What's new
  • Please note members who been with us for more than 10 years have been upgraded to "Veteran" status and will receive exclusive benefits. If you wish to find out more about this or support IcMag and get same benefits, check this thread here.
  • Important notice: ICMag's T.O.U. has been updated. Please review it here. For your convenience, it is also available in the main forum menu, under 'Quick Links"!

ORGANIC VS INORGANIC. The great debate.

I originally grew in organic soil, then moved across to coco/perlite hempy's!
Coco/perlite is a lot cleaner, lighter and to my mind a lot more effective - soil however does deliver the best taste.

When i started the hempy's I had a problem with the nutrients...
The imported bottled liquids were way to expensive, found a local grow shop that did powdered hydro nutrients parts A,B&C
A - micro elements
B - nitrogen based(growth)
C - Phosphates(Flowering)

But seemed to complicated!! Different ppm's for different stages!

Found a Lady! A horticulturist with a phd!!
She works in the big scale(commercial farming)hydro field.

She has given me a similair system...Parts A, B & C
The difference - I mix concentrates at different strenghts according to a, b or c
Then 10ml per concentrate(a.b/c) to 1l of h20 feed for entire life cycle of plant!!!

Works like a charm!
When I questioned her about "organic" I was told that it is linctified salts from the dead sea and that's as organic as it comes!

I don't know but I'm chuffed with results!

p.s keep an eye on my Dinafem Blue Widow journal
 

THC123

Active member
Veteran
I just think true organics( living soil and plain water) gives the best quality, but slightly lower yield.

My big problem is that I always taste the influence of any additives, even with flushing for a month. These additives give the cannabis an artificial taste. Even those liquid organics bottles make my weed sweet like candy(yuck). It is smooth though due to the long flush but it is just not the real taste I am getting with liquid nutes. Even molasses is a big no for me in terms of taste.
 

mushroombrew

Active member
Veteran
I just think true organics( living soil and plain water) gives the best quality, but slightly lower yield.

My big problem is that I always taste the influence of any additives, even with flushing for a month. These additives give the cannabis an artificial taste. Even those liquid organics bottles make my weed sweet like candy(yuck). It is smooth though due to the long flush but it is just not the real taste I am getting with liquid nutes. Even molasses is a big no for me in terms of taste.

I feel peoples sense of taste is declining along with the quality of our foods.

Don't take it personally that's not my point!

My point is I have a hard time talking about taste with a population who on the whole could not taste the difference between two very different tomatoes. Say a Roma and a Beef steak. Never gonna happen. That's why they get away with mass production.
Weak pallettes.

A palate has to be developed and "trained".
 

Weird

3rd-Eye Jedi
Veteran
A plant is has to maintain a balance between energy used for defense and energy used for growth.

If a plant has to defend itself we say it looks "stressed"

But it is actually just not growing as energy is going elsewhere.

Plants that are free of stressors produce more secondary metabolites.

They cannot produce many terpenes during a spider mite onslaught.

So what is the least "stressful" environment for a plant.

Hydroponics reduces the energy used enlarging roots. It takes energy and lots of divisions to push through media.

I believe the faster growth is a result of several factors. Not having to "push" through media being one of them.

Hence tight slower woody growth in media and floppy girls in DWC while being in the same environment otherwise.

Which has the best secondary metabolites?

I have yet to do the work but I believe DWC plants have larger cells not more of them. Where the fuck is my scope...

you are talking about primary metabolite production which only varies due to lack of skill of the grower between mediums like hydro or living soil

I would not be here to argue which grows primary metabolites faster because that myth was busted more times in real life by myself and many growers I know

what I am talking about is the effects of environment. specifically secondary metabolite expression, in cannabis.

even different types of soil causes different expressions of terpenes producing different amounts of certain terpenes based on type of soil and/or amount of nutrient available

this is the "tip of the iceberg" because it only touches on a very tiny portion of these environmental triggers
Production and Diversity of Volatile Terpenes from Plants on Calcareous and Siliceous Soils: Effect of Soil Nutrients

