Mirai new nutrition concepts

[Sixty’s]

Do you know what they actually mean with 'carbon'? They mention this a bunch of time, also on some podcast. But they never say what they mean. To me as a partial organic chemist, like all of chemistry I know well is carbon-based.
Though this as a solution to 'high salts' doesn't make too much sense. You'd think that rain or RO water would be the solution there.

Anyway, I see a bunch of people aren't so happy that Ryan is promoting this company. That's a bit strange to me as testing your soil or well water is perfectly normal for any farmer.

To my knowledge carbon in reference to nutrients has two meaning, Doc (dissolved organic carbon) and N-Doc (dissolved inorganic carbon). N-Doc as a nutrient will be mainly Co2, without having seen the video I believe they using carbon to reference Doc or dissolved organic carbon that is usually used in the form of carbohydrates (long chain polymer) in farming ex. Molasses.
This long chain polymers usually don’t have any direct affect to the tree although indirectly they will increase the beneficial bacteria in the soil aiding the delivery of Nitrogen and phosphorus and other nutrients to the tree via bacteria.

 

[chansen]

Ok, well this is news to me. I did not know that Mirai was selling this as a product at this point.

I’m very aware of what fertilizer is. I also understand that having to use less is a good thing. Using less pest control chemicals is also very good. Using less of something is inherently more sustainable, that’s practically the definition of the concept. One other thing I understand is that the majority of both fertilizer and pest control chemicals flow right through your pots and onto the ground considering the soil types we use. There are ramifications to that spillage even if they are small, but again, in matters of scale like big gardens/collections this all matters more. I’m sure you’re aware that fertilizer run off in the environment is not a good thing. Both the environment and the bottom line of the person who may use far less chemicals are better off if Mirai’s claims are on target.

Late to the discussion because I'm not here as often as I used to be, but I have a very good bonsai friend that's used Apical - he did not pay Mirai anything. I have no idea if there's any financial relationship between Apical and Mirai, and I don't really care. Mirai was working with Apical for a couple years before Ryan made all of this public. Seems to me more like an endorsement of a good product. If he gets some sort of commission, doesn't change the results.

What I have observed - my friend had a very sick mugo pine that has bounced back almost immediately. He was shocked with the results (for context, he has been a bonsai artist for a 2-3 decades, has won at major US shows, etc. so his trees are high end and from my perspective he knows what he's doing). He and I are both tracking the data and recognize that some results take time to appear. Yes, Apical was very expensive and definitely not for everyone, but he's getting really good results from everything he's done so far. There were other trees that have also made marked improvements, but some results we won't see until next year when the deciduous trees wake up.

 

[The Barber]

I am still pretty new to bonsai. Just curious if bone meal would improve on the phosphorus and calcium deficiencies of the plants, it is readily available and affordable. Didn't read through the entire thead...yet.

 

[Kanorin]

I am still pretty new to bonsai. Just curious if bone meal would improve on the phosphorus and calcium deficiencies of the plants, it is readily available and affordable. Didn't read through the entire thead...yet.

I’ve been wondering the same thing.

 

[Glaucus]

I am still pretty new to bonsai. Just curious if bone meal would improve on the phosphorus and calcium deficiencies of the plants, it is readily available and affordable. Didn't read through the entire thead...yet.

It would, assuming you have a deficiency in both or either. It may also give you too high levels of either. Phosphate toxicity is a thing. And if you have an actual deficiency in something else, adding too much of the thing you don't need could make the deficiency worse through competition.

Apparently, calcium is one of the hardest thing for plants to take up. Because there is no active transport for it and because both potassium and magnesium directly compete with it, and are usually present in higher levels.
Which is why in the Mirai nutrition video they made a big point of having a higher ratio of calcium to potassium. So the calcium would in practice not be an issue. But too much phosphorus can definitely be one.
In soil, potassium buildup over time is a thing, because it does not flush away as much. Nitrogen for example will both disappear chemically or be washed away by water. I am not sure how in bonsai substrate phosphate buildup can be an issue.
I vaguely remember that in the Mirai video, they actually had phosphate buildup? Is this actually correct, if anyone remembers?

Bone meal by itself is a highly imbalanced fertilizer. So you'd have to be aware of that. It is somewhat cheap, though. You'd use bone meal in the mix with other fertilizers to set the phosphorus level at the correct level. Most other animal-waste fertilizers are mostly nitrogen, like feather meal or blood meal.
You would also require a pH below 7 for bacteria to be able to release the phosphorus from the phosphate minerals in the bone dust.

