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.

DocTim420

The Doctor is OUT and has moved on...
There are good organic gardeners and there are also good inorganic gardeners. So imo, it is not whether you are "organic" or "inorganic" that makes a "good gardener", it is "wisdom"---as in do you know your shit? (Wisdom = knowledge + experience)

Those that do, excel....those that don't, flail. Its that simple.
 

mushroombrew

Active member
Veteran
@ DocTim420
Yeah the "green thumb" works in any medium with any fertilizer source.

I lived in hawaii for decades. Most people think surfing is all technique thing. Feet, body position posture etc.

Negative. It is the ability to "read" the wave. While paddeling hard with 20ft+ of water building under you. You have a split second to look down the line. At the face before it breaks.

If you read it wrong. You get hurt. And occasionally killed. It's no joke out there.

If you cannot "read" your plants it doesn't matter what you feed them.

My apprentice has spent the last 6 months everyday looking at plants. It will be years before he notices 50 spider mite feed marks on a leaf. I think an infestation would happen to him. As he does not look for all those tiny clues. So I can't go on vacation just yet!!

And seeing as I am digressing so much... it's 4am I'll digress all I like...

The issue for me is with pesticides. O vs IO now thats a big difference.
So as you likely know most of North americas wheat and food crops are relentlessly bombarded with inorganic pesticides and herbicides. Millions of acres of monoculture that get treated for pests.

And then here comes "Mr.Right" and sets up shop in the middle of hundreds of acres of chems. He grows organically and harps on about how the world need to produce everything organically. But his is in the middle of a pest desert!! Miles of chemical buffer zone in all directions. How the hell is he organic with all that drift and chem protection??

We currently do not have the ability to feed the planet organically. Very few staples are organic. So in an attempt to reduce pesticide use the big dogs went to GMO. And the hippies bitched about it. So they keep spraying chems.

I am not for GMO but the Chems in the air bug me. Kauai where I used to live is a test site for GMO. So they spray all kinds of fun stuff there for us to breath. Lots of cancer on the Westside.

But I was a North shore boy so fuck the west!! Haha I don't miss the hate! We fight all the time...

https://www.outsideonline.com/2151976/ongoing-hawaiian-battle-shows-real-gmo-problem
 
Last edited:

Weird

3rd-Eye Jedi
Veteran
if your plants aren't "faded" growing in LOS your doing LOS wrong

mature plants in natural conditions feed off their own stores upon maturation


picture.php


picture.php


picture.php
 

mushroombrew

Active member
Veteran
Perfect. Nothing like a budshot to improve the mood!!

I defoliate heavily so they have to munch on their bigger fan bud leaves. I like pale buds not yellow buds. It's all about timing as always.
 

OregonBorn

Active member
Well, I am well educated and experienced in and on this shit, and I do not really care if people think I am an over-educated egotistical asshole or not. I am what I am. The first thing that they teach in Ornamental Horticulture 101 is that plants take up nutrients in the exact same way, regardless of the source of those nutrients. Organic, inorganic, synthetic. It simply does not matter. I can site dozens of peer review papers and dissertations on the subject that show that. If you decide not to believe it? So be it. Now the type of ferts you use and when to apply them, soil pH and soil nutrients (if you use soil at all), temperature, water, etc. all come into play and have an impact on plant growth. Fungi also play a role in a symbiotic relationship with plant roots. But these can all be manged using organic, inorganic, or fully synthetic methods, or even with no soil at all. Saying that organic nutrient application methods are the only way or the best way to grow weed is simply not accurate. Again, I can site many sources that support this, and I have grown monster weed using multiple methods with a multitude of source nutrient materials in a multitude of soil types. What is best is what you have available.