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10886-008-9515-2

notice terepene production is not parallel or linear to primary metabolite production but has other cues


While everyone here is arguing MOST PRIMARY METABOLITES FOR THE MOST DOLLAR I am trying to have a discourse or terpene expression because medicinal value is what it is about for me

I am sure I can pony up plenty of examples of primary metabolite expression that most people aren't pulling off the metric is 3 ounces per gallon of soil, organically.

that means those 100 gallon smarty outdoor needs to be bringing 300 or 18 + pound plant to parallel the same primary metabolite production metric I achieve indoors

there is a reason I call out people for their motives based on understanding this plant and it is because almost all failure come from people trying to hedge their bet by making sure there is plenty of nutrition to grow the biggest plant possible

You know how many growers do it a little differently for better results? not many and that is why when I argue based on a premise like this no one has anything to offer or a clue about what I am saying or a gallery to match

just saying this because I am tired of know nothing trolls talking shit (not you but people like Mikell) who prevent much more important dialog regarding the medicinal properties of the plant

instead they love to argue that because they are getting fucking paid they think they know something about the differentials in secondary metabolite production in cannabis

If you can't dial in a plant in pure sterile environment using synthetics, transitional methods and living soil environments you don't have an experiential apples to apples predication to argue upon

How many years have these conversations when on and no one has brought yachting to the table to why the composition would be different

sad pathetic and a reflection of what happens when you let trolls run rampant on your website

here is another big reason why living soil makes a huge difference and these effect secondary metabolite production as well

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1360138513002598

Root exudates: the hidden part of plant defense


PEACE
 

DocTim420

The Doctor is OUT and has moved on...
IMO, this thread now contains more words based on "opinion" than "facts". Very difficult--if not impossible to ague "opinions".

The opinionated person will always shout, "my way is the best--your way sucks!"
 

mushroombrew

Active member
Veteran
IMO, this thread now contains more words based on "opinion" than "facts". Very difficult--if not impossible to ague "opinions".

The opinionated person will always shout, "my way is the best--your way sucks!"

Agreed. Hopefully it balances out with some decent links.

My opinion comes though trail and error. I do side by sides constantly. I am currently growing in with 4 different methods.

I find it hilarious when people argue their opinion without having tried other methods.

An opinion without experience isn't worth reading.
 
G

Gr33nSanta

I just think true organics( living soil and plain water) gives the best quality, but slightly lower yield.

My big problem is that I always taste the influence of any additives, even with flushing for a month. These additives give the cannabis an artificial taste. Even those liquid organics bottles make my weed sweet like candy(yuck). It is smooth though due to the long flush but it is just not the real taste I am getting with liquid nutes. Even molasses is a big no for me in terms of taste.

Sub irrigated planters should fix the yield issue, while staying true living organic no till and what have you.

I like a 10-15 gal reservoir with 20-25 gallons of soil. I cut 55 gallons 2/3 up so the whole planter is about 35-40 gallons.
 

Douglas.Curtis

Autistic Diplomat in Training
I feel peoples sense of taste is declining along with the quality of our foods.

Don't take it personally that's not my point!

My point is I have a hard time talking about taste with a population who on the whole could not taste the difference between two very different tomatoes. Say a Roma and a Beef steak. Never gonna happen. That's why they get away with mass production.
Weak palettes.

A palate has to be developed and "trained".
:laughing: My sentiments exactly!!

Everyone says organic tastes better and, compared to what I've grown with hydro, I'm still waiting to see it. Smells, taste, touch, whatever... when it's a signal level of about a 7 it registers with me at about an 11. Very over-amplified. Even with this level of sensitivity, I was still unaware of the 'real' quality of my cannabis until I ran into some truly clean cannabis. The time and effort I've put into cleaning up my act now grows better quality than any organic I've had to date.

