ORGANIC VS INORGANIC. The great debate.

Although scientists were aware that pili play a role in DNA uptake, Dalia said that direct evidence demonstrating how they work was lacking until this study. In order to observe pili in action, the scientists used a new method invented at IU to "paint" both the pili and DNA fragments with special glowing dyes.

The team who developed the new method to label pili with dyes was led by IU Distinguished Professor Yves Brun and IU Ph.D. student Courtney Ellison.

The new study uses these dyes to reveal that pili act like microscopic "harpooners" that cast their line through pores in the cell's wall to "spear" a stray piece of DNA at the very tip. The pili then "reel" the DNA into the bacterial cell through the same pore.

Dalia said the pore is so small that the DNA would need to fold in half to fit through the opening in the cell.

Click to expand...

paradoxlost said:

Also I wonder what the difference in IPM costs would be from an organic garden vs a hydro grow

Click to expand...

growinthehills said:

I haven't read this whole thread but I read the first few months. I agree with people that 80 - 90% percent of quality of terpenes, cured bud or hash comes from the genetics of the plant. There is a reason certain strains are highly coveted and have a higher market value.
Although I am out of the industry at this point and just do a few outside for head stash I spent a good chunk of my life dedicated to growing good weed. I have grown in a lot of systems, inside, outside greenhouse in a range of scales from 1-2 plants to decent sized indoor rooms that I owned and operated, to 1+ acre greenhouses that I was employed at as a consultant for IPM programs and helping to design fertilizer regiments.

I have done soiless with IO liquid fertilizers, Coco with drip that fed up to once an hour, in the ground organic, raised beds (soiless due to mediums being peet or coco based) inside with all O inputs, raised beds inside with mostly IO inputs, hybrid systems with IO and ACT or nutrient teas.

One thing I have to say is the proof is in the pudding. When you grow the exact same strain in the same system just changing the inputs to all O and the flavor and smell is noticeably better to you and everyone who tries it, plus it stores better in the long term you know there is something about O inputs and a living soil system that helps the plant reach its full genetic potential.

O gardening farming is not maybe as straight forward as IO due to the types of fertilizer that are used but to me it turned out easier and more rewarding. I was able to get equivalent yields with superior product in O production with lower cost inputs due to being able to reuse the soil and reduce the amount of inputs each run.

I have shut down my rooms and now I have an insane vegetable garden using the same soil I used for years in an indoor grow room.

To me not having to worry about my soil pH and ppms in my reservoir was a huge stress reliever. I know some organic gardeners still worry about pH and it was something I thought about when growing but I loved the fact that my soil buffered everything and just got better round after round.

I also loved that the smell and flavor were far superior to almost any other product that came around. It was just a bonus that I could store it for six months and when I showed somebody the product they assumed it was a new batch...

Click to expand...

Several hypotheses, mainly Optimal Defense (OD), Carbon:Nutrient Balance (CNB), Growth Rate (GR), and Growth‐Differentiation Balance (GDB), have individually served as frameworks for investigating the patterns of plant defense against herbivores, in particular the pattern of constitutive defense. The predictions and tests of these hypotheses have been problematic for a variety of reasons and have led to considerable confusion about the state of the “theory of plant defense.” The primary contribution of the OD hypothesis is that it has served as the main framework for investigation of genotypic expression of plant defense, with the emphasis on allocation cost of defense. The primary contribution of the CNB hypothesis is that it has served as the main framework for investigation of how resources affect phenotypic expression of plant defense, often with studies concerned about allocation cost of defense. The primary contribution of the GR hypothesis is that it explains how intrinsic growth rate of plants shaped evolutionarily by resource availability affects defensive patterns. The primary contribution of the expanded GDB hypothesis is that it recognizes the constant physiological tradeoff between growth and differentiation at the cellular and tissue levels relative to the selective pressures of resource availability, including explicitly taking into account plant tolerance of damage by enemies. A clearer understanding of these hypotheses and what we have learned from investigations that use them can facilitate development of well‐designed experiments that address the gaps in our knowledge of plant defense.

Click to expand...