Walter Pall's new book.

[milehigh_7]

...If you're a fan of humates... you're not going to be happy.

Would you mind putting a quote from the book, properly cited and attributed of course, in regard to not liking humates? If he thinks they fall into the same category as Superthrive, he's dead wrong. I have read a few hundred peer-reviewed journal articles that may dispute his opinion.

 

[milehigh_7]

Perhaps Mr. Morton could start by reading this before publishing as his statement on page 70 is completely false:
P. P. David, P. V. Nelson & D. C. Sanders (2008) A humic acid improves growth of tomato seedling in solution culture, Journal of Plant Nutrition, 17:1, 173-184, DOI: 10.1080/01904169409364717, retrieved 03/24/2018

Just the abstract shows he does not understand the topic of Humic Acid at all. He thinks it is the pH that is at play.

"Abstract
The effects of humic acid (HA) on nutrient accumulation and growth of tomato seedlings were evaluated in a solution of limited nutrient availability in a greenhouse. HA additions were made to the nutrient solution at rates of 0, 640, 1280, or 2560 mg/L. The addition of 1280 mg/L HA produced significant increases in shoot accumulation of P, K, Ca, Mg, Fe, Mn, and Zn as well as increased accumulation of N, Ca, Fe, Zn, and Cu in roots. Fresh and dry weights of roots were also increased, However, on comparing nutrient accumulation in plants treated with 1280 mg/L HA and those given an additional supply of nutrients equivalent to those supplied by HA at the 1280 mg/L rate, shoots accumulated more N, P, K, Fe, and Cu, while roots accumulated more K and Ca. Therefore these increases do not appear to be associated with nutrients contained in HA. Eectrolyte leakage, as an indication of membrane permeability, did not differ as a consequence of HA additions. However, electrolyte leakage correlated positively with HA rate. A shift in solution pH from 5.8 to 7.0 had no effect upon on nutrient accumulation or growth of tomato seedlings. The interaction of pH and addition of HA was not significant."

 

[Potawatomi13]

View attachment 111942

Has anyone had an opportunity to purchase this collaborative effort from Messrs. Morton and Pall? I was curious about it's content. Coffee-table books are nice, but horticultural information, anecdotal or whatever, is really my main focus. It has tempted me to break down and get a debit card!

The old lady is not a fan of my sticks, and stiff-arms me if I ask her to be my middle-man with her credit card. Cripes, I even offer up the interest up front!!! Like I said, she's not a fan.....

Dump her!

 

[0soyoung]

Perhaps Mr. Morton could start by reading this before publishing as his statement on page 70 is completely false:
P. P. David, P. V. Nelson & D. C. Sanders (2008) A humic acid improves growth of tomato seedling in solution culture, Journal of Plant Nutrition, 17:1, 173-184, DOI: 10.1080/01904169409364717, retrieved 03/24/2018

Just the abstract shows he does not understand the topic of Humic Acid at all. He thinks it is the pH that is at play.

"Abstract
The effects of humic acid (HA) on nutrient accumulation and growth of tomato seedlings were evaluated in a solution of limited nutrient availability in a greenhouse. HA additions were made to the nutrient solution at rates of 0, 640, 1280, or 2560 mg/L. The addition of 1280 mg/L HA produced significant increases in shoot accumulation of P, K, Ca, Mg, Fe, Mn, and Zn as well as increased accumulation of N, Ca, Fe, Zn, and Cu in roots. Fresh and dry weights of roots were also increased, However, on comparing nutrient accumulation in plants treated with 1280 mg/L HA and those given an additional supply of nutrients equivalent to those supplied by HA at the 1280 mg/L rate, shoots accumulated more N, P, K, Fe, and Cu, while roots accumulated more K and Ca. Therefore these increases do not appear to be associated with nutrients contained in HA. Eectrolyte leakage, as an indication of membrane permeability, did not differ as a consequence of HA additions. However, electrolyte leakage correlated positively with HA rate. A shift in solution pH from 5.8 to 7.0 had no effect upon on nutrient accumulation or growth of tomato seedlings. The interaction of pH and addition of HA was not significant."

WTF, you read?

 

[milehigh_7]

WTF, you read?