Crazy. Without awareness, your palate is about as useful as mammary glands on a steer. :tiphat:
 

DocTim420

The Doctor is OUT and has moved on...
I was touring a "grand scale" production facility last week, and about 75% of their operation is hydro with the other 25% in "organic grow medium". I asked why the 75/25 ratio and the reply I got kinda says it all, "all our high-end strains are grown in organic grow medium".
 

Douglas.Curtis

Autistic Diplomat in Training
I was touring a "grand scale" production facility last week, and about 75% of their operation is hydro with the other 25% in "organic grow medium". I asked why the 75/25 ratio and the reply I got kinda says it all, "all our high-end strains are grown in organic grow medium".
Wait, there are "Grand Scale" production facilities putting out excellent quality cannabis? :laughing: You're so funny. :D

It's done so they can put an "organic" label on it and sell it as premium. No worries. ;)Save
 

OregonBorn

Active member
IMO, this thread now contains more words based on "opinion" than "facts". Very difficult--if not impossible to ague "opinions".

The opinionated person will always shout, "my way is the best--your way sucks!"

Yes indeed. Opinions vary. I believe that my opinion is an informed one though. I mainly go to the big ag schools for sources for my information, as well as my educational notes, reference texts, and of course my experience. A few examples for good agriculture and horticulture sources are UC Davis & Riverside, Oregon State U., and Cornell University.

This is the typical nutrient crop stuff that I get emails about and read online read from University of California.

https://ucanr.edu/News/Healthy_crops,_safe_water/Research_on_nutrient_and_fertilizer_management/

For plant nutrients management and soil composition, here is a good presentation from Cornell University.

https://nrcca.cals.cornell.edu/nutrient/CA2/CA2_SoftChalk/CA2_print.html
 
Last edited:

OregonBorn

Active member
Both of these comments, you will be happy to know, are bunk.

Well, I guess you have lost your ability for rational reasoning and you are one of the 3% of "scientists" (I do not know your background) that think human caused global warming is a myth? I am one of the 97% that happen to agree with it. I did studies at Scripps Institute in San Diego the 1980s when I was a university student that confirmed GW for me. Nothing has changed since then to convince me otherwise. Quite the opposite, really. But never mind my informed opinion, I do not know of a SINGLE oceanographic institute in the US or Canada that agrees with your post here.

When I was an engineer I did many rather extensive studies on global resources, mainly with uranium and thorium reserves for use in nuclear reactors (when I was employed as an electrical engineer in San Diego for a large electricity producer). During those resource studies, we found a rather alarmingly small amount of fissile ore available longer term. In most cases, as with phosphates, the books are being cooked regarding the actual reserves. We also found several other critical resources that were rather limited. I do not know where you get your information from, but there are not endless reserves of anything on this planet. They are all finite. Of critical limitation are fresh water, oil, NG, coal (though the US has a lot of coal), phosphorous, gold, silver, zinc, the rare earth elements, and boron. Never mind friable land and ocean caught food reserves.
 
Last edited:

OregonBorn

Active member
.

Humans have been blamed as causing a "great mass extinction event unlike any seen since the dinosaurs" and this is not only total horseshit, its complete and utter horseshit.

Easy to say, hard (ie. impossible) to prove.

So you are saying that all the invasive species that humans have dragged around this planet do not really exist? And the introduction of these species has had no effect on populations of local species, and none of them have really gone extinct? And every species that was here, say, 100 years ago is still here now? Is that your claim?

And the glaciers in northwest North America, ones that were still around when I was a kid, and had been there for 100,000 years that are gone now, that is an illusion on my part too? And the Pacific ocean's northern migration of species with warming waters is a myth? Even though I have counted them myself? And the die off of reefs globally due to warm water is also what, more made up BS? I have seen reef-kill myself as well, diving several locations along the west coast. Many were alive and well when I was younger, seen with my own eyes. And my friends doing research in the Antarctic right now about the rapid acceleration of ice melt there, that is all an illusion too?

