The Organic Think Tank

[toohighmf]

NFT isn't mediumless. I use a lil block of spun gypsum cotton candy.

I can actually see certain teas working in NFT. I do use vermicrop & molasses in my res. I bet I could grow a pretty decent crop just using teas NFT. I don't really want to expose myself to that much heavy metal, but I can at least see it working w substrates in certain recirculating systems.

 

[cannaboy]

NFT isn't mediumless. I use a lil block of spun gypsum cotton candy.

I can actually see certain teas working in NFT. I do use vermicrop & molasses in my res. I bet I could grow a pretty decent crop just using teas NFT. I don't really want to expose myself to that much heavy metal, but I can at least see it working w substrates in certain recirculating systems.

This is what AN don't want you to say or do but it works better if you dial it mate honest the only drawback is that lines clog and smell of SHIT! Other than that you win win win!! no different than anyones first run with pirana on drippers they went hard and shattered! But that is 1 of the top selling and most rated products,

If dope were legal or if it were any good I suppose we could buy hemp grow blocks like rockwool but jiffy 7's are probably better,,

 

[toohighmf]

Piranha=SHITE. whats w the Amoniacal N pellets in it these days? 10-0-0? sorry not looking for any more N in my plant's diet.

 

[cannaboy]

I think in the cannabible jason king says all the growers/most had done a seperate hydro /organic of the same dope and all except "CHEM" did better organicly, some were grown outdoors too most in the USA, so how can so many people be wrong!! And It clearly isn't set in stone with genetics what happens when 2 ibl's get crossed indoors on hydro,, The seeds don't sell or germinate well genetic drift can be apparent because you don't know that 1 recepter or more is blocked by chemicles reacting with a alle gene recepters at 1 or more loci they get grown outdoors in earth and do fine the seeds need soil..

 

[Lazyman]

so this is me publicly apologizing for calling you out and claiming you are wrong lazyman (before i was being sarcastic)

I am sorry - sir

Ok sorry I missed the sarcasm, and I'm sorry if I similarly raised your ire.

you have posted well-documented resources and the point that hydro has extraordinary yields is difficult to escape

That was the main point I was trying to demonstrate, quality can be debated endlessly, but I didn't think there was much room for argument on the yield/water use thing.

my point has always been that, when you consider energy input, that superiority is diminished
and, that there are numerous studies on all fronts (as RNDZL pointed out)

like RNDZL, i dont want to see this turn into a fury of arguing studies and credibility of sources

what's more, it strikes me as irresponsible to discount organics automatically. for me, the "proof" is common sense:
once i produce a crop for free (outdoors) using organics - it's hard to argue that anything with a cost factor is superior unless it produces a significantly superior product

I completely agree, and the most common thing I tell people is do what works best for you. I have tried and fought many systems, and though I did ok in the end, I felt like I got the same results with soil, and a lot less work. And like I said, soil has always worked best for me. I was trying to keep the debate indoors since there is not a lot of organic hydro done outdoors
(again if I'm wrong it's not intentional, please show me some!) so in my opinion this boiled down to more of an organic nutes vs chem nutes argument.

For bottled organics I've tried EJ, Floranova and Pura Vida, and for some reason they all did fine in veg, but in flower the performance was weaker and lacked in the resin production, even with the same strains in the same room vs chems. The plants always seemed to be starving for food, even at high application rates.

similarly, indoors, the cost is decreased significantly (as it's power -lights/fans only)

To be honest I consider nutes to be one of the cheapest parts of my grows, I'm on the big jugs of AN (I think 4 gallon?) and so far it looks like they will last me a year for about $400. I know that may seem like a lot in nutes to some, but for indoor it's pretty cheap IMHO.

i have no intention to argue anything to the benefit or detriment of bottled nutes "organic" or otherwise.

Aside from the organics above I've used 4 lines of chem nutes over the years, Canna, AN, GH, and DM, all are good, all gave pretty similar results. In the end I buy what worked best for me and was reasonable in cost (this axed Canna and DM) and my yields went from 1.2# per light to about 1.65 with AN.

and i believe i have proved for myself that the organics are superior in pro-mix (and isn't that hydro?)