A bit... LOL

 

[milehigh_7]

LOL and that was a 3-minute scan of what came up on google scholar. Since @Smoke turned me on to humic acid years ago I have found lots of peer-reviewed research. Lately, I have begun to see some other interesting things that I will share sometime regarding the interplay of humic acid and certain hormones.

 

[rockm]

Would you mind putting a quote from the book, properly cited and attributed of course, in regard to not liking humates? If he thinks they fall into the same category as Superthrive, he's dead wrong. I have read a few hundred peer-reviewed journal articles that may dispute his opinion.

Nope get the book read it yourself. Not interested in arguing with people who haven't read what they're arguing about.

 

[sorce]

You (all smart) fellas can argue this forever...

I was wondering how this stayed running again for so long....interesting.

The way of Zen is this.
Humic Acids and No Humic Acids.

Let me tell you the MOST FUCKED UP THING ABOUT THIS BOOK, SOME TELLS OF ITS MOTIVATION, AND WHY SCOTT IS RIGHT that IT JUST ADDS TO THE MISINFORMATION!

Vance tells us of its quality which tells there is financial motivation. Ok, there has to be, but please not at our expense with misinformation.

The other Motivation seems to be in connection with (and I just personally heard this last week) Walter's Excellent theory taken from the Nursery trade, which is true, small pots grow trees fast, small increases, etc.

So if the Author heard this theory it would make sense to team with Walter in the Book.

But as Scott hints...the similarities end quickly and when trying to utilize the information for Bonsai it becomes unclear.

Why?

Humic Acids and No Humic Acids.

The reason you are ALL correct and Can argue this forever, is because these are 2 totally different "SCHOOLS"...that have different beginnings, after which both sides of the argument become true.

What is most messed up about this book, most confusing, is that while Walter has this theory of nursery trees, which is in the school of Humic Acid, he Grows his trees in the other School. His BONSAI trees.

So...this Book makes Sense...
And it doesn't. Zen.

When you begin with a stale environment, ie.
Modern Bonsai Substrate.
And Chemical Fert Flushing.

It is true there is no benefit of Humic Acid.

When you begin with a warm, alive, environment conducive to benifitting from Humic Acids...

Guess what happens!?

Humic Acids become Beneficial.

Arguments and No Arguements.

Sorce

Resorce. Know your School.

 

[sorce]

Do you see how this book further confuses the schools?

And we spin and we spin and we spin....

Or we stop...

With a firm grip on our sword, complete awareness of our surroundings, with an intent to destroy our enemy with Honor.

Sorce

 

[Adair M]

I have yet to see anyone bonsai a tomato.

If that’s what they want, I’m sure this book would be invaluable!

@rockm, I can understand your point about others buying the book, on the other hand, buying the book only encourages others to publish misinformation.

They guy bought the rights to use Walter’s images. Would anyone buy this book if it stood completely on its own with no reference to Walter at all? Walter himself has stated that much of what’s in this book is wrong, even more is not relevant, and yet he wrote an intro, and I’m sure he’s been paid for the image copyright and probably receives some royalty from book sales.

Perhaps it’s just me, but I don’t want to support anyone selling “fake news”.

 

[Vance Wood]

View attachment 111942

Has anyone had an opportunity to purchase this collaborative effort from Messrs. Morton and Pall? I was curious about it's content. Coffee-table books are nice, but horticultural information, anecdotal or whatever, is really my main focus. It has tempted me to break down and get a debit card!

The old lady is not a fan of my sticks, and stiff-arms me if I ask her to be my middle-man with her credit card. Cripes, I even offer up the interest up front!!! Like I said, she's not a fan.....

You could alway chase other women??? Get drunk and hang off the Washington Bridge, naked and claim to be the King of the World.

 

[milehigh_7]

Nope get the book read it yourself. Not interested in arguing with people who haven't read what they're arguing about.

I read the portion on page 70 that I referenced but thanks for the help. As I said the guy knows nothing about humates as that portion is totally false. So I could not care less if you want to argue. My request was respectful and genuine.

 

[rockm]

I read the portion on page 70 that I referenced but thanks for the help. As I said the guy knows nothing about humates as that portion is totally false. So I could not care less if you want to argue. My request was respectful and genuine.

