Chem. vs. Organic ferts discussion

[Butte_Creek]

Just so we're all on the same page. N (ammonium and nitrate) is the same soluble ions in both systems, but that is not the focus, it's how the NPK is produced and sometimes chelated in both systems that differentiates the two systems; one being derived from synthetic inorganic material(pollutants), and the other from organic material.

One reason I grow organic , to stay on topic.

Disco biscuit, I think were on the same page,

 

[mtbazz]

.

This is what I use ONLY and how I use it:

Jack's Classic 20-20-20 All Purpose 5 grams EVERY watering (or 10 grams every other watering) during flowering.

Jack's Blossom Booster 10-30-20 same as above.

Find YOUR Dealer HERE.

So what do you use during veg?

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

That is a common misconception.
Read my above post, and the link to microbe mans page.

Chem ferts and organic ferts do not provide the same thing, in a sense, chem nutes are most often derived from petroleum(or at least inorganic pollutants), as well as chelated often with more pollutants. organic fertilizer, if it's the real deal, should just be organic matter that is then consumed or produced into nutrients by the microbials.

Years back, the occasional (solvents = bad) threads appeared. More than a few were certain that iso was/is a health risk.

IMO, chemicals are only pollutants when they harm the environment. IMO, chemicals are only health risks when misused.

Like everything else, cow poop is pollution if it's misapplied. Organic botulism from plants and animals kills folks every year.

 

[Butte_Creek]

Disco biscuit- from a recent post of mine,

Chem fertilizers destroy/inhibit biota for a few reasons: residues from the synthetics they were derived from stick around in soil, chem nutrients are immediately available(soluble ionic) which gives nothing for the biology to feed off, because the plant is being fed immediately it begins to stop releasing exudates and foods for the biology; biology begins to fade away. And from long term use soil becomes toxic to biota.

So my response, basically, (outdoors) why would you use a system that when used correctly directly kills and inhibits any beneficial biology ?

Yes I agree anything can be abused and polluted.
But An organic system, used properly, should not have an environmental impact in a negative way.

 

[MadBuddhaAbuser]

.

This is what I use ONLY and how I use it:

Jack's Classic 20-20-20 All Purpose 5 grams EVERY watering (or 10 grams every other watering) during flowering.

Jack's Blossom Booster 10-30-20 same as above.

Find YOUR Dealer HERE.

this is so weird. I never heard of this stuff but my buddy needed a decent flowering fert ASAP. So we went down and found this lumped in with the organic stuff. we both think organic is the way to go, knew this wasn't but were satisfied with the good secondary nutrients it has as well. But it has been working great thus far, will let you know if it smokes any different.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Disco biscuit- from a recent post of mine,

Chem fertilizers destroy/inhibit biota for a few reasons: residues from the synthetics they were derived from stick around in soil, chem nutrients are immediately available(soluble ionic) which gives nothing for the biology to feed off, because the plant is being fed immediately it begins to stop releasing exudates and foods for the biology; biology begins to fade away. And from long term use soil becomes toxic to biota.

So my response, basically, (outdoors) why would you use a system that when used correctly directly kills and inhibits any beneficial biology ?

Yes I agree anything can be abused and polluted.
But An organic system, used properly, should not have an environmental impact in a negative way.

Your argument is cycling between 'pollution' and 'directly kills' whatever. I've already addressed those two aspects.

 

[enter sandman]

Penn & Teller has an episode on organics with their show 'Bullshit'...very informative and thought provoking show, very funny too (and popular). Notice the name of said show, 'Bullshit'...lmao. And yes, organics is Bullshit. Established growers will never admit this after having spent thousands on this scam and will defend (very vehemently) themselves with tooth & claw...as I said before I mean no disrespect, much love & all that. I will address this subject every time it comes up so as to inform the newcomers. They read the 'bullshit' here & elsewhere then go out & spend $ on the bullshit, thus creating more bullshit.....speaking of bullshit, that bullshit smells just like bullshit

 

[mostnonymouse]