Now that said, we are in a phosphate depletion cycle on this earth and in about 30 years time we are simply going to run out of cheap available mined phosphates. At which point the phosphate poor soils of the world are not going to be able to produce as much food, and thus will not be able to sustain an ever-growing human population. At which point we as a species will go into a huge decline from famine. But that is outside the scope of plant nutrient absorption, though the fact is that most soils are rather phosphate poor. Most phosphates that we use in laundry and dish soap and from over fertilizing fields runs into the rivers and oceans, where they are sequestered and cycled through life forms for thousands of years. Eventually they settle on the ocean floor and are converted back into rock form from which they were mined. We need to do a better job with the phosphate cycle. Phosphates are so cheap now that will not happen soon though, any more than we will stop using all fossil fuel any time soon to avert human caused global warming and climate change. IMO it is already too late to do anything about global warming. The CO2 and methane and other gasses have been unleashed into the atmosphere and this thing will take its toll, even if we stopped all fossil fuel burning today. If it does not do us in first, the eventual lack of phosphates will.
 

Weird

3rd-Eye Jedi
Veteran
Well, I am well educated and experienced in and on this shit, and I do not really care if people think I am an over-educated egotistical asshole or not. I am what I am. The first thing that they teach in Ornamental Horticulture 101 is that plants take up nutrients in the exact same way, regardless of the source of those nutrients. Organic, inorganic, synthetic. It simply does not matter. I can site dozens of peer review papers and dissertations on the subject that show that. If you decide not to believe it? So be it. Now the type of ferts you use and when to apply them, soil pH and soil nutrients (if you use soil at all), temperature, water, etc. all come into play and have an impact on plant growth. Fungi also play a role in a symbiotic relationship with plant roots. But these can all be manged using organic, inorganic, or fully synthetic methods, or even with no soil at all. Saying that organic nutrient application methods are the only way or the best way to grow weed is simply not accurate. Again, I can site many sources that support this, and I have grown monster weed using multiple methods with a multitude of source nutrient materials in a multitude of soil types. What is best is what you have available.

Now that said, we are in a phosphate depletion cycle on this earth and in about 30 years time we are simply going to run out of cheap available mined phosphates. At which point the phosphate poor soils of the world are not going to be able to produce as much food, and thus will not be able to sustain an ever-growing human population. At which point we as a species will go into a huge decline from famine. But that is outside the scope of plant nutrient absorption, though the fact is that most soils are rather phosphate poor. Most phosphates that we use in laundry and dish soap and from over fertilizing fields runs into the rivers and oceans, where they are sequestered and cycled through life forms for thousands of years. Eventually they settle on the ocean floor and are converted back into rock form from which they were mined. We need to do a better job with the phosphate cycle. Phosphates are so cheap now that will not happen soon though, any more than we will stop using all fossil fuel any time soon to avert human caused global warming and climate change. IMO it is already too late to do anything about global warming. The CO2 and methane and other gasses have been unleashed into the atmosphere and this thing will take its toll, even if we stopped all fossil fuel burning today. If it does not do us in first, the eventual lack of phosphates will.

you end with a opinion about global warming, its too late

I am calling you out

if you have a "college" education in you will understand my verbiage completely

we are not growing cannabis for primary metabolites or a single secondary metabolite such as a particular flavanoid but rather the class of plant has genotypes/phenotypes that provide several valuable phytochemicals

the medicinal value of those chemicals extracted is one animal, but their presence in the plant and the ratios there of are another animal and in that form natural medicine.

these plants in natural environments phytochemicals are the allelopathic evolutionary baseline for and as complete and natural plant medicine

agricultural hacking doesn't express this baseline

you don't have conclusive evidence of identical cannabis cultivars being cultivated side by side and in like health and conditions with secondary metabolite production testing but if you think that plants express their chemovar type homogeneously in all environments above and below soil all you have to do is look at the tests of the same genetics at the emerald cup

why are their secondaries not homogeneous?

see secondary metabolite expression on plants isn't an exact science nor is our understanding of how the concert of these chemicals in various ratios effect the human body

but even then all this said here is the part that makes me think most people here have no fucking clue about science or pot since studying or experiencing the other gives ancillary data that makes the answer more definitive

Now growing the same cultivar in various gardens and techniques is one way, but to really have a proper comparison you have to be able to get a the same cultivar DIALED in properly in each medium in the same environment. This is where most people just can prove they have pulled this off because I call people out on this premise since I have and those I know who have like opinions but past that the science is distinct as well.

