Our Place Is Your Place for the Best in Boquete
BORON, ESSENTIAL FOR YOU AND YOUR GARDEN
Do you have plants that just sit there and do not grow? Do you have tasteless fruit? I did too. I literally tried everything that I could think of to “feed” my plants. For example, my pink plumeria just would not grow, there would be three leaves at the end of each branch, but no more. My figs produced well, but the fruit was tasteless.
When I moved to Palmira Abajo, the soil was a horrible clay, caliche. I went on a relentless mission of building good soil with biochar, mulch, cover crops, manure. We sprayed milk, molasses and compost teas of all kinds. I planted all kinds of nitrogen fixing legumes, such as, tithonia, guandu (also called pigeon pea), balo, pinto beans, black eyed peas, black beans, navy beans, and other “fertilizer” plants. When I had the soil tested, the results indicated that my soil project was very successful, but I still had some plants that did not thrive.
Then, I developed hurting knees. I tried out Bob Gregory’s liquid boron and within just over a month, the pain diminished and then shortly disappeared. I was thrilled at such an inexpensive remedy, but my organic garden produce should have provided the best of nutrition. I went to Superiores and bought their boron and molybdenum foliar spray and directed my chief gardener to spray it weekly on all food plants, bushes and trees. To my amazement my pink plumeria (which was growing in the sweet potato patch) began to add leaves and grow! It had just stayed as it was when I bought it in 2014. (We moved it from one location thinking that it needed more sun.).
I had planted two fig trees about ten feet apart. One grew well, but the other just stayed the same size. We dug up the tree that was not growing and replaced the soil around it with the best black soil that we had. It died anyway. The one that grew produced lots of figs, but they were tasteless. We sprayed the figs well as the blackberries, with lots of milk and molasses, with no improvement in the sweetness.
Then I began to research boron for plants. It is essential for transporting nutrients efficiently to the areas where new plant cells are produced. If it is missing, then the plant cannot grow much.
Chemical fertilizers tend to leach boron from the soil. They take the air from the soil which is essential for soil microbes, and without the microbes to convert soil nutrients into usable versions for the plants, deficiencies evolve.
Areas where there is a wet and a dry season also tend to have low boron. During the dry season, many plants die and fall to the ground. When the rains begin again, the nutrients in the decaying plants are released within 48 hours after the first heavy rain, according to Hugh Lovel, an internationally recognized soil expert. Then the next heavy rain washes these essential nutrients away.
Swales, terraces and ground cover function to keep water on the land as long as possible to conserve the micronutrients which are necessary for soil microbe habitats and other small life forms that till the soil.
Boron can be bought as a foliar spray at the Superiores agricultural store next to the last service station going out of town. Their product also includes molybdenum, which is another essential plant micronutrient.
According to gardeningknowhow.com, “Even as a trace mineral, molybdenum for plant growth is an essential element. In the absence of enough of the mineral, leaves turn pale and eventually die, flowers fail to form and some plant species experience malformed leaf blades in a condition called whiptail.” They also advise that using it as a foliar spray is ideal because it delivers the nutrient to the plant without excessive absorption into the soil. Thus, the combination of boron and molybdenum is a very sensible.
Both boron and molybdenum are natural elements. Boron is extracted from boric acid and molybdenum is also mined from the soil.
Please let me know if this information has helped you. As I grow in my plant knowledge, I will share more with you, that is, if you would like to receive it.
And thank you, Bob Gregory, for educating me about boron.
Betty has more agricultural experience in this area, but I'll take a shot at answering your question.
Pesticides and Herbicides have little or nothing to do the the amount of boron in the soil or one's body. Boron is a natural element that occurs in soils to greater or lesser degrees in different parts of the world. Here we have up to 200 inches of rain per year, and that tends to leach the boron out of the soil. Plants are grown year after year in the same fields, and that tends to deplete the boron. Farms here use a lot of fertilizer. Plants use a wide range of trace minerals in the soil, but regular fertilizers only replace three minerals. At the same time the minerals in fertilizer cause depletion of boron in the soil. So boron is in a losing fight against a triple threat. Consequently, people here do not have enough boron in their diets.
Bob...I’m sure you’re aware of the prevalence of “whattaboutism”. None of what you have quoted has any bearing on the fact that most alternative therapies not embraced by the scientific and medical community are just snake oil. For anyone reading this thread please look at “Quackwatch” to see if any of the therapies are mentioned and you should also question why a particular therapy/treatment may not be available or recommended at a (real) doctors office or hospital. Remember there are two options....either your doctor is involved in a global conspiracy or those treatments and therapies are of dubious or no value. You may also ask yourself why many alternative therapies are now being removed from coverage in countries with socialized healthcare. After all, if they work they would save those countries large amounts of money from their healthcare systems. Again...two answers...massive global conspiracies or scientific evidence points to little to no benefit. Use Occam's Razor....it’s quite sharp and often correct.