This was something I wanted to discuss. By definition hydroponics means:

Hydroponics (From the Greek words hydro, water and ponos, labor) is a method of growing plants using mineral nutrient solutions, in water, without soil.

So, if you're applying food with the water, and not relying on medium-based foods, than you're growing hydroponically.

If you're mixing dry ferts into your medium and adding water than you're not growing hydroponically. Ok by you?

diversity is an issue here, unless we make some divisions, we are comparing oranges to apples.

as, aero/NFT to hand watered coco for instance

I'd call those both hydro as well, unless you're amending the medium with nutes it's hydro.

i do not have 20 years as a grower per se - but i do as a gardener and a fair chunk of that is gardening my favorite herb

actually, some would say i have been doing it hydro too - but i don't really see it that way

See above...

 

[RNDZL]

ok let me share a secret

AN's success, PBP's success?? pure marketing??

or did they bring organics to a synthetics market and fool many of you into running hybrid organic/synthetic systems because the components of many of the supplemental products are not marcro.micro nutrients but naturally occuring if not naturally derived beneficial micros, enzymes and aminos

 

[cannaboy]

This thread has gone wicked,, I knew soon as the enviromental heads got to it,, not all about chem & hrdro like it was the first day being best because lazy and toohighmf can make a proffit from it,,

I found some outdoor hydro,,

http://www.nagamorichtrinidadscorpionand7pot.com/2009_08_01_archive.html

I got loads more,,

http://www.gardeningabc.net/

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

PBP's success?? pure marketing??

or did they sneak synthetics into a organics market and fool many of you into running hybrid organic/synthetic systems, while thinking you were running organic? PBP = original Pure Blend plus Power Plant/Flower.

 

[RNDZL]

PBP's success?? pure marketing??

or did they sneak synthetics into a organics market and fool many of you into running hybrid organic/synthetic systems, while thinking you were running organic? PBP = original Pure Blend plus Power Plant/Flower.

LMAO, UNCLE, OK fair enough, when PBP came it was touted as an organic product.

FUCK MAN THATS OLDER THAN A GOOD AMOUNT OF MEMBERS !!

I dont think anyone here really considers it organic but ty i stand corrected

AN however I think is a fine example of the verbiage that followed

the point is that many people who run hydro and "synth" programs use supplementary products that have :hidden: ingredients such as bacteria, which are organically occurring in the natural world. How it is derived is a different story.

This is why aerated compost tea is so attractive, making ions and bacteria naturally active before its applied to the soil

 

[enter sandman]

When I think of organics growers I always get this visual of those two girls in the movie 'Without A Paddle' who lived up in that huge tree, never shaved & ate moss stew. The organic movement is hype my fellow cannabis lovers. Quit wasting money on expensive nutrients that are not any healthier than the $5 bag of miracle gro that I buy at home depot, which will last me 5 times longer. Watch the episode of 'Bullshit on Organics' for free on youtube...those guys really expose the bullshit on many subjects.

 

[RNDZL]

When I think of organics growers I always get this visual of those two girls in the movie 'Without A Paddle' who lived up in that huge tree, never shaved & ate moss stew. The organic movement is hype my fellow cannabis lovers. Quit wasting money on expensive nutrients that are not any healthier than the $5 bag of miracle gro that I buy at home depot, which will last me 5 times longer. Watch the episode of 'Bullshit on Organics' for free on youtube...those guys really expose the bullshit on many subjects.

yeah cause bacterial interactions in the rhizosphere are bullshit

the largest cannabis plants i can find are grown organically, tom hills outdoors is the reference

enjoy your irradiated miracle grow, unless its miracle grow organic

lol

 

[xmobotx]

Hydroponics (From the Greek words hydro, water and ponos, labor) is a method of growing plants using mineral nutrient solutions, in water, without soil.

So, if you're applying food with the water, and not relying on medium-based foods, than you're growing hydroponically.

If you're mixing dry ferts into your medium and adding water than you're not growing hydroponically. Ok by you?