To my knowledge carbon in reference to nutrients has two meaning, Doc (dissolved organic carbon) and N-Doc (dissolved inorganic carbon). N-Doc as a nutrient will be mainly Co2, without having seen the video I believe they using carbon to reference Doc or dissolved organic carbon that is usually used in the form of carbohydrates (long chain polymer) in farming ex. Molasses.
This long chain polymers usually don’t have any direct affect to the tree although indirectly they will increase the beneficial bacteria in the soil aiding the delivery of Nitrogen and phosphorus and other nutrients to the tree via bacteria.

They would really need to clarify. Calling CO2 'carbon' is quite odd. The only accurate thing would be charcoal. Because sugars are not carbon. Neither are amino acids or any other organic molecules. Carbon is kinda chemically resistant.
So then it is really a physical chemistry thing which I believe was discussed here and in the other biochar thread.

Having a living soil / healthy microbiome while growing a bonsai in substrate is a big question mark to me. Those people that do farming and claim to have very good soils in terms of microbiomes, they don't achieve that by throwing molasses in their soil. They do so by keeping the soil going by having plants grow in them permanently. Because the more roots they have in the soil, the healthier the microbiome becomes. And once you remove the plants/crops, and you leave it bare or you till it, they argue you are killing your microbiome. So you keep using cover crops. Just throwing molasses or even organic fertilizer on bare soil to 'feed the microbes' would not give you the right microbes. The ones you want are the ones that live in symbioses with the plants. You want fungi and bacteria that are fed by the plants through root exudates. For sure you can grow a ton of microbe biomass on things like molasses, manure, blood meal, etc. But what's the point?

When you learn about this farming approach and you try to translate it to bonsai in substrate, there's a lot to wonder about. Does it mean you want some fast-growing like spring oats to sit next to your bonsai? Besides mosses, I have not seen anyone attempt this.

 

[The Barber]

Bone meal by itself is a highly imbalanced fertilizer. So you'd have to be aware of that. It is somewhat cheap, though. You'd use bone meal in the mix with other fertilizers to set the phosphorus level at the correct level. Most other animal-waste fertilizers are mostly nitrogen, like feather meal or blood meal.
.

Yeah, I just figured perhaps it would work well as a supplement to fertilizer to change the ratio.

 

[Sixty’s]

They would really need to clarify. Calling CO2 'carbon' is quite odd. The only accurate thing would be charcoal. Because sugars are not carbon. Neither are amino acids or any other organic molecules. Carbon is kinda chemically resistant.
So then it is really a physical chemistry thing which I believe was discussed here and in the other biochar thread.

I would have to disagree, Co2 or Carbon dioxide, gas naturally produced by animals during respiration and through decay of biomass, and used by plants during photosynthesis. Although it only constitutes 0.04 percent of the atmosphere

Having a living soil / healthy microbiome while growing a bonsai in substrate is a big question mark to me. Those people that do farming and claim to have very good soils in terms of microbiomes, they don't achieve that by throwing molasses in their soil. They do so by keeping the soil going by having plants grow in them permanently. Because the more roots they have in the soil, the healthier the microbiome becomes. And once you remove the plants/crops, and you leave it bare or you till it, they argue you are killing your microbiome. So you keep using cover crops. Just throwing molasses or even organic fertilizer on bare soil to 'feed the microbes' would not give you the right microbes. The ones you want are the ones that live in symbioses with the plants. You want fungi and bacteria that are fed by the plants through root exudates. For sure you can grow a ton of microbe biomass on things like molasses, manure, blood meal, etc. But what's the point?

Most of the microbes and fungi that lives in symbiotic relationship with plants are heterotrophic, studies have shown that crops were organic carbon was used have a increased yield due to the promotion of healthy microbes reducing the need for inorganic nutrients.

When you learn about this farming approach and you try to translate it to bonsai in substrate, there's a lot to wonder about. Does it mean you want some fast-growing like spring oats to sit next to your bonsai? Besides mosses, I have not seen anyone attempt this.

It’s extensively used in farming and many bonsai products have organic carbon in their fertilisers for the same purpose.



In addition if you look at mycelium for example it creates a symbiotic relationship with a tree to exchange nutrients, the tree gives the fungus carbohydrates ( organic carbon) in exchange of nutrients like phosphorus, nitrogen etc…

 

[Bonsai Nut]

When you learn about this farming approach and you try to translate it to bonsai in substrate, there's a lot to wonder about. Does it mean you want some fast-growing like spring oats to sit next to your bonsai? Besides mosses, I have not seen anyone attempt this.