GW predicts more variable and extremes in weather. GW does not predict more hurricanes, it predicts larger and more unstable ones. The largest storms to ever hit landfall were Haiyan and Meranti in 2013 and 2016. The largest hurricane ever recorded in the Atlantic was Irma recorded only a few weeks ago. Are you going to refute those facts? More energy and entropy in the atmosphere = bigger and more intense storms. As predicted by GW.
 

mushroombrew

Active member
Veteran
I was a Suba instructor for 10years. I just cannot get in the water in some spots. Hurts my heart to see corals ejecting zooanthellae all over. I love the Oceans. Dropped out of College (mairne biology) to grow.
Maybe its just a fluctuation. But it still sucks.
 

OregonBorn

Active member
And I too believe an ice age could happen very fast. Species had no time to migrate last time. Could be a matter of months. Fun isn't it?!

Major ice ages typically happen as a result of several combined factors. Mainly they are driven by there being more land mass in the northern hemisphere than the southern hemisphere. Land absorbs and loses heat faster than water does. It is counter-intuitive, but long term ice ages are kicked off as a result of cooler summers in the northern hemisphere, leading to more and more ice remaining on land over summers and building up over time. That occurs as a result of astronomical factors. Those being the season when earth is closest to the sun, the change in the degree of the tilt of the earth, and the change in the earth's elliptical orbit due to the gravitation of the other planets.

Anyway, the next major ice age is due in about 30,000 to 50,000 years when the northern hemisphere is farthest from the sun in summer (as it is now), when the earth's tilt is at an angle of less than 22 degrees (it is 23.5 degrees now), and the elliptical orbit is wider than it is now. Without these astronomical factors, no near term ice age would last very long. And with the combined heat summation of the earth right now, any geological driven ice age would likely not last more than a few years.

Have a read here:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/science...re-cause-ice-ages-says-Harvard-scientist.html

https://www.indiana.edu/~geol105/images/gaia_chapter_4/milankovitch.htm
 
Last edited:

OregonBorn

Active member
I was a Suba instructor for 10years. I just cannot get in the water in some spots. Hurts my heart to see corals ejecting zooanthellae all over. I love the Oceans. Dropped out of College (mairne biology) to grow.
Maybe its just a fluctuation. But it still sucks.

Mainly due to warming surface water temps, and the rapid change in those water temps. If the warming was slower, say over a hundred years as seen in many fossil records, the reefs would adapt. But these changes are happening in decades or less. I was also a Marine Bio/Oceanography major but I changed to engineering in San Diego. I have dived (and lived in) many places along the Pacific coast from north Washington State to Puerto Vallarta, Mexico. I read that the reefs off of PV are a wasteland now.
 

OregonBorn

Active member
If you want to learn the truth about global warming and human caused climate change, I suggest that you go to places like these for sources of valid research and information. The most informed and educated people on earth are not all wrong, as some would claim is the case on this forum. It is also not even a scientific debate any more, with a 97% to 3% margin. It is a political debate invented and maintained by the likes of the Republican Party, the fossil fuel industry, and Donald Trump.

NASA:
https://climate.nasa.gov/

NOAA:
http://www.noaa.gov/resource-collections/climate-change-impacts

Scripps (UCSD):
https://scripps.ucsd.edu/centers/adaptation/
https://scripps.ucsd.edu/news/new-take-global-warming-hiatus

Woods Hole:
http://whrc.org/
http://whrc.org/publications-data/understanding-climate-change-a-primer/

Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute:
http://www.montereybayaquarium.org/climate
http://www.mbari.org/about/making-an-impact/climate-change/

Stanford:
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2009/april15/climate-change-marine-systems-symposium-041509.html

Johns Hopkins:
http://releases.jhu.edu/tag/global-climate-change/

Oxford University, UK:
http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/research/climate/index.html

University of Exeter, UK:
http://www.exeter.ac.uk/research/inspiring/keythemes/science/climate/

UNSW, Australia:
http://www.ccrc.unsw.edu.au/

I can go on and on and on.
 
Top