I'd call those both hydro as well, unless you're amending the medium with nutes it's hydro

i cant remember where i read it but the indication was essentially that if you use a soil-less medium it's technically hydro

it sounds like that is close for what you've said

but essentially w/ pro-mix et al one would have to feed teas or nute mixes rather than dry nutes to be hydro then?

i guess that is where you get into the rube goldberg idea - because that distinction makes it so additional mechanisms may be required to sustain a living medium as bubblers or further circ w/ additional reservoirs -or advancing into aquaponics

fine

i still cant accept that the earth is not capable of sustaining this populace - arable land is wasted everywhere i look. some may not be suitable for mechanized processing

but such solutions would be more individual based than mechanization based

Sam Kinison was basically right with his routine where he said "we have deserts over here too. but, we don't live in them."

 

[toohighmf]

Not to defend AN in any way, but being an ex tech rep for 1 of the 2 US distributors, I can tell you for certain iguana juice & motherEath teas are organic ferts, as is a lot of their stuff. Obviously their mycs, bacteria, and microbials are organic. I wish when they made big bud, they left the riboflavin and mg in it and removed the actual salts! Unfortunately they did the exact opposite... And you think I'm in this out of pure greed! If I was as greedy as some think, wouldn't I just mix up my own Lucas formula from raw salts? I have the recipes. We all know mono potassium phosphate is koolbloom powder, monsterbloom, Moab, nitro, beastiebloomz, and so many other products. Marketing gets this $10/lb of salt $400 for a 5lb tub..

 

[RNDZL]

i think that the encumbrance definitions suck to be honest and I don't think science has perfected agriculture enough to allow them to call the shots

I think the hydro definition can start with inert medium and nutrient in the water but true hydroponics should be defined as growing a plant in a system that promotes water roots not air roots

there is a pretty marketed difference between water and air roots and i am sure there are rhizosphere differentials and this is where the root fo the hydro organics debate lies

 

[Clackamas Coot]

toohighmf

Is Mono-Potassium Phosphate the same chemical you mentioned, i.e. Potassium Phosphate by any chance?

CC

 

[xmobotx]

yeah, i continue to maintain that organics is not represented properly by bottled nutes claiming to be organic

as head pointed out

or did they sneak synthetics into a organics market and fool many of you into running hybrid organic/synthetic systems, while thinking you were running organic?

the results speak for themselves when one runs infusions

EWC tea
compost tea
alfalfa FPE
flower FPE

hand watered these present no issue
but w/ natural infusions of course you run into clogging emitters etc
and you would def have to aerate your res

i envision a system w/ a reservoir and a distribution tray rather than hoses and spray emitters

but even hoses w/ no emitters seem plausible

if one drained to waste, the system (mobile) could be used one year to prep soil for a conventional bed plot the next

 

[Lazyman]

i cant remember where i read it but the indication was essentially that if you use a soil-less medium it's technically hydro

it sounds like that is close for what you've said

but essentially w/ pro-mix et al one would have to feed teas or nute mixes rather than dry nutes to be hydro then?

i guess that is where you get into the rube goldberg idea - because that distinction makes it so additional mechanisms may be required to sustain a living medium as bubblers or further circ w/ additional reservoirs -or advancing into aquaponics

fine

i still cant accept that the earth is not capable of sustaining this populace - arable land is wasted everywhere i look. some may not be suitable for mechanized processing

but such solutions would be more individual based than mechanization based

Sam Kinison was basically right with his routine where he said "we have deserts over here too. but, we don't live in them."

Yep, if you're feeding just teas and whatnot into an inert medium, you're hydro. Whether you handwater, drip or flood it's hydro if that's also how you feed.

I think reservoirs are only a complication if you have a very small grow, as they take time to set up and maintain vs. the time saved by having that solution handy.

For larger grows, they save immense amounts of time mixing nutes in small batches. I wouldn't do grows without them, but they're an important part of automation and make watering/feeding with aerated/temp controlled/ph'ed/nutrient rich Reverse-osmosis water very easy:

 

[Lazyman]

By the way, here are some stats on arable land:

From http://one-simple-idea.com/Environment1.htm

The U.S. has 3.794 million square miles, of which 3.54 million square miles is land area (for a fast growing U.S. population of 300 million people as of the end of year 2006).
That is only 8.09 acres per person in the U.S.
However, only about a quarter of that is arable land.
That means there are only about 2.02 acres per person of arable land in the U.S.

