[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: PyroClay3
Bob Dixon posted the "contents" of PyroClay3, and asked the following:
>Wow!! Is that complete or what?
Can you spell "B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T", Bob? According to my calculator, 98.3% of
that material is accounted for in the elements listed by %. The remaining
0.7% accounts for the multitude of other things present.
I realize that anything marketed as a "trace element" mix might have a
binder or a filler as part of it's volume but Silica is NOT a trace element
of much concern to anybody unless they are growing Corn or perhaps Bamboo,
both of which encorporate silica into their cellular structure. Most aquatic
plants (the ones we are concerned with) would consider Silicon as a minor
trace element, if they consider it at all. It is certainly not required at
59.6% (of course, no one claims that ALL of that Silicate is bio-available,
which is more to the point). Aluminium (22.9%) is NOT required by plants,
nor is Titanium (o.5%), nor is a whole host of other elements listed in the
analysis you provided.
Go to Steve Pushak's website and follow the plant nutrition links - you will
soon discover what IS needed by plants. Base your purchase decisions on
that, not on some company's overinflated claims. Most of what is listed
could quite conceivably be present as contaminants, not as intentional
components, of a poorly made mix.
Regulation of contents is an "iffy" proposition at best - in this case, it
sounds like they are listing everything even though it has nothing to do
with the issue of plant nutrition (or availability).
It would seem to me that somebody thinks there are an awful lot of stupid
(or easily impressed) consumers out there.
James Purchase
Toronto
(not easily impressed)