Why does a plant produce secondary metabolites and what environmental cues trigger the production there of?

Because if you dig deep enough (I have) you will find while it is still theoretical many studies have been done on specific plant chemicals and they do not respond to the same cues as primary metabolites, in fact the "perceived" conditions that provide for optimal plant growth don't trigger the same secondary metabolite interactions because they are not mutually inclusive and parallel.

This is where even nutrient density can have a counter intuitive effect on secondary metabolite production.

I have a wealth of science saved for this discussion but none of it directly related to cannabis because those studies have yet to be done.

One reason many people feel cannabis is becoming "all the same" is because base growing techniques mute the unique and complex secondary expression as found in nature
 

mushroombrew

Active member
Veteran
@weird

I would expect chemotype to vary as much as phenotype in differing environments.

So what is your point regarding Primary and secondary metabolites
in relationship to O and IO.

Are you theorizing improved secondaries with your methods?
Or have you managed to quantify?

Experience counts as evidence in my book.

Do you have any future plans for side by sides?
 

Weird

3rd-Eye Jedi
Veteran
@weird

I would expect chemotype to vary as much as phenotype in differing environments.

So what is your point regarding Primary and secondary metabolites
in relationship to O and IO.

Are you theorizing improved secondaries with your methods?
Or have you managed to quantify?

Experience counts as evidence in my book.

Do you have any future plans for side by sides?

that healthy living soil is the natural baseline for chemotype expressions elicited in the rhizosphere

plant exudates are important as those communications and used by the plant to facilitate many function including production of secondary metabolites

the balance of which when selected by the plant through root exudates in a thriving soil food web is markedly different when you feed it via ionic sources

would I prefer properly grown pot in a sterile / synthetically fed system opposed to organics grown poorly in a natural system?

If poorly means pathogens, no thanks if poorly means less yield but parallel or better quality then I would choose natural.

I would not be growing with recycled organic soil if I wasn't getting the yield I wanted as well as quality and truthfully it is less work

I spent about 10 years slowly transitioning so I would have a input to out feel for the differential, I would not have stayed with living soil to grow the same weed as I did before, growing from bottles is east and fun.

If I had to scale and organics was not feasible I would be running a transitional system (many people do even if they don't realize it)
 

Cannabologist

Active member
Veteran
Now that said, we are in a phosphate depletion cycle on this earth and in about 30 years time we are simply going to run out of cheap available mined phosphates.

The CO2 and methane and other gasses have been unleashed into the atmosphere and this thing will take its toll, even if we stopped all fossil fuel burning today. If it does not do us in first, the eventual lack of phosphates will.

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

Forgoing my extensive background, and failing to write you a book why, because I don't care to write books about these things anymore, I'll just plainly state the facts as we NOW know them -

We have TONS of resources. We're totally good on phosphates, nitrates, potassium, all of it... We have all of it, and we have enough for hundreds of years. We are also good on oil for hundreds of years.

Whomever had come out with prior poor studies claiming we only have XYZ left, like all those peak oil studies, are based on bullshit, speculation, and the desire by monied interests to keep prices high and their pockets deep.

How can you know I know and trust me??? Suffice to say this is an issue I've been studying for many, many years, and it is rife with many (wrong) opinions, all of which may be based off a poor study.

At this preset rate, we are rife with resources. All the food we need to grow, all the elements for it, and all the oil to ship it around. The whole idea of overpopulation and depletion of resources is a myth - the problem is mismanagement and the greed of humanity.



