Organic vs chemical.

Can someone explain to me the difference in composition of plant matter grown organically as opposed to grown chemically?
What I mean is, what elements are found in chemically grown plants that are not found in organically grown plants?

All plants require the same nutrients. The only difference is the methods in which they are delivered. By that I mean how available they are to the plant and what form they are presented to the plant.

So what you are saying is that once the nutrient, however delivered, has been taken up by the roots, the substances within the plant are essentially the same.
So I am thinking that the only difference in make-up between the two would perhaps be an increased terpene level in the organically fertilised plant, resulting from a slower growth rate.
Am I on the right lines?
Thanks for the reply.

I don't know about the terpene levels and growth resulting from it. I can tell you this: plants will update things that are not necessarily usable. Hence these 'sweet' products that will increase flavors. An interesting thing about organics is that many vitamins and hormones are naturally produced by bacteria and certain O.M., which will cause a plant to grow a certain way. Hydroponics would be fine if you could keep a good microherd alive in it.

My 2 centavos: 'natural' nutes allow a plant to produce a wider spectrum or profile of flavonoids and vitamins and minerals.

Which sports team would do better?
The team that ate mac n cheese/pizza and hot dogs??
or the team that ate whole grains and organic produce??

AFAIK organics is better because it allows the 'support services' for the plants to thrive- all the colonies of micro flora and fauna that really feed the plant.
You are feeding the soil( and microbes) not the plant. The microbes breaks down and makes available the minerals in the soil.

Can you add chem I kill ferts to an aquarium?? can an earthworm survive in a pile of chem I kill ferts????

This is a GREAT post because growers talk about why the chose there method. You will learn alot if ya read it.

http://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=79104&highlight=ORGANIC

I chose the organic method for several reasons but probally the best reason that organic is superior (chem guys cant deny also) is the re-use of our sweet soil..

with organic it's all about preperation. Just using the organic bottled stuff isn't the same.

Once you've grown all orgnaic your'd know there's not much compareson. Strong premixes and diry tea's make the worlds finest. I can't wait to get set up for all organic aquaponics.

Mr Celsius said:

I don't know about the terpene levels and growth resulting from it. I can tell you this: plants will update things that are not necessarily usable. Hence these 'sweet' products that will increase flavors. An interesting thing about organics is that many vitamins and hormones are naturally produced by bacteria and certain O.M., which will cause a plant to grow a certain way. Hydroponics would be fine if you could keep a good microherd alive in it.

Click to expand...

the makers and sellers for sweet are crooks. they all know it and have no pride.

hydroflower said:

Can someone explain to me the difference in composition of plant matter grown organically as opposed to grown chemically?
What I mean is, what elements are found in chemically grown plants that are not found in organically grown plants?

Click to expand...

it's what you find in organcic that you don't see in chem. chemical are exact. Organic is full if impurities. These impurities are what make up healthy.

raw veggies or mcdonalds what do you choose?

Can someone explain to me the difference in composition of plant matter grown organically as opposed to grown chemically?
What I mean is, what elements are found in chemically grown plants that are not found in organically grown plants?

Click to expand...

The research into the final composition of plant matter has yet to identify the difference. I'm not saying there isn't one, but the science is still out on that.

I have always thought it would be cool to pick up some old lab equipment from a university to do our own tests on our own plant.

G33k Speak said:

My 2 centavos: 'natural' nutes allow a plant to produce a wider spectrum or profile of flavonoids and vitamins and minerals.

Which sports team would do better?
The team that ate mac n cheese/pizza and hot dogs??
or the team that ate whole grains and organic produce??

AFAIK organics is better because it allows the 'support services' for the plants to thrive- all the colonies of micro flora and fauna that really feed the plant.
You are feeding the soil( and microbes) not the plant. The microbes breaks down and makes available the minerals in the soil.

Can you add chem I kill ferts to an aquarium?? can an earthworm survive in a pile of chem I kill ferts????

Click to expand...

the team with barry bonds, mark mcgwire, and roger clemens... LOL

Detouro said:

the team with barry bonds, mark mcgwire, and roger clemens... LOL

Click to expand...

