Originally Posted by Only Ornamental
That's a point I mentioned well before in the thread but this is not about O v.s. IO primary nutrients, it's about the whole rest.
Not saying it ain't a good point (it is a very good one, it's THE difference of O v.s. IO) but it doesn't contribute too much when it comes to plant nutrition per se.
The debate here is a debate where people talk of completely different things.
Now I got to run, sorry....
A debate about ions derived from organic and inorganic sources is not a debate as basic NPK feeds regardless of regardless of source is a method modern/traditional non organic agricultural production
then there is transitional and then organic horticulturalmethodology
Washington state has a good model
I have grown extensively varying from hydro/sterile to true living soil organics and many transitional flavors in between and studied the perceived boundary of each as well
all of that said the truest differences are between substrate in which a plant uses exudates to feed versus ion fed plants
I have plenty of trials using all methodologies and the same cultivars.
I took sterile and npk feeds and every grow incorporated additional facets of organics to gauge differential. Each grow I added a different and additional element of organic methods to my sterile grow recycling my chem soil as I went
this includes a bevy of microbiology and components of soil like enzymes and aminos.
The shape it takes could be yours to choose
What you may win, what you may lose
Sativa is manna from heaven - BLueGrassToker
Ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cured - Ureapwhatusow
nobody every told me i found out for myself, you've got to believe in foolish miracles - o. osborne
Although the masters make the rules
For the wise men and the fools
I got nothing, Ma, to live up to - b. Dylan