Penn & Teller has an episode on organics with their show 'Bullshit'...very informative and thought provoking show, very funny too (and popular). Notice the name of said show, 'Bullshit'...lmao. And yes, organics is Bullshit. Established growers will never admit this after having spent thousands on this scam and will defend (very vehemently) themselves with tooth & claw...as I said before I mean no disrespect, much love & all that. I will address this subject every time it comes up so as to inform the newcomers. They read the 'bullshit' here & elsewhere then go out & spend $ on the bullshit, thus creating more bullshit.....speaking of bullshit, that bullshit smells just like bullshit

Yea dude; Experts in their field. This is akin to citing Mythbusters...get real. If you think organics is bullshit then you don't know a damn thing about how plants work. Plain and simple. There is FAR more science (read: SCIENTISTS) backing organics than "conventional" agriculture. Congratulations....YOU bought the lie, not us. Nice research btw. You should see if they have an episode on how 99% of television content is bullshit.

Maybe pay attention to my earlier post and learn a little something about the money backing the conventional farming agenda: http://www.green-blog.org/2009/08/0...ention-that-their-expert-is-paid-by-monsanto/

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Organics has the science, however conventional farming feeds the world. I'm all for organic farming as conventional has ramifications that can't be ignored. But far more starving folks won't be ignored either.

If by chance we could organically feed 9 billion by 2050, I offer we'd see environmental problems rivaling chemical fertilizers. My state raises lots of pigs. Fecal lagoons are a major hazard and methane gas is far more detrimental to the atmosphere than C02.

When you look at the scale of organic farming vs conventional, it's almost niche. If and when we scale organic farming to rival conventional, we'll see large-scale ramifications.

Folks get on the poison train when, IMO it's the scale of global need that fosters large scale environmental detriment. IMO, the answer isn't necessarily organics, it's better management of both organic and conventional farming.

 

[heady blunts]

Penn & Teller has an episode on organics with their show 'Bullshit'...very informative and thought provoking show, very funny too (and popular). Notice the name of said show, 'Bullshit'...lmao. And yes, organics is Bullshit. Established growers will never admit this after having spent thousands on this scam and will defend (very vehemently) themselves with tooth & claw...as I said before I mean no disrespect, much love & all that. I will address this subject every time it comes up so as to inform the newcomers. They read the 'bullshit' here & elsewhere then go out & spend $ on the bullshit, thus creating more bullshit.....speaking of bullshit, that bullshit smells just like bullshit

haha yea that episode was brought to you by monsanto and round-up ready corn

has anyone here seen DIRT! the movie? EXCELLENT movie on this very subject. it's on netflix instant view if anyone subscribes.

 

[heady blunts]

Organics has the science, however conventional farming feeds the world. I'm all for organic farming as conventional has ramifications that can't be ignored. But far more starving folks won't be ignored either.

i used to tout this same myth. but i don't believe it anymore. have you ever seen a farm field that has been depleted by conventional farming and is now a barren dessert? how about miles of them?

that shit is scary and that is the reality of conventional farming. perhaps for a limited period farmers enjoyed increased yields and "were feeding the world" but it is not sustainable, and the food they provide people was nutritionally depleted as well, leading to global malnutrition, immunodeficiency, and famine.

If by chance we could organically feed 9 billion by 2050, I offer we'd see environmental problems rivaling chemical fertilizers. My state raises lots of pigs. Fecal lagoons are a major hazard and methane gas is far more detrimental to the atmosphere than C02.

When you look at the scale of organic farming vs conventional, it's almost niche. If and when we scale organic farming to rival conventional, we'll see large-scale ramifications.

this is a very interesting point. i guess we will see.

in my mind, the move away from conventional farming also necessitates the move away from monoculture. more, smaller farms with a higher diversity of livestock and produce is a more sustainable model.

there are giant corporate farms selling organic produce to companies like wallmart. they maintain their farm model for the most part, just substituting "organic certified" ferts and pesticides for conventional. this is not the solution IMO.

Folks get on the poison train when, IMO it's the scale of global need that fosters large scale environmental detriment. IMO, the answer isn't necessarily organics, it's better management of both organic and conventional farming.

my only fear is that if we don't act soon, the damage will be too great. repairing is a lot harder then modifying.

 

[mostnonymouse]

Organics has the science, however conventional farming feeds the world. I'm all for organic farming as conventional has ramifications that can't be ignored. But far more starving folks won't be ignored either.

