# Bacterial streaming



## Erythrone (Dec 19, 2014)

Anyone knows this test? Useful on the field for some crops. And it is cheap. Maybe it could be interesting to use it for diagnosing orchid problems. How many times we say "it could be a fungal or it could be a bacterial disease".


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYRQeOwDRkA


----------



## Ray (Dec 20, 2014)

That's a new one to me, but my brief reading this morning suggests that such streaming only occurs with bacterial infections, and not from other pathogens, chemical treatments, etc.

Now we have to determine if it's worth cutting up a plant when 85% of all plant pathogens are fungal...


Ray Barkalow
firstrays.com


----------



## gonewild (Dec 20, 2014)

Ray said:


> Now we have to determine if it's worth cutting up a plant when 85% of all plant pathogens are fungal...
> Ray Barkalow
> firstrays.com



Does that makes it 15% worth it?


----------



## Erythrone (Dec 20, 2014)

Thank you for your opinions .


About the need to cutting down the plant : I do not think we need a lot of tissue:

http://wiki.bugwood.org/Bacterial_streaming




gonewild said:


> Does that makes it 15% worth it?




I agree it is not always necessary to know if we must deal with bacteria or fungus. But sometimes, orchid growers must fight a lot against a strange disease. 3 years ago , I discovered a very bad disease on many plants. I did not know what it was and no one was sure if it was bacterial or fungal. I tried to fight both ... I used Cleary, cinnamon extract with alcohol, antiobiotics... And lost almost all the infested plants. If I was sure it was bacterial (due to diffusion ) fungal (no streaming) I would have used only stuff able to control the pathogen.


----------



## gonewild (Dec 20, 2014)

Erythrone said:


> I agree it is not always necessary to know if we must deal with bacteria or fungus. But sometimes, orchid growers must fight a lot against a strange disease. 3 years ago , I discovered a very bad disease on many plants. I did not know what it was and no one was sure if it was bacterial or fungal. I tried to fight both ... I used Cleary, cinnamon extract with alcohol, antiobiotics... And lost almost all the infested plants. If I was sure it was bacterial (due to diffusion ) fungal (no streaming) I would have used only stuff able to control the pathogen.



I do agree with you. I think even more important than determining if the disease is bacterial or fungal is to actually know if the problem is a disease or a symptom that we think is a disease. I am suspecting that at least some of the persistent and random bacterial infections may not actually be disease but rather cell death caused by chemical imbalance in the plant caused by nutritional imbalance. It would be great to be able to test at the first sign of an infection to know.


----------



## Erythrone (Dec 20, 2014)

gonewild said:


> I do agree with you. I think even more important than determining if the disease is bacterial or fungal is to actually know if the problem is a disease or a symptom that we think is a disease. I am suspecting that at least some of the persistent and random bacterial infections may not actually be disease but rather cell death caused by chemical imbalance in the plant caused by nutritional imbalance. It would be great to be able to test at the first sign of an infection to know.



Very interesting idea... !


----------



## TyroneGenade (Dec 20, 2014)

Bacteria grow much faster than fungi.

Get some agar plates, take samples and put them on the plates. Bacteria would show in a day while fungus would take several. As you are looking for internal pathogens, surface sterilization for 15 minutes in 3% H2O2 with some dishwashing detergent would be enough to kill surface pathogens but leave internal ones intact. Take the sterile piece, cut it in half on a sterile surface (wipe down the 3% H2O2) and then place the piece cut-side down on the agar. Bacteria will "creep" within 24 hours while fungi may take a week to explode out of the tissue.


----------



## Rick (Dec 21, 2014)

gonewild said:


> I do agree with you. I think even more important than determining if the disease is bacterial or fungal is to actually know if the problem is a disease or a symptom that we think is a disease. I am suspecting that at least some of the persistent and random bacterial infections may not actually be disease but rather cell death caused by chemical imbalance in the plant caused by nutritional imbalance. It would be great to be able to test at the first sign of an infection to know.