YES! .....YES!......EXACTLY< MY FRIEND! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

Woody Creek said:

it's what you find in organcic that you don't see in chem. chemical are exact. Organic is full if impurities. These impurities are what make up healthy.

raw veggies or mcdonalds what do you choose?

Click to expand...

woody the way u describe it, mcdonalds is better since it DOES have more impurities lol

but seriously, i think the point being made is that those impurities are what's going to help the plant produce more than hurt it. with a perfect chemical nutrient, you're missing out on some things that may strengthen the plant and help it produce more.

take for example a plant that has no fan to mimic the natural winds blowing. what happens when there's weight on the top? it tips straight over. this is because the plant is using nutrients to fill out the stem to strengthen it WHEN there's wind blowing or a force acting on it. the plant isn't as hardy as it could be. without experience, most would think if there were no winds the nutrients would go to producing bud completely which is true! but the plant would keel over from the weight giving predators an easier chance at a soft juicy plant.

so sure the chemical composition is the same, but it's about those variables/impurities/minor stresses that make the difference. organic may provide those variables to help make a sturdier plant.

the situation should be posed differently when comparing foods, the other way around... would u want a person who can survive mcdonalds daily, gamma radiation, intense heat, lack of oxygen AND still be healthy and productive (superman) or someone who couldn't survive those harsh conditions (typical human). from a point of survival, you'd want the first person. someone who can survive those conditions AND be healthy is of better genetic stock.

chemical nutes feed the plants the BARE ESSENTIALS but nothing more to force the plant to be a bit stronger like organic would. the issue is finding that balance so that you don't overstress but just like we recreate natural wind, we should try to recreate natural environment. the plant will benefit from that.

lastly.. the chemical composition is always going to be the same, i think, because the plant isn't going to take up what it can't use. but the interactions it has with the other variables defines how the plants use those nutrients. what they should do is compare the different parts of the plants, buds, leaves, stems, down to the very roots to test HOW the plant used the nutrients as opposed to a chemical profile which would or should be similar. if you tested parts for different things, i think you'd find stronger stems, roots, leaves and so on!

note: you can't compare organic raw food to prepared fast food because it's the preparation that makes the real difference. let mcdonalds use that organic raw carrot and trust me, you're fucked anyway! lol

A better analogy regarding the impurities is beer. Would you rather have a nice Guinness or a Zima?

The dirty little secret nobody who grows organically wants to talk about, is accumulation of heavy metals. And for those who are super duper strict vegan, you can't grow organic successfully (keyword) without fish or animal products. Sooner or later you'll need fish emulsion, manure, or guano to achieve the best results. 'Organic' and 'sustainable' are two different things.


Back to the original question - a plant will take up whatever you give it. Back in kindergarten, we took a potato, held it half-way in a glass of water with toothpicks, and then put food coloring in the water. The inside of the potato eventually turned the color of the water. I realize that pot isn't a tuber, but I think you get the point. N is N to the plant. P is P to the plant. K is K to the plant. The plant doesn't care whether you're washing the roots with a hydroponic nutrient solution, or the microherd in your soil[less] mix is breaking down the nutrients to make them available. Hydroponics has a better growth rate simply because the nutrients are constantly available (at least that has been my experience) instead of the plant having to wait for them to be broken down. Perhaps I just suck at the organic method...

I'm growing organic now for several reasons, not the least of which is the fact that nearly all hydroponic setups depend on gravity, which means they are somehow raised. My grow space has very low headroom so things like ebb&flow tables are out of the question. I simply cant afford to lose 3 feet of vertical growing space. That the end product is tastier with a more complex bouquet is a bonus.

Either way you choose, there is always more stuff to buy...