This is an almost two-year old thread for crying out loud. I'm not going to sit down and look for references so you can tell me how wrong I am. Sorry. If I read between the lines, it is apparent you aren't really interested in disussing anything

 

[milehigh_7]

When you begin with a stale environment, ie.
Modern Bonsai Substrate.
And Chemical Fert Flushing.

It is true there is no benefit of Humic Acid.

When you begin with a warm, alive, environment conducive to benifitting from Humic Acids...

Guess what happens!?

Humic Acids become Beneficial.

Arguments and No Arguements.

Sorce

Resorce. Know your School.

Regardless of what the Sorce school is, you are 100% totally wrong. It is not an opinion it is science proved by hundreds of peer-reviewed university studies. I suppose you will find a way to say that you don't care about any of that research stuff cause it works at your house. SMH Why do you feel the need to comment and confuse people that might not know any better? Anything to chase the post count I guess.

 

[milehigh_7]

This is an almost two-year old thread for crying out loud. I'm not going to sit down and look for references so you can tell me how wrong I am. Sorry. If I read between the lines, it is apparent you aren't really interested in disussing anything

You should read the lines as well and not just between. Please refer to post #142. Why do you need to be so disagreeable? I will discuss whatever you like. There is nothing wrong with asking for a citation when someone gives an opinion of a published work. Where I come from that's called academic integrity. Sorry if that offends your sensibilities.

 

[Adair M]

This is an almost two-year old thread for crying out loud. I'm not going to sit down and look for references so you can tell me how wrong I am. Sorry. If I read between the lines, it is apparent you aren't really interested in disussing anything

Yes, it is a two year old thread, but the book is still for sale. It’s worth the trouble to comment on it from time to time so newbies looking for information will have an idea of what’s in the book.

 

[rockm]

You should read the lines as well and not just between. Please refer to post #142. Why do you need to be so disagreeable? I will discuss whatever you like. There is nothing wrong with asking for a citation when someone gives an opinion of a published work. Where I come from that's called academic integrity. Sorry if that offends your sensibilities.

"As I said the guy knows nothing about humates as that portion is totally false"

Um. Where's the question? This is NOT a question but a foregone conclusion written in stone filled with your personal opinion. Where I come from that's called intellectual dishonesty. Which is what has bothered me about this entire thread. Most of the people who say they know better HAVE NEVER READ THE BOOK they're discussing. It's like a movie critic bitching about a movie they don't want to go to. And please, spare me the "we gotta protect the newbies maaaaan" crappola. That's just silly, patronizing and ridiculous. If you want to bitch at least read what you're bitching about for crying out loud...

 

[Adair M]

"As I said the guy knows nothing about humates as that portion is totally false"

Um. Where's the question? This is NOT a question but a foregone conclusion written in stone filled with your personal opinion. Where I come from that's called intellectual dishonesty. Which is what has bothered me about this entire thread. Most of the people who say they know better HAVE NEVER READ THE BOOK they're discussing. It's like a movie critic bitching about a movie they don't want to go to. And please, spare me the "we gotta protect the newbies maaaaan" crappola. That's just silly, patronizing and ridiculous. If you want to bitch at least read what you're bitching about for crying out loud...

rockm, I have seen the book for sale. I picked it up, read a couple pages here and there, I did not see anything of value.

When the guy who wrote the introduction openly says that much of it is wrong, much of it is worthless, and the author doesn’t show any work that has been created using the principles in the book, I’m sorry, it’s fraudent. And then using a well respected bonsai artists trees to IMPLY that those trees were developed using those techniques...

AND, this book is supppsed to be “exposing the bonsai myths”!!!

Sorry...

BUSTED!!!

 

[Walter Pall]

I see that it is necessary to come back to my evaluation because it is by now skewed to fit the agenda of a few. It has become fake truth by now.

I can endorse about 50 % of the content, 30 % is somehow my opinion, somehow not. 20 % I do not really see that way. For those who are not in academia:
This is a HIGH level of peer agreement.

 

[rockm]

I see that it is necessary to come back to my evaluation because it is by now skewed to fit the agenda of a few. It has become fake truth by now.

I can endorse about 50 % of the content, 30 % is somehow my opinion, somehow not. 20 % I do not really see that way. For those who are not in academia:
This is a HIGH level of peer agreement.

So about 80 percent of the book is in the ballpark?