Or if bacterial and fungal pathogens were just opportunistically invading due to chemical/nutritional imbalance.

Plants do actually have a strong immune systems to fight infection on their own.

The pragmatic issue of what to do after affirming a bacteria or fungus is what to do about it. 

Seems like regardless of the cause, we just throw generic biocides at the problem because they are cheap and accessible. 

Are we willing to pay top $ for pinpointed antibiotics for bacterial infections when topical additions are a poor/ inefficient way of getting the drug into the plant.


----------



## Erythrone (Dec 21, 2014)

Rick said:


> Or if bacterial and fungal pathogens were just opportunistically invading due to chemical/nutritional imbalance.



Yes, I also think many diseases are on plants because something is wrong with the growing conditions. Could be chemical/nutritional imabalance...But maybe due also to temperature unsutable for the plant? And what about water, relative humidity? Stale conditions of the medium? 



Rick said:


> Are we willing to pay top $ for pinpointed antibiotics for bacterial infections when topical additions are a poor/ inefficient way of getting the drug into the plant.



Not me... but I won't use fongicides if I am sure it is a bacterial disease.


----------



## Rick (Dec 21, 2014)

Erythrone said:


> Yes, I also think many diseases are on plants because something is wrong with the growing conditions. Could be chemical/nutritional imabalance...But maybe due also to temperature unsutable for the plant? And what about water, relative humidity? Stale conditions of the medium?



Yup 

That's why the typical "cure" rate for topical application of anti fungal or bacterial "medications" is so low.

Basically just trying to put a band-aid on a deep systemic problem that's not being fixed in the meantime.

I've worked with pathogenic fungi (and virus for that matter) in a lot of different organisms (including humans). They are virtually indestructible without killing the patient. About the best you can do is low level control and find out the root cause of imbalance for why the organism can't develop it's own immunity to the problem.


----------



## Bjorn (Dec 21, 2014)

If you are interested in that topic, check up the relationship between Si and plants defense system.


----------



## Rick (Dec 21, 2014)

Bjorn said:


> If you are interested in that topic, check up the relationship between Si and plants defense system.



Yes or salicylic acid.


----------



## Bjorn (Dec 21, 2014)

No, salicylic acid and hydrogen peroxide acts as signal carriers in the immune response system, while Si is involved in synthesis of the defense chemicals. Plants with too low Si statis will have problems in producing the specific and nonspecific ferments used in the immune system. Sailsylic acid can trigger the defense system, but this cannot do much without silicon. Btw. Hydrogen peroxide has much of the same effect, but might be a bit more potent according to some unpublished data I have access to.


----------



## gonewild (Dec 21, 2014)

Bjorn said:


> Plants with too low Si statis will have problems in producing the specific and nonspecific ferments used in the immune system. .



OK if the silicon is too low the immune system is compromised. Let's for now assume that is true.
To date adding more silicon as a nutrient has not shown great results.
So my thought is that it is not the low quantity of silicon present causing a problem but rather a high amount of another element that antagonizes the Si and makes it appear to be in shortage.

Since increasing Si does not seem to have a definite effect then lowering the antagonizing element seems the logically step. 
We all know what the suspected bad element might be. :wink:


----------



## Rick (Dec 21, 2014)

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v444/n7117/full/nature05286.html

Looks like most of what chases disease invaders in plants is carbon based.

It doesn't seem to take a lot of Si to make huge carbon based molecules.




http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1016/j.femsle.2005.06.034/pdf

This one on silicon suggests that it may work as a signal like salicylic acid to get the plant to produce lots of enzymes and hormones.


----------



## gonewild (Dec 21, 2014)

Rick said:


> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v444/n7117/full/nature05286.html
> 
> Looks like most of what chases disease invaders in plants is carbon based.
> 
> It doesn't seem to take a lot of Si to make huge carbon based molecules.