First, it may we worthwhile to realize that professors and chemists are no more omniscient than the rest of us. When you are exposed to new information, it is worthwhile to investigate it instead of just rejecting it.
Worshiping at the altar of scientific papers can sometimes lead you in the wrong direction. See the following early paragraphs from an article:
In 2005, John Ioannidis, a professor of medicine at Stanford University, published a paper, “Why most published research findings are false,” mathematically showing that a huge number of published papers must be incorrect. He also looked at a number of well-regarded medical research findings, and found that, of 34 that had been retested, 41% had been contradicted or found to be significantly exaggerated.
Since then, researchers in several scientific areas have consistently struggled to reproduce major results of prominent studies. By some estimates, at least 51%—and as much as 89%—of published papers are based on studies and experiments showing results that cannot be reproduced.
Researchers have recreated prominent studies from several scientific fields and come up with wildly different results. And psychology has become something of a poster child for the “reproducibility crisis” since Brian Nosek, a psychology professor at the University of Virginia, coordinated a Reproducibility Initiative project to repeat 100 psychological experiments, and could only successfully replicate 40%.
Here is the lead paragraph from a Scientific American article:
False positives and exaggerated results in peer-reviewed scientific studies have reached epidemic proportions in recent years. The problem is rampant in economics, the social sciences and even the natural sciences, but it is particularly egregious in biomedicine. Many studies that claim some drug or treatment is beneficial have turned out not to be true. We need only look to conflicting findings about beta-carotene, vitamin E, hormone treatments, Vioxx and Avandia. Even when effects are genuine, their true magnitude is often smaller than originally claimed.
Here is a headline from Stanford News:
November 16, 2015
I could go on, but I think you see the point. Along this same line, you mentioned that doctors take an oath of “First do no harm.” but the numbers of known rogue doctors let you know that to some this is just a formality. All federal, state and local government officials swear to uphold the Constitution, but you see how what works out.
You wrote: “None of what you have quoted has any bearing on the fact that most alternative therapies not embraced by the scientific and medical community are just snake oil.” That may be true, but I have not been writing about Hadacol or Lydia Pinkham's Tonic for Women, nor indeed "most alternative therapies.” I wrote about colloidal silver, boron supplement, oxygen/ozone therapy, H2O2 therapy and made general mention of apple cider vinegar and intravenous Vitamin C therapy. I have sent information about the first four, including the abstract of a scientific paper about O2/O3 therapies. I claimed no “miracle drug” status for any of them, but I know that they work and in many cases work more effectively and more safely than conventional pharmaceuticals.
You mentioned that fluorides are naturally occurring in many water supplies, but you failed to note that the naturally occurring fluorides are calcium fluorides, while the fluorides added to water and toothpaste are sodium fluorides, specifically, fluorosilicic acid, sodium fluorosilicate, and sodium fluoride. Whereas calcium fluoride is considered “not dangerous,” the others are poisons. That accounts for the warnings on toothpaste that if more than the amount on the toothbrush is swallowed, one should quickly go the nearest poison control center. HERE is a link to an article about dangers of fluorides in water.
I have sent you information that chemotherapy DOES have a 97% failure rate. Did you read that? If you are diagnosed with cancer, will you use it? A lot of medical doctors (75%) will not.
I mentioned the existence of a grand conspiracy among the medical industry, pharmaceutical industry, FDA and elite moneyed interests but noted that it is too sprawling a subject to address here. But I did send specific examples of real, documented conspiracies. Another one that was not on the list was the multiple administrations of vaccines in southern Africa in which the vaccines contained sterilants to prevent reproduction by women who took the vaccinations. Bill Gates had a connection with that. His father was on the board of Planned Parenthood, a re-branded eugenics organization. Bill Gates is basically a Malthusian. 'Sounds a bit conspiratorial to me.
Be well. And, if that doesn't work out, don't discount some good alternative medicines with proven effectiveness.
We aren’t omniscient....but we have been trained to look at evidence presented to us with a critical eye. Most of what you have written is more or less copied verbatim from fringe alternative therapy and conspiracy sites discounted by the majority of scientists. I’ve worked in the pharmaceutical industry and I work in academia. I’ve actually seen first hand how there is no conspiracy that you’re describing. They aren’t always ethical but that’s a different matter. The science behind GMOs is strong and sturdy, the ethics of stopping farmers saving seeds and charging them more is murky and that’s the reason I don’t buy GMO foods if I can help it, not the science, the ethics. I would say there are more rogue alternative practitioners than there are rogue doctors since many of these alternative practitioners are dangerous charlatans promising worthless miracle cures to the most desperate among us in return for their money. I notice you don’t discuss any of this.
I've mentioned not all alternative therapies are bad but those that aren’t have really entered the mainstream and are embraced by medical professionals as they have been tested and proven. Beware of claims of miracle cures for multiple unassociated ailments by a single agent by the way. That’s usually a clue that you’re looking at a lie.