However, consider that there is only 12 million square miles (7.68 billion acres) of arable land on the planet.
And, ignore for a moment that arable land is being lost at a rate of 38,610 square miles per year.
That is, lets assume no arable land is being lost for the next 33 years. Then . . .

In 2006, there was 1.15 acres of arable land per person, world-wide (i.e. 7.68 billion acres / 6.68 billion people).
By 2039, there may be only 0.59 acres of arable land per person, world-wide (i.e. 7.68 billion acres / 13 billion people).

However, arable land is being lost at the alarming rate of over 38,610 square miles (24.7 million acres) per year.
Therefore, by 2039, there may be only 0.53 acres of arable land per person, world-wide (i.e. 6.865 billion acres / 13 billion people).
At the current rate of loss of 38,610 square miles per year of arable land, and even if the population didn't grow any larger, ALL arable land could be lost in only 310 years (12 million square miles / 38,610 square miles per year)!

Now consider the following: the sea-level is rising due to rising temperatures and melting ice.
The island nation of Tuvalu is slowly being submerged. The people of Tavalu have requested permission to move to immigrate to New Zealand.
The islands in the Chesapeake Bay are being submerged.
Bangladesh's lowlands farmlands are being submerged and saltwater is seeping into fresh water systems.
NOTE: For about every foot rise in the sea-level, the inland flooding is about 100 feet. Many people live along coastlines all around the world.

Kinda scary, no?

 

[grapeman]

By the way, here are some stats on arable land:

From http://one-simple-idea.com/Environment1.htm

The U.S. has 3.794 million square miles, of which 3.54 million square miles is land area (for a fast growing U.S. population of 300 million people as of the end of year 2006).
That is only 8.09 acres per person in the U.S.
However, only about a quarter of that is arable land.
That means there are only about 2.02 acres per person of arable land in the U.S.

However, consider that there is only 12 million square miles (7.68 billion acres) of arable land on the planet.
And, ignore for a moment that arable land is being lost at a rate of 38,610 square miles per year.
That is, lets assume no arable land is being lost for the next 33 years. Then . . .

In 2006, there was 1.15 acres of arable land per person, world-wide (i.e. 7.68 billion acres / 6.68 billion people).
By 2039, there may be only 0.59 acres of arable land per person, world-wide (i.e. 7.68 billion acres / 13 billion people).

However, arable land is being lost at the alarming rate of over 38,610 square miles (24.7 million acres) per year.
Therefore, by 2039, there may be only 0.53 acres of arable land per person, world-wide (i.e. 6.865 billion acres / 13 billion people).
At the current rate of loss of 38,610 square miles per year of arable land, and even if the population didn't grow any larger, ALL arable land could be lost in only 310 years (12 million square miles / 38,610 square miles per year)!

Now consider the following: the sea-level is rising due to rising temperatures and melting ice.
The island nation of Tuvalu is slowly being submerged. The people of Tavalu have requested permission to move to immigrate to New Zealand.
The islands in the Chesapeake Bay are being submerged.
Bangladesh's lowlands farmlands are being submerged and saltwater is seeping into fresh water systems.
NOTE: For about every foot rise in the sea-level, the inland flooding is about 100 feet. Many people live along coastlines all around the world.

Kinda scary, no?

No not scary. We just happen to live in an era of instant communication, so the slow pace of evolution of the planet is now reported on a minute by minute pace on CNN. During previous ice ages, warming periods, plagues, meteor strikes et al, people died. We all live on a rock orbiting a star in the middle of a galaxy that we constantly and incorrectly think we can control. Without all this hand wringing over very long term evolutionary changes with our shortsighted and short term thinking, we'd all be better off.

 

[toohighmf]

toohighmf

Is Mono-Potassium Phosphate the same chemical you mentioned, i.e. Potassium Phosphate by any chance?

CC

for the most part yes. There is a few forms of potassium phosphate, but mono is 2-54-32 or something really close.