Global warming is yet another of these mythological problems being thrust on humanity, yet is, at this rate, total bunk. Is the earth warming? Sure, it's been warming for thousands, and thousands of years since the end of the last ice age, and for many periods of time prior, had warmed much more quickly than any warming we are seeing today - they (the few scientists at the top in control of all global climate data, who get all the data from everyone else and compile it all together for everyone else) have to alter/manipulate, and outright falsify data to keep perpetuating the global warming fraud now (if you don't believe this, the scientists involved have been caught red handed multiple times defrauding the public and manipulating climatological data for their own ends, to push their own narrative and beliefs, and ensure they can keep getting funding from their democrat political backers).... It's bad. If you asked me what I thought the temp of the earth is, or what is going on, I'll tell you we don't really know, and can't, because the data is corrupted and untrustworthy.

If you think I'm some right winger telling you conspiracy theories, I voted for Gore, Kerry, and Obama twice ;)
These are facts, really, horrendous, horrible facts. Conspiracy is a real crime that really happens. Only when it is academic fraud, there are no laws against this, very few laws against falsifying data, and in a field where it is essentially all based on opinion, not facts or data, you can claim anything you want. If you make a "vaccine" and kill 1000 people with your crap, ok there's damages there and you will be likely found out and sent to jail. If you claim the earth is warming and you have data from some small area over time showing this, no one checked or is checking to make sure you didn't just make those numbers up - we believe you, since of course, we know the earth is warming... So if your data doesn't show that, the problem is that your instruments must have broke, or you did something wrong, or whatever, and we'll just change the numbers to make sure it's warmer, because it just has to be, we know its warming, right? I mean, we know it has been warming and will continue to warm, since the end of the last ice age, since this is what happens, geologically over time - we warm and cool, glaciers advance and receede over time, but this "over time" can happen in like, heh, years. Years. Not just 10 or 20 years, under that. Can you imagine the flooding that would happen? You wonder why humanity has collective flood myths from over 100,000 years of evolution surviving and persisting with all these ice ages.

And then there is the fact a giant... Something... Wiped out all the great mega fauna and flora at the start of the end of the last ice age around 12k years ago, and that fucked shit up royally too..

I mean, there is so much here man. The kind of crap the TV is trying to scare you with today is nothing. NOTHING. Oh its warm out? Global warming. Warm winter? Global warming. Look a bad storm! Global warming!!!

Except I'm an ecologist, I'll tell you global warming doesn't work that way. EVER. omg. That's fucking stupid for fucks sakes! Christ, IF you look at data, and I do, people would see things like hurricanes, precipitation, have all been unchanging and steadily constant for a number of years now.

USA had no landfalling hurricanes for many years. And then 3 in a row. We call that in science bad luck.

Not global warming. Not God's wrath. Not the hand of humans and our effects on the environment. It's nature, its coincidence, and its our desire to make ourselves believe what we want to believe and use language to trick ourselves into thinking it.

If you don't see yet how this scam works, I can't help you :tiphat:

Its really, really sad what's happened and how science has been taken over by literally insane people who think they are vampire fairy dragons and that you can just change your biology by thinking you're a girl/boy.

It's really sad to see what is and should be, an ecological hypothesis, a hypothesis... Not a theory, it's a hypothesis, and not a very good one at that, taken as a political wrecking ball by one side of the coin to trick and confuse people to leftist agenda and to blindly vote democrat.

Suffice to say, I could dismantle the global warming issue much further - but if the fact that we've been warming, and would continue to warm, for thousands of years, if humans never emitted a GHG in our collective lifetimes, or if we reduced all GHGs we emitted to zero tomorrow is not enough for you... You would be surprised to know, NOTHING, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING concerning climate would change - the seas would STILL rise at present rates, the climate warm, and ice melt, and so on, and so on. The rates wouldn't change, nothing would change. Because climate changes and is always changing.

If you think global warming is bad, wait until the great volcano/asteroid hits and drops global temps by a few degrees C and blots out the sun. An event like that happens around every 100-200 years, usually with an average of 125-150 years. And we are well over due for such an event.