I realize I can’t change your mind most likely but I would ask you to look at Quackwatch and other sites like it that examine alternative therapies.
Bob, your statement about chemotherapy is dangerously erroneous. As I mentioned before, there are many different cancers, many different chemotherapies and many different results. Prostate cancer is nearly 100% curable when caught early, the same with some melanomas. Your information is simply incorrect. Would I take chemotherapy if thats what doctors suggested? Absolutely....because I know how it works and I know what the alternatives are. Be correctly informed. Knowledge is a powerful thing.
How would you account for the fact that surveys show that 75% of medical doctors would NOT use chemotherapy themselves? The irony is that many of these same doctors recommend chemotherapy to their patients (one of whom could possibly be you at some time).
There is highly credible evidence that for metastatic cancers chemotherapy has a 97% failure rate.
Three oncologists in Australia undertook a very thorough scientific study of the effectiveness of chemotherapy. They produced a scientific paper that contains this summary statement: "Basically, the authors found that the contribution of chemotherapy to 5-year survival in adults was 2.3 percent in Australia, and 2.1 percent in the USA. They emphasize that, for reasons explained in detail in the study, these figures "should be regarded as the upper limit of effectiveness. (i.e., they are an optimistic rather than a pessimistic estimate)." Do you think those three oncologists were "dangerously erroneous also?
You should drink less Kool-Aid.
Many years ago a highly experienced veterinarian, naturopathic doctor and expert on nutrition undertook an informal study by studying government mortality statistics and several years of obituaries of MD's in the Journal of the American Medical Association. He found that, on average, US doctors die at earlier ages than the general population. He related this to the average doctor's ignorance of nutrition and titled his findings, "Dead Doctors Don't Lie." The old dude was onto something.
A high percentage of doctors settle into their niches, practice what they have learned from other doctors, read their JAMA medical journals of choice, with lots of pharmaceutical company ads, and never have it cross their minds to investigate alternative treatments (except maybe off-label prescriptions for pharmaceuticals). Typically, they overprescribe antibiotics, even giving them for viral infections. They lean toward newer, trendy drugs and accommodate people who ask for drugs they have seen advertised on TV.
I have mild high blood pressure, and several years ago my doctor gave me a prescription for something new. I had the prescription filled and then sat down to do some reading about the new drug. I called my doctor and asked him if there were not something simpler I could use. He said yes and prescribed an old, reliable diuretic. The drug I turned down was Viox, which ended with a lot of dead people and a multi-billion dollar lawsuit against the manufacturer. Viox passed clinical trials and FDA approval, but I would probably be long since dead if I had not personally looked into it. My doctor was a very nice guy and fortunately worked with me collegially. But when it came to Viox, he dropped the ball. Quite a few hundreds of doctors did that.
If you do not look at the negatives of the mainstream procedures and also at the full spectrum of the alternatives, you do not have all the information you need to decide.
Let's see, John, most of what I have written was from my own little head (the parts in bold font). I have cited: Otto Warburg, winner of a Nobel prize for cancer research; two experienced MD's who are personal friends; reports of pharmaceutical companies and others in illegal/immoral acts; Stanford University professors and Scientific American. Where are the "fringe alternative therapy and conspiracy" sites?
You have essentially only stated your personal opinions ex cathedra without actually citing anything except Quackwatch. I have been careful to cite multiple facts to refute much of what you have said.
We have laid our out cases in the .ning court of public opinion. I suppose we should just leave it there.
Sure..with a couple of caveats. The therapies you discuss have not been embraced by the wider medical community and are most often practiced by independant practitioners as I have mentioned (for often quite considerable sums of money). That’s not an opinion, that’s a cold hard fact and it’s the most important one here. Your quoted articles are the same quoted articles from proponents who conveniently ignore what I just stated and it’s a common theme with these arguments to encounter a wall of pseudoscientific information. Your information about chemotherapy is demonstrably incorrect as you fail to understand the difference between different cancers and the different stages at which cancers develop and can be treated (as I pointed out). Further, chemotherapy is quite a broad term and doesn’t always mean the same thing. It used to be that chemotherapy was the administration of a broadly acting toxin and the hope was the cancerous cells would die quicker than healthy cells. Chemotherapy treatment these days can be much more targeted.
Now, should we trust medical professionals with considerable training or individuals with little to no training but a few “against the grain” internet trawled articles to treat us for what can be life threatening illnesses? Several countries have already decided not to fund unproven treatments like these (fact). Why?
Again...the answer to why in each case is easy to see. The argument against involves fantastic conspiracies.
Yes indeed. Let’s leave this in the public forum for others to decide. It’s why I started writing these responses in the first place. Sometimes it’s exceedingly dangerous to trust fantastic unproven claims of alternative therapies. Occasionally it may not matter.