I assume it does take a lot of carbon to make the huge carbon based molecules?

Low Carbon supply combined with excess nutrient elements may be the problem that opens a door to disease attack?

Even though people believe CO2 levels are a problem in the atmosphere it is real easy for CO2 to be depleted in a closed growing environment.


----------



## Rick (Dec 21, 2014)

Plants are 99% water and carbon products.

That 1% of inorganic ingredients is divided amongst N P K Ca Mg S Si and all the traces.

It only takes a tiny amount of these to ensure the plant runs, and they don't run the plant.


----------



## Stone (Dec 21, 2014)

gonewild said:


> > Since increasing Si does not seem to have a definite effect
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Bjorn (Dec 22, 2014)

Just to make it clear, the Si is not used as a constituent in anything, its main function is to assist in the production of such compounds. Its a bit like making a mould for casting, the mould is necessary, but it is not the product.
And even if plants normally wont die if Si is devoid, if you look at the ash fraction then that is to a big extent composed of Si. Which means that the plant take it up at extents that are similar to those of P, K and Ca. We all know that the amount of dissolved Si in nature is very low, but still the plants absorb it ? Just for fun?


----------



## Rick (Dec 22, 2014)

Bjorn said:


> Just to make it clear, the Si is not used as a constituent in anything, its main function is to assist in the production of such compounds. Its a bit like making a mould for casting, the mould is necessary, but it is not the product.
> And even if plants normally wont die if Si is devoid, if you look at the ash fraction then that is to a big extent composed of Si. Which means that the plant take it up at extents that are similar to those of P, K and Ca. We all know that the amount of dissolved Si in nature is very low, but still the plants absorb it ? Just for fun?



Sure they pick up Si. The amount seems to be variable with species, and very little data for orchids (grasses seem to pick up a lot).

Maybe the closest pertinent data I've come across is leaf litter data for Sumatra. Average Si was 8.04 mg/gr, which was higher than P (0.45)
K (2.47), Mg (1.56). But not higher than N (14.1) and Ca (14.02).

Aluminum and sulfur were also fairly high relative to NPK. Al(1.98) and S(1.66)

However still talking relatively (the ratio conundrum) high within a leaf (or discarded plant material). And still tiny compared to carbon. 

The amount needed of any of these is tiny compared to what we like to pile on, and there's a strong tendency to keep adding more and causing antagonisms rather than compensating for deficiencies.


----------



## Erythrone (Dec 22, 2014)

Stone said:


> gonewild said:
> 
> 
> > You should read more of the Si trials Lance.
> ...


----------



## Bjorn (Dec 22, 2014)

Si???


----------



## Rick (Dec 22, 2014)

Bjorn said:


> Si???



http://www.fnga.org/education-and-research/research/reports/75/finalreport.pdf

You might like this one Bjorn

looks like plenty of Si in organic media can translate into plants (including orchids) in container gardening methods

http://www.ajol.info/index.php/ajb/article/viewFile/95426/84767

Also here's a paper on optimizing the media for a bacteria that dissolves silicacious and carbonate rock. I noticed that urea inhibits this species, nitrate helps, and a form of salicylic acid helps too.

Other papers show this is one of many bacteria able to dissolve silicaceous materials (like the sponge rock and sand) popular in our potting mixes to transpose silica from potting mix to plants.

Do our high feed rates inhibit these beneficial bacteria from getting Si into our plants?


----------



## gonewild (Dec 22, 2014)

Erythrone said:


> Stone said:
> 
> 
> > Let me help you: Find the missing letter
> ...


----------



## gonewild (Dec 22, 2014)

Stone said:


> gonewild said:
> 
> 
> > You should read more of the Si trials Lance.
> ...


----------



## Erythrone (Dec 22, 2014)

gonewild said:


> Erythrone said:
> 
> 
> > YES! Khrag. plotzscheanum
> ...