Thanks for the replies people.
So after all this input and a fair whack of research on my part, perhaps the only difference in the final product is, as far mj is concerned, A; Flavour and B; robustness.
Since most, if not all of us have very little enviromental impact with nutrient usage, this benefit of organics is irrelevant.
So that just leaves the flavour and robustness which, unless there is some evidence to the contrary, are a direct result of slower and more restrictive growth.
The analogy which suits me is between a chicken reared outdoors and allowed to forage for food with a high activity level, as opposed to "forced" with food of a higher nutritional value indoors, with a lower activity level. As a result of this "forced" rearing the chicken grows much, much faster, from chick to plate in as little as three weeks, whereas the organic reared (outdoor foraged) chicken takes a lot longer to reach marketable size.
As a result the slowly reared chicken is far tastier, but the question that still remains is, for what reason? Is it because of the food it eats or is it as a result of it's slower growth, higher activity level and associated stresses imposed apon the chicken.
I believe that if the chicken were fed on a high nutrition food but also allowed high levels of activity and physical stresses, the chicken would grow perhaps as fast but with increased muscle tone and almost certainly higher quality meat (for eating that is).
So how do we mimmick this for a mj plant? How would we impose physical stresses upon the plant as in nature? Other than the artificial wind that we provide with fans. And "force" them with high nutrition food at the same time. Give it all it wants with one hand and bash it back down with the other.
I am unconvinced that the extra flavour, richness and robustness are a result of the plant feeding on bacterial waste.
More convincing is that the plant is almost condensed by the less vigorous growth giving a concentrated flavour.
F... me what a rant!!
Sorry , I'll stop now.

Since most, if not all of us have very little enviromental impact with nutrient usage, this benefit of organics is irrelevant.

Click to expand...

This ^ is very debatable. The hydroponic industry is huge with a lot of money tied up in it... and lets face it, the majority of the customers aren't growing tomatoes or cucumbers, they're going weed.

Maybe you simply don't care about the environment... what could I say to change someone mind that is already made up....

If you look at Heads method of growing, its thee only synthetic manner I have ever seen to not be horribly ecologically impacting and producing a superior product.

You get me wrong, I am indeed concerned about the enviromental impact us as human beings are having, but chemical fertilisation from cannabis growing is miniscule as a percentage of overall agricultural fertiliser polution. That is why I concider it irrelevant.
My enviromental impact through chemical fertilisation is zero as I change my res out once a crop and the waste solution is fed to my house and garden plants, which they relish.
I am only interested in logical solutions and me growing organic to protect the enviroment is not logical.
Thanks, gotta go to work.

Mr Celsius said:

This ^ is very debatable. The hydroponic industry is huge with a lot of money tied up in it... and lets face it, the majority of the customers aren't growing tomatoes or cucumbers, they're going weed.

<snip>

Click to expand...

Only at the amateur level, and even then I would tend to disagree. One professional grower growing oh, lets say sweet peppers, in a 100,000 ft^2 greenhouse running to waste uses more nutrients in a month than any 10 of us here put together use in two years. And that's just peppers. Pot is a niche market for hydroponic suppliers, in the grand scheme of things.

People who grow vegetables vastly outnumber people who grow pot. If 5% of them grow using a water culture method (I am one of them) and 20% of the pot growers use water culture, then the veggie growers would STILL outnumber the pot growers.

Whats interesting is that I'm in the Ag business... an extremely small percentage of 'industrial' agriculture is hydroponic. If you go into your grocery store, you would be lucky to see something that was produced by hydroponics. Its about profits, and hydroponics cost a lot more money then 'conventional' or organic farming, and then organic produce is worth more.

'Synthetics' is another story... they use very cheap chemical ferts that they water, or till into the soil.

While I do agree with the argument that an industrial hydroponic operation will/does use more then a lot of growers combined, the majority of the "hydroponic" industry is focused on pot growers. If you talk to Gen Hydro or go into a hydro store, you quickly realize that the main target market is pot growers. Do you honestly think this person growing peppers is getting 1000 gallons from Gen Hydro? LoL, those peppers better sell for a lot of money.

I think we have gone off on a bit of a tangent here. The question was about the difference between organic and chemical fertilization not dirt and hydroponic.
I fully except the fact that organically fed plants produce a better quality bud, but how can we recreate or mimmick organics with chem ferts so that the best of both worlds can be achieved?
It seems problematic trying to achieve a "complete" fertilizer with organic substances.

Maybe I don't get it and hydroponic organics are the best of both worlds.