Yes, and you can't have any discussion about minerals/nutrients without a corresponding discussion of your water. What works for Ryan/Mirai in an area with acidic water and abundant rainfall would likely not work in Southern California with minimal rainfall and alkaline irrigation water.

I often refer to this chart, which helps to illustrate how uptake of certain elements is pH limited. You can have iron rich soil, but if your pH is too high, your plants can show signs of iron deficiency. In Southern California iron and manganese deficiency was a big deal - even in landscape trees (with irrigation water having 8.5 pH). Additionally, you can sometimes have calcium deficiency problems if your pH is too low OR too high.

 

[Glaucus]

I would have to disagree, Co2 or Carbon dioxide, gas naturally produced by animals during respiration and through decay of biomass, and used by plants during photosynthesis. Although it only constitutes 0.04 percent of the atmosphere

I don't know what you disagree with. You say you disagree, then explain high school level biology. I don't get it.

As for feeding a bare soil organic molecules to increase microbial life that then would be comparable to microbial life present in the case growing plants permanently on that piece of soil, I'd have to see the study.
To my understanding, the entire web of so many diverse microorganisms is so complex, that different situations will have to lead to different microbial populations.
Sure, many soil microbes that are known for forming strong and good symbiotic relationships with plants do not just die if there's no plants. They can probably live without plants. But it will just be very different.
So my basic understanding is that you want the roots of the plants to feed these microbes these organic molecules. And trying to add them yourself through fertilizer may be better than doing nothing, but probably marginally so.
I'd have to see the study to be convinced they would be comparable.

Similarly for using peptides in hydrophonics, I am not completely convinced yet.

 

[Sixty’s]

I don't know what you disagree with. You say you disagree, then explain high school level biology. I don't get it.

As for feeding a bare soil organic molecules to increase microbial life that then would be comparable to microbial life present in the case growing plants permanently on that piece of soil, I'd have to see the study.
To my understanding, the entire web of so many diverse microorganisms is so complex, that different situations will have to lead to different microbial populations.
Sure, many soil microbes that are known for forming strong and good symbiotic relationships with plants do not just die if there's no plants. They can probably live without plants. But it will just be very different.
So my basic understanding is that you want the roots of the plants to feed these microbes these organic molecules. And trying to add them yourself through fertilizer may be better than doing nothing, but probably marginally so.
I'd have to see the study to be convinced they would be comparable.

Similarly for using peptides in hydrophonics, I am not completely convinced yet.

The use of organic carbon is fairly clever imo, it’s not just a way to increase symbiosis it’s a natural way to transform inorganic nutrients into organic nutrients and to store them for longer near the plants, as some may know the most of the inorganic fertiliser that are commonly used are washed away by rainfall and watering the plants, by implementing organic carbon that usually is the limiting nutrients in heterotrophic bacteria we can increase the population of certain beneficial microbes that will assimilate nitrates and phosphates into their biomass and release it as they perish in the form of organic nitrogen and phosphorus that are more easily assimilate by plants due to not having to use less energy to convert those.

 

[Glaucus]

I believe you are misunderstanding things. Carbon aka charcoal is different from organic matter in the soil (straw/peat/humus/compost). And that once again is different from small organic molecules, containing carbon, like sugars or peptides.
I did a search once more with some different keywords and I could only find a paper where they fertilized citrus trees with sucrose and actually found lower N and chloroplast concentrations in the plant tissue, and a reduction if microbial biodiversity (Morrow et al 2019).

You can't use that what you think would happen is logical. For one, sugars will wash away quicker through rain than charged ion minerals. They are more soluble and have no charge. Additionally, the microbes that grow on your soil sugar are not necessarily beneficial microbes. And all those microbes use their own nitrogen and phosphorus. Yes, their population will grow, peak, and then die out. And N, P and K will then be present in larger molecules that are not immediately bio-available.
I do not think it is true at all that plants can more easily take up these small organic molecules. A potassium ion should be easier to take up than potassium present in some peptide containing lysine that's part of bacterial lysate.

Besides sugars or other forms of organic carbon, there is this good paper on orgnaic sources of nitrogen: Farzadfar, Soudeh, J. Diane Knight, and Kate A. Congreves. "Soil organic nitrogen: an overlooked but potentially significant contribution to crop nutrition." Plant and Soil 462 (2021): 7-23.
But that's just too much for me to read right now. So it seems that if anything, providing peptides or amino acids would be something that would work. But this research is work in progress, and part has to do with the fact that it is not very economical currently.