----------



## Rick (Dec 22, 2014)

Erythrone said:


> gonewild said:
> 
> 
> > It sounds good!:rollhappy:
> ...


----------



## cnycharles (Dec 22, 2014)

Rick said:


> Erythrone said:
> 
> 
> > Klingon slippers:evil:
> ...


----------



## Bjorn (Dec 23, 2014)

Rick said:


> http://www.fnga.org/education-and-research/research/reports/75/finalreport.pdf
> 
> You might like this one Bjorn
> 
> ...


I have sen the first one before, the second is new to me. Silicon is normally present in well and also surface water, due to its low solubility it there at some 10-20ppm normally and gets absorbed by the plants. I have no doubt that my water being taken from the nature contains enough of it. But some of the highly processed waters some of you have to use are devoid of silicon, and deficiency, particularly in combination with overfeeding can be one reason for the relatively high mortality to rots seen in some collections.
I am still adding silicon to my water, just to be certain the plants get enough. Have been doing it for a year now. No big differences except for almost no plants getting rot and mortality is almost abscent.
One of the documented effects of silicon is its ability to moderate uptake of other nutrients. Aditional to that comes that enough silicon makes the plants tolerate stresses in a much better way. Typical are salt stress(fertilser) and drought. Heavy metals is another stress that silicon moderates.
When you Rick got so good results by mixing in some well water, that could well be due to introduction of silicon to your RO water.


----------



## Rick (Dec 23, 2014)

Bjorn said:


> When you Rick got so good results by mixing in some well water, that could well be due to introduction of silicon to your RO water.



I was thinking that too Bjorn, so I had Si run on my well water, and it was surprisingly low (I think <<1ppm).

I'll double check the report in case my memory is slipping.

For surface waters in the US I haven't been seeing very high values for soluble Si (typically 1-3 ppm max). But its not something we frequently look for.

I know of a few localities that seem to have very high values like you are suggesting. They grow diatoms real well.


----------



## Rick (Dec 23, 2014)

Bjorn said:


> I have sen the first one before, the second is new to me.



You might want to poke around more on the bacterialogy of Si release in soils. It certainly appears that's what they are eluding to in that first paper that shows how much Si is available in the media. 

That paper I linked looked like the tip of the iceberg in this area. It looks like the agri community is doing a lot of bio inoculation to use this group of bacteria to unlock K from feldspars that seem to have 99% of soil K locked up.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3730966/

In the meantime that produces a lot of soluble Si.

In the above paper they applied bacterial cultures to test fields of corn. Soil prep does not seem to be optimal compared to the bench experiments (they added N and Mg but no sugar or salicylic acid) but they did get increased P and K into the plants.

The biological process is very fast. Those figures show pretty massive population and enzymatic response in less than 24 hours.


----------



## ALToronto (Dec 23, 2014)

This reminds me of a research discovery a few years ago that took the concrete industry by storm. Some civil engineering students at Delft U in the Netherlands identified bacteria that recrystallized Si and Ca in cracks in concrete, thus making the material 'self-healing'. Turns out their idea wasn't all that far-fetched!

They didn't publish much about it - I think they were trying to make $$ from selling the bugs. They also weren't clear on how to feed them and control what they do.


----------



## Rick (Dec 23, 2014)

ALToronto said:


> This reminds me of a research discovery a few years ago that took the concrete industry by storm. Some civil engineering students at Delft U in the Netherlands identified bacteria that recrystallized Si and Ca in cracks in concrete, thus making the material 'self-healing'. Turns out their idea wasn't all that far-fetched!
> 
> They didn't publish much about it - I think they were trying to make $$ from selling the bugs. They also weren't clear on how to feed them and control what they do.



That's funny that in this case they were making solids instead of eroding them away.

I was worrying about the converse that these critters could eat up microchips and solar panels.:evil:

Bacillus subtilis is extremely common in the environment (it's actually more common in the human gut than in soil). So its not like these are rare scientific creations.