If by chance we could organically feed 9 billion by 2050, I offer we'd see environmental problems rivaling chemical fertilizers. My state raises lots of pigs. Fecal lagoons are a major hazard and methane gas is far more detrimental to the atmosphere than C02.

When you look at the scale of organic farming vs conventional, it's almost niche. If and when we scale organic farming to rival conventional, we'll see large-scale ramifications.

Folks get on the poison train when, IMO it's the scale of global need that fosters large scale environmental detriment. IMO, the answer isn't necessarily organics, it's better management of both organic and conventional farming.

Just as there is no money to be made in large-scale alternative medicine (which works...even on cancer), there is no money to be made in large-scale organics. The drive behind conventional agriculture is purely based on capital incentive and nothing more. Because organic growing deals with and requires life, you can not have an international corporation that can market it's products all over the world. Monsanto can't sell compost to India because they can make better compost for their area for free. They can't ship bone meal to Europe, because bone meal is not patentable and they can make their own at far less cost. Organics can feed the world, and are FAR more sustainable than current agricultural practices. Mass production of food has destroyed the possibility for organics, not a higher global demand. Smaller local farms practicing organics produce greater amounts of more nutritional food than conventional agriculture and do so on less land. It's not just a simple switch to organic agriculture that needs to take place, but a shift of consumers away from supermarkets and toward their local farms and farmers markets, which we all know will never happen.

I think we can all agree that monoculture is a joke and does far more damage than people like to believe, yet government subsidies give farmers all the incentive they need to grow as much corn as they possibly can. And take a look at the resulting dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico and tell me it's nothing to worry about. We can't keep this bullshit up, plain and simple. Corruption and cash are what fuel the train wreck.


Also, there is no doubt in my mind that we have overpopulated this earth. We've come so far with modern medicine that we've all but eliminated natural selection. Someone needs to die. LOL.


edit: sorry heady...didn't see your post and just basically said the same thing lol.

 

[superbolan]

The problem is not the use of conventional fertilizers but the misuse

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Just as there is no money to be made in large-scale alternative medicine (which works...even on cancer), there is no money to be made in large-scale organics. The drive behind conventional agriculture is purely based on capital incentive and nothing more. Because organic growing deals with and requires life, you can not have an international corporation that can market it's products all over the world. Monsanto can't sell compost to India because they can make better compost for their area for free. They can't ship bone meal to Europe, because bone meal is not patentable and they can make their own at far less cost. Organics can feed the world, and are FAR more sustainable than current agricultural practices.

I'm not sure what the numbers are with alternative vs conventional medicine. But 20th century vaccines have saved lives in the tens of millions.

Compare a chemical vs organic ingredient list for a single bale of pro mix. Apply that globally. IMO, logistics alone would thwart organics as a solution to feed more humans and domestic animals. ~35K people die every day from starvation. We already have the incentive to feed these people and IMO, organics is only part of the solution.

Chemical fertilizer has it's pro and cons. But I'd bet the grain belt relies on chemicals far more than organics. Wouldn't be surprised if California has far more chemically grown produce than organic.

Mass production of food has destroyed the possibility for organics, not a higher global demand. Smaller local farms practicing organics produce greater amounts of more nutritional food than conventional agriculture and do so on less land. It's not just a simple switch to organic agriculture that needs to take place, but a shift of consumers away from supermarkets and toward their local farms and farmers markets, which we all know will never happen.

Never seen numbers that show organics produces more with less land. I'd be willing to bet it's the reverse. I go to the local markets all the time. If the grocer has a better price, they get my business. But local markets are competitive and most stay in business. But I doubt my local markets have cornered organics any more than my grocer. Maybe with the exception of advertised "organic" markets that cost twice as much. IMO, that's what Penn's joke is all about. That and the idea organically grown food is more nutritional. Is there data to substantiate this or is it placebo?

I think we can all agree that monoculture is a joke and does far more damage than people like to believe, yet government subsidies give farmers all the incentive they need to grow as much corn as they possibly can. And take a look at the resulting dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico and tell me it's nothing to worry about. We can't keep this bullshit up, plain and simple. Corruption and cash are what fuel the train wreck.

