
Well-Known Member
The plants can't use sugars. HIGH TIMES BO# 29 2001 Talks about how molasses and sugars are just a catalyst for growth of microbials and just stimulate biological growths in the soil adding back what the soil had before being processed. Grinding up a mushroom and jamming it into the soil or even a truffle would have the same effect. Last time I ate a mushroom it didnt taste very sweet. They both have pretty much the same effect and that is biologic inoculum. Also again they have nothing to do with the plant k thx.
Bullethead21
Well-Known Member
It cant use sugar in the way that is expressed by certain posters in this thread..I wont mention any names as I dont want in the middle of this one for sure....lol
Its like our bodies for example..we NEED blood to live, grow and thrive...our bodies are full of blood and even produce blood. We could not live without it.....Does this mean if we drink blood its healthy and will help us grow?? I think not as our body CANT use it that way and doesnt work that way......same thing with just adding sugar to plant.....
There is no need to argue about this point as it can be proven with Science.....
Its like our bodies for example..we NEED blood to live, grow and thrive...our bodies are full of blood and even produce blood. We could not live without it.....Does this mean if we drink blood its healthy and will help us grow?? I think not as our body CANT use it that way and doesnt work that way......same thing with just adding sugar to plant.....
There is no need to argue about this point as it can be proven with Science.....
nunof
Well-Known Member
I'm just gonna say this. I know Al is right....to a degree. Sugar is a SOIL ONLY product. It helps feed "beneficial" microbes that live in soil. These microbes do not live in a hydroponic culture, so a hydro setup doesn't benefit from adding sugar. With that said, Jordan is the only person here who was either able to, or willing to try and bring an outside "scientific" source to the table to prove his point (even if he was wrong about hydro and sugar), rep up for the research. Lets all pack a bowl, roll a joint, vaporize, or do what you have to do to sit back and relax. Peace out!
trentcannon
Well-Known Member
Argument over. I declare a winner.You made a claim that plants can use sugar as a nutrient. When challenged, you could not support your claim. You still haven't proven your claim, keep saying you're 'done with [me]' but you keep coming back.
EPIC FAIL.
http://www.biology-online.org/biology-forum/about10736.html
Plants either osmotically absorb things or actively pump them using transporters - the second is more important if the thing being transported is already at a higher concentration in the cells than it is outside (since nothing goes uphill without being pushed).
One guy in this thread mentions that there are active sucrose transporters in the root. That may be true, but I know there are active transporters on the vacuoles within the cells and he may be thinking of those.
In osmosis, you have pores in the cell membrane that are the right size for the molecules to drift through. The cells will open and close them, or use energy to pump things through them. Most of those are for tiny things like water or salts. Sucrose is a big molecule compared to them.
If the plant took up sucrose by drift osmosis, for most plants that'd mean they lost sucrose to the soil with it leaking out the roots. If they actively take it up, that'd mean spending sucrose to get sucrose? And probably spending more than you're getting.
There are only two possibilities I can think of.
The cells pack sucrose into the vacuoles, allowing it to drift diffuse into the cells from the soil (but it's probably also be doing the same thing out of the phloem as well).
Or, the plant spends nutrients it has in abundance to actively pump sucrose in - that also sounds a bit suspect. Plants generally never do anything they don't need to, like taking up one nutrient on the off chance it might to use it to pump some sucrose later - while that nutrient is sitting inside the plant at higher than needed concentrations, it'll probably need energy to get it there or be interfering with other cell processes.
I've done quite a lot of biology about plants at degree level and never heard anything about sucrose uptake.
The only way this is getting proven for sure is with a bunch of separate side by sides.
Plants either osmotically absorb things or actively pump them using transporters - the second is more important if the thing being transported is already at a higher concentration in the cells than it is outside (since nothing goes uphill without being pushed).
One guy in this thread mentions that there are active sucrose transporters in the root. That may be true, but I know there are active transporters on the vacuoles within the cells and he may be thinking of those.
In osmosis, you have pores in the cell membrane that are the right size for the molecules to drift through. The cells will open and close them, or use energy to pump things through them. Most of those are for tiny things like water or salts. Sucrose is a big molecule compared to them.
If the plant took up sucrose by drift osmosis, for most plants that'd mean they lost sucrose to the soil with it leaking out the roots. If they actively take it up, that'd mean spending sucrose to get sucrose? And probably spending more than you're getting.
There are only two possibilities I can think of.
The cells pack sucrose into the vacuoles, allowing it to drift diffuse into the cells from the soil (but it's probably also be doing the same thing out of the phloem as well).
Or, the plant spends nutrients it has in abundance to actively pump sucrose in - that also sounds a bit suspect. Plants generally never do anything they don't need to, like taking up one nutrient on the off chance it might to use it to pump some sucrose later - while that nutrient is sitting inside the plant at higher than needed concentrations, it'll probably need energy to get it there or be interfering with other cell processes.
I've done quite a lot of biology about plants at degree level and never heard anything about sucrose uptake.
The only way this is getting proven for sure is with a bunch of separate side by sides.
Consciousness420
Well-Known Member
yepper.. great explanation and break-down of the science above...
its a common myth that people think that sucrose is directly absorbed through the roots, increasing yield. It is strictly used for soil to enrich the complex micro-environment of the soil which in turn enriches the life of the plant by allowing easily accesible simple nutrients to be more accessible in the soil. You can put sucrose directly in your hydro system, and it will NOT harm the plant at all BUT the plant probably just wont hardly use any of it - why? --> if there already exists a balance in the plant between energy used for plant growth (above soil) versus the mass of the root system, then it already has stored sucrose which it created and stored them as complex sugars (such as sucrose) as starch in the roots, it will not 'uptake' any more because of the details explained in that previous post.. HOWEVER, if some critical change has caused the plant to be in a life threatening situation - like chopping more than 40% of the root system all of the sudden, and the current rate of glucose production plus down-conversion of sucrose in the roots to glucose given to the plant to sustain life is not enough (to support the vegitation above soil), the plant will begin sacrificing veg material until the balance is restored - so, if and only if in this scenario the plant has direct access to sucrose, the roots WILL absorb it and immediately down convert to glucose in an attempt to save as much veg material as possible (though, Ive never actually tried this so have no supporting experimental data - just theory) but if we are all talking about an already 'energy-balanced' plant then saying that extra sucrose will be absorbed is just dead wrong.
its a common myth that people think that sucrose is directly absorbed through the roots, increasing yield. It is strictly used for soil to enrich the complex micro-environment of the soil which in turn enriches the life of the plant by allowing easily accesible simple nutrients to be more accessible in the soil. You can put sucrose directly in your hydro system, and it will NOT harm the plant at all BUT the plant probably just wont hardly use any of it - why? --> if there already exists a balance in the plant between energy used for plant growth (above soil) versus the mass of the root system, then it already has stored sucrose which it created and stored them as complex sugars (such as sucrose) as starch in the roots, it will not 'uptake' any more because of the details explained in that previous post.. HOWEVER, if some critical change has caused the plant to be in a life threatening situation - like chopping more than 40% of the root system all of the sudden, and the current rate of glucose production plus down-conversion of sucrose in the roots to glucose given to the plant to sustain life is not enough (to support the vegitation above soil), the plant will begin sacrificing veg material until the balance is restored - so, if and only if in this scenario the plant has direct access to sucrose, the roots WILL absorb it and immediately down convert to glucose in an attempt to save as much veg material as possible (though, Ive never actually tried this so have no supporting experimental data - just theory) but if we are all talking about an already 'energy-balanced' plant then saying that extra sucrose will be absorbed is just dead wrong.