----------



## Rick (Dec 24, 2014)

Bjorn said:


> When you Rick got so good results by mixing in some well water, that could well be due to introduction of silicon to your RO water.



There's actually two parts to this question. One is amount, the other is history.

I've been adding well water back into RO on purpose for a couple of years before low K. I did notice some select improved growth , but no difference in disease prevention. Also my fogger system (misters before that) blow straight well water throughout the GH and that's been going on for almost as many years as I've been growing orchids. I know you've seen the white dust on my pics of plants, so you can get an idea of how pervasive that fog gets around in the GH.

Since I couldn't find the old water report, I remembered we just got in the HACH test for silicate testing this year. So ran a sample this morning. Got 13.1ppm SiO2.

So I doubt my plants have been Si limited over the years.:wink:


----------



## Bjorn (Dec 24, 2014)

You mean that they got it from the dust? Could be as there are some indications that foliar sprays may work, but generally SiO2 (this is what we speak of in this context) dissolves slowly. Another thing to notice is that only Si(OH)4 is taken up by the plants. Only the monomer. Once it starts to polymerise, and that happens within the plant, it will not be absorbed. Guess yor dust is mainly polmerised silica and this unavailabe for the plants......perhaps? 
Except fors that, 13ppm sound as a nice number for Si.


----------



## Rick (Dec 26, 2014)

Bjorn said:


> You mean that they got it from the dust?
> Except fors that, 13ppm sound as a nice number for Si.




The fogger/ex-mister system doesn't blow dry dust. It's fine water droplets (that dry out to dust).

Not sure how consistent that 13ppm is but it would do fine, even at 10% use.

Yet another source of silicates is pearlite (sponge rock) and charcoal that are in most peoples mixes. Still in a few of mine. Pearlite is mostly silicon dioxide, but with all that surface area just perfect for bacterial erosion in a potting matrix.

http://agritech.tnau.ac.in/org_farm/orgfarm_biofertilizertechnology.html

These bugs are everywhere!


----------



## Bjorn (Dec 26, 2014)

Difficult with silica and soluble silica. The solubility of silica is very dependent on its source and surface area of the source. Non crystalline silica with large surface area like diatomeous eart dissolve readily, while crystalline does not. Ash does dissolve silica easily, if it has not been overheated during firing, which is normally the case. Guess none is liberated from charcoal. Perlite, I do not know about that but would expect dusty perlite to contribute somewhat.


----------



## ALToronto (Dec 27, 2014)

Bjorn, what about crushed olivine (magnesium monosilicate)? Do you know if it can dissolve, even slightly?


----------



## Bjorn (Dec 28, 2014)

Unsure about it, but probably it may dissolve somewhat. What I do know however is that if milled finely enough it leaches MgO so that there is actually an industrial process where olivine is leached with hydrochloric acid to give magnesiumchloride. The remains is a porous silica skeleton, so how much of that which dissolves is unknown. But in principle, olivine should be a source of both Mg and Si. Mostly Mg though and it gives an alkaline reaction so watch out. pH gets 8-9 if olivine fines is mixed with water.


----------



## Rick (Dec 28, 2014)

Bjorn said:


> Difficult with silica and soluble silica. The solubility of silica is very dependent on its source and surface area of the source. Non crystalline silica with large surface area like diatomeous eart dissolve readily, while crystalline does not. Ash does dissolve silica easily, if it has not been overheated during firing, which is normally the case. Guess none is liberated from charcoal. Perlite, I do not know about that but would expect dusty perlite to contribute somewhat.



Only difficult if you don't believe in the power of bacteriaoke:


----------



## Bjorn (Dec 28, 2014)

Certanly, these silica dissolving bacteria might do wonders to your silicon status, but still.......personally I do not believe that silicon deficiency is widespread, but for some mixes combined with RO water and plenty mineral nutrition, things might get a bit.....lets call it excessive.


----------