Nobody's telling you there's nothing to worry about. You leave little room when you absolute the debate. We know mono cropping isn't sustainable yet we have demand that organic farming can't alone resolve. And until one of us cites some numbers, you and I may have to agree to disagree.

 

[forty]

My state raises lots of pigs. Fecal lagoons are a major hazard and methane gas is far more detrimental to the atmosphere than C02.

if someone would start producing electric, zero emissions pigs we'd be in great shape.

 

[The Bling]

This is just crazy

Waste is unused resource whether its too much Organic cow shit or to many nutes

the main issue i see is ass hats ferting at 1000+ ppm

you can finish at like 550ppm and still do 2# a light

soil microbes will consume chemical ferts
this is madness

ps i drink EDTA to remove lead from ma body.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

if someone would start producing electric, zero emissions pigs we'd be in great shape.

Lol, zero emission pigs. Folks down stream from fecal lagoons would love to see that.

 

[mostnonymouse]

I'm not sure what the numbers are with alternative vs conventional medicine. But 20th century vaccines have saved lives in the tens of millions.

Just giving an example of a similar situation in another industry. Practically everyone I know over 40 is on Lipitor or some anti-depressant or anti-anxiety drug that there are herbal alternatives for that do work....Just not patentable and thus not able to make the millions that pharmaceuticals do. Modern medicine definitely has it's place in saving lives, but the shit they shovel down our throats that helps alleviate symptoms instead of curing the root cause is just a crutch that allows unhealthy individuals to continue living with the same issues. Stepping away from things like HFCS and MSG and eating organic food alone has been shown to alleviate many of the issues that plaque the average American today. You are what you eat, and we eat some nasty shit.

Compare a chemical vs organic ingredient list for a single bale of pro mix. Apply that globally. IMO, logistics alone would thwart organics as a solution to feed more humans and domestic animals. ~35K people die every day from starvation. We already have the incentive to feed these people and IMO, organics is only part of the solution.

Again this goes back to my original post of the different types of organic growing. There are many examples out there of completely sustainable organic farms that use "waste" and compost alone to grow everything. I understand that these examples are few and far between, and in some places not necessarily a reality, but it's a system that nature has been successful at for millions of years. Using locally available amendments is another factor that needs to be pushed. Trucking kelp and fish hydrosylate across the country is simply counter-productive.

Chemical fertilizer has it's pro and cons. But I'd bet the grain belt relies on chemicals far more than organics. Wouldn't be surprised if California has far more chemically grown produce than organic.

Never seen numbers that show organics produces more with less land. I'd be willing to bet it's the reverse. I go to the local markets all the time. If the grocer has a better price, they get my business. But local markets are competitive and most stay in business. But I doubt my local markets have cornered organics any more than my grocer. Maybe with the exception of advertised "organic" markets that cost twice as much. IMO, that's what Penn's joke is all about. That and the idea organically grown food is more nutritional. Is there data to substantiate this or is it placebo? Nobody's telling you there's nothing to worry about. You leave little room when you absolute the debate. We know mono cropping isn't sustainable yet we have demand that organic farming can't alone resolve. And until one of us cites some numbers, you and I may have to agree to disagree.

I could post some studies, but they would be considered biased, so I'll let you do the research. Google "Organic vs. Conventional yields" and see what comes up. I'm confident you'll find the data surprising. Yield alone isn't the greatest comparison factor either. Next time you go to the farmers market, pick up some organic strawberries... then hit your grocery store and pick up some conventional strawberries. The difference is astounding. Kids are growing up these days thinking that strawberries are supposed to be WHITE inside!!! They're devoid of flavor and nutrition, while their organic counterparts are generally red and sweet all the way through. Again, this can also be attributed to a small farmer caring more for their crop than a large-scale operation. Even if the yield is bigger, the concentration of nutrients is generally accepted to be less in conventional agriculture, and THAT is what we take from our food. That is what we need to solve hunger. Not big, fat, white empty strawberries.

 

[mostnonymouse]

Healthy positive debate BTW...which is rare in these arguments so let's keep it up!

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

I agree. You make a good point about transporting petroleum around in petroleum burning trucks trucks and trains. You mention biased numbers, I wouldn't be surprised if the chemical industry fudges numbers more than organic advocates. But that's just my opinion.