 

[Leo in N E Illinois]

Yeah, I was going to include a 'ask your friends this question for me' or something, haha.

But I can answer why acidophile fertilizers are high in ammonia. When a plant takes up nitrate NO3-, it is taking up a negative charge. Now, a charge potential can exist across cell membranes (for example, outside the cell can have more positive ions and inside it is more negative. This is how our neurons work, for example. But in general, the plant wants to keep things neutral in both side. So taking up a negative ion, it also has to expel a negative ion. This means a plant ends up expelling HCO3- or even OH-. But when a plant takes up a ammonia NH4+, it often returns a H+ back to the soil. So by taking up ammonia, a plant acidifies the soil. Which is why this blueberry formulation has only ammonia.
I know from the literature for rhododendron that if only nitrate fertilizer is added, chlorosis/an iron deficiency can occur. But by adding in ammonia or even supplying extra Fe2+, this can be resolved.

With fertilizer it is always important to realize that you aren't feeding the plant. You are adding minerals back to the soil. And potentially with organic fertilizer, you are feeding the microbes in the soil.

Btw, that fertilizer label raises another question that I have about calcium. It is very rare to see calcium added to a fertilizer. But the magnesium is there. This is a bit odd, because research suggests there should be more calcium than magnesium.
It may connect to the fact that most soils have plenty of calcium carbonate minerals. But then the same ought to be true for magnesium, kinda.

Makes me wonder if fertilizing or fertigating with say calcium nitrate for bonsai in substrate is usually a good thing to do, especially in spring and especially if you want elongated growth. The calcium is one of the hardest things for the plant to take up and the nitrate can do no damage, is easily taken up, and easily flushed back out again.

That specific "Blueberry Formula" fertilizer was formulated for sandy southwest Michigan soils with a Calcium content around 186 ppm and typical irrigation water calcium content around 225 ppm as calcium carbonate. It was a formulation for that specific blueberry growing region. Blueberries, genus Vaccinium need a more acidic soil than most Rhododendron, preferring a pH of 5,0 to 5,8 and with a preference for about 5.5 or there about. It was not formulated for bonsai or house plant use, I simply repurposed it, as I had several hundred pounds left when I sold the blueberry farm. I'm now down to just a couple pounds left. As I said, these days I prefer Fish Lysate and seaweed extracts.

 

[R0b]

Also late to the party and a Mirai subscriber.

What bugs me about the apical story is Ryan linking it to exces salts drawing in insects as the are drawn by the salt. I have never heard about that from any other source (degree and working in horticulture). I might be wrong and have missed something but it sound like BS to me.

About the testing it makes sense in theory, my problem is that I am completely allergic to hypes and aggressive selling. Most of the times the actual effect falls short of what is promised (as others have mentioned there might be other limiting factors). My approach to growing plants is ensuring good growing conditions (medium, water, fertiliser, climate and so on). If my plants are not growing well usually it can be explained that can be detected visually or by touch (including during a repot).

The only way this can be proven is by setting up a proper experiment comparing a set of trees where as many variables as possible are eliminated and the only difference in treatment is the apical testing and fertiliser regime.

Ryan’s discussion on this topic have triggered me to looking into (available) Calcium and Silicate in fertiliser which are two of the more challenging nutrients to ensure sufficient uptake.

 

[Wires_Guy_wires]

Also late to the party and a Mirai subscriber.

What bugs me about the apical story is Ryan linking it to exces salts drawing in insects as the are drawn by the salt. I have never heard about that from any other source (degree and working in horticulture). I might be wrong and have missed something but it sound like BS to me.

About the testing it makes sense in theory, my problem is that I am completely allergic to hypes and aggressive selling. Most of the times the actual effect falls short of what is promised (as others have mentioned there might be other limiting factors). My approach to growing plants is ensuring good growing conditions (medium, water, fertiliser, climate and so on). If my plants are not growing well usually it can be explained that can be detected visually or by touch (including during a repot).

The only way this can be proven is by setting up a proper experiment comparing a set of trees where as many variables as possible are eliminated and the only difference in treatment is the apical testing and fertiliser regime.

Ryan’s discussion on this topic have triggered me to looking into (available) Calcium and Silicate in fertiliser which are two of the more challenging nutrients to ensure sufficient uptake.

High salt concentration -> reduced turgor and reduced cell wall pressure -> easy point of entry for insects.
High salt concentration in a disbalanced system -> weakened production of anti-insect compounds due to inability to find cofactors for enzymes (possibly crowded by other ions?).
I can think of a bunch of routes how this mechanism could work.

The thing is.. for some reason I have had zero insect issues for the past year and I haven't changed anything except increasing the amount of ammonia in my nutrient mix and adding a little sprinkle of charcoal on some plants.

 

[R0b]

High salt concentration in the cel (that is what Ryan talks about) should lead to an increased turgor due to higher osmotic potential. Weakened plants are definitely more susceptible and they can be weakened due salt imbalances but there are many other causes, but insects are not drawn to plants by salts in the plant that is what Ryan says.

 

[Wires_Guy_wires]

High salt concentration in the cel (that is what Ryan talks about) should lead to an increased turgor due to higher osmotic potential. Weakened plants are definitely more susceptible and they can be weakened due salt imbalances but there are many other causes, but insects are not drawn to plants by salts in the plant that is what Ryan says.

If it's high in the cell, it could also because it's in the medium, that's what I got out of it. But yeah, he also said that some of those probio carbon products did wonders and that composting was the f-ing best..
I take Ryan's talks with a bucket of salt nowadays. Never for factual even.
Because in multiple cases I found the opposite of what he preaches. Since you said you have a degree, I think you might have noticed in podcasts with scientists that Ryan mixes his scientific terminology as much as someone who's bluffing their way through a presentation. I think it's fair that not everyone is always on point, or even knowledgeable about a topic and there's no shame in that. Absolutely not. Trying to bluff and failing, oof, that bothers me. Like the insects being drawn by the salts.. Imagine what the sea would look like!

A plant in distress sends out signals, that we know for sure. And distress makes them more susceptible. Insects are evolved to look for those signals. That makes sense.

I think the take away of the whole apical nutrition concept is that "if you can't figure it out yourself why your plant isn't responding or growing, let them do it for you and it seems effective".
Thus far, I've been able to figure it out quite easily. Or the plant was cheaper to replace than to cure.

 

[Glaucus]

There is this theory that plants with high brix (high sugar, not salts) are resistant to insects. I never heard it about salts. And I assume plants regulate their salt concentrations.

 

[cmeg1]

Even if I had a $1,000,000 bonsai garden I do not see the efficacy of testing for mineral deficiency.
You can test for brix content and also get water tested and build a nutrient regimine custom for your water…..but this is definately a commercial thing for sure.

As far as nutrient deficiency…….it is much easier remidied with soluble salt fertilizers…….even if you are an organic bonsai gardener the nutrient deficiencies are best fixed instantly with salt fertilizers the mono ammonium nitrate? Ammonium type phospherous …….calcium/magnesium.
These are very quick acting.
I have been fine with the remedies on this page forever since switching to hydroponics……..it is a spoonfeeding approach and I wait till I actually notice the problem……..I also prepare ahed too.


The page below has always been fine. It’s usually just these three or four deficiencies. The only time I get toxic mineral disorders is if my plants get too cold during veg and I bump up the heat to 83° in like two hours……..they get metal ion toxicity if I do this to quickly.

RAW Recipe Book

npk-industries.com

 

[Scorpius]

This thread reminds me of people with saltwater reef tanks. There are two camps in this group.

1. The people who do weekly water changes or those who hardly do any. They test basic water parameters and ride out the parameter swings.

2. Those who send ICP water tests off to make sure Bromide, Tin, and Aluminum levels amongst many others are in their ppm to ppb correct levels. They have an entire medicine cabinet full of additives to correct for any minor error in water chemistry. Water changes are from the devil.


Both groups can have beautiful tanks, but one tends to enjoy the hobby more and stress less.

 

[Maiden69]

The page below has always been fine. It’s usually just these three or four deficiencies. The only time I get toxic mineral disorders is if my plants get too cold during veg and I bump up the heat to 83° in like two hours……..they get metal ion toxicity if I do this to quickly.

RAW Recipe Book

npk-industries.com

I will second this Curtis just posted. Ever since I started using RAW products I have notice that my trees grow better and healthier. This year has been stressful and I slacked on the nutrition of my trees and I can tell you that there was a noticeable decline in them. Not terrific as if they were dying, but they clearly didn't grow as well as the year before, and the fall color this year was not there as on last year.

Note that I don't follow it to a "T", but I incorporate the 5:2 humic+fulvic/kelp, CalMag, and Yucca into my fertilizer regimen. This year I plan on adding Silica and others, especially since I will be repotting/transplanting all the trees back into new bags or pots upon completion of the new home.