We are babies crying about non-problems on our toys. We've had it SO good for so long, humanity can't imagine how bad it COULD really get. WWI and WWII were a part of that, now imagine snow in summer across the northern hemisphere when we should have 80 degrees F, for perhaps 2 to 4 years time after such an event. If you are under 50, you will likely see this event happen in your life. Lets pray not, it will truly be a wake up call for the world. Mark my words.


....

I'll never forget being in a upper level bio course, and the professor makes a quip about ".... And then you go back and bias your data to get the right answer.." and EVERYONE in the class laughed. Everyone. Everyone but me.
Because.
The truth is, the joke is, the guy wasn't joking. Thats WHAT you do.

You don't get funding on negative results. And you're there to prove your own ideas, what you think, not to actually discover something ("I think the world works this way, lets work to find out that it does") not ("I think the world works this way, but lets try and find out how it really works and see if what I think makes sense")....
People don't discover things in science, they prove their own ideas.

..

Discoveries in science happen after 50-100 years when we figure out and realize all the science of the past was wrong. Pretty much all outright wrong. Pretty much everything we thought we knew.

What could anyone think will be the case in 50-100 years from now?
 
Last edited:

mushroombrew

Active member
Veteran
that healthy living soil is the natural baseline for chemotype expressions elicited in the rhizosphere

plant exudates are important as those communications and used by the plant to facilitate many function including production of secondary metabolites

the balance of which when selected by the plant through root exudates in a thriving soil food web is markedly different when you feed it via ionic sources

would I prefer properly grown pot in a sterile / synthetically fed system opposed to organics grown poorly in a natural system?

If poorly means pathogens, no thanks if poorly means less yield but parallel or better quality then I would choose natural.

I would not be growing with recycled organic soil if I wasn't getting the yield I wanted as well as quality and truthfully it is less work

I spent about 10 years slowly transitioning so I would have a input to out feel for the differential, I would not have stayed with living soil to grow the same weed as I did before, growing from bottles is east and fun.

If I had to scale and organics was not feasible I would be running a transitional system (many people do even if they don't realize it)

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...
 

mushroombrew

Active member
Veteran
@cannabiologist

Do you believe the theory that freshwater melt from the north pole interrupts the Gulf stream eventually?

It is lighter than salt water and stays up top. Some believe the fresh water layer will prevent transmission of heat from the G.S. to the atmosphere in the northern hemisphere.

That results in re-icing of the pole and possibly a mini ice age.

Or is that just James Lovelock's Gaia theory...
 

jidoka

Active member
I would respectfully disagree that fewer, larger cells produce healthier, stress free plants. The Achilles heel of hydro is Ca uptake. How many sources of Ca do you realistically have other than canp3. So every unit of ca you add comes loaded with .82 units of of no3.

Tell me how you would get 350 ppm of Ca in your feed? At that point you have weak, water logged cells that are easy prey for pest/disease

Ca is absolutely required for cell division and cell wall integrity. Straight up ain't gonna happen with conventional hydro formulas
 

mushroombrew

Active member
Veteran
I would respectfully disagree that fewer, larger cells produce healthier, stress free plants. The Achilles heel of hydro is Ca uptake. How many sources of Ca do you realistically have other than canp3. So every unit of ca you add comes loaded with .82 units of of no3.

Tell me how you would get 350 ppm of Ca in your feed? At that point you have weak, water logged cells that are easy prey for pest/disease

Ca is absolutely required for cell division and cell wall integrity. Straight up ain't gonna happen with conventional hydro formulas

I think the 200ppm of Ca, Mg and S in my well water ought to do it.

And cal mag...

Wanna see the sides of my reservoirs?

Calcium aint an issue in my grow.
 

mushroombrew

Active member
Veteran
The cell size is my DWC observation. Has nothing to do with health.

I theorize there are the same amount of total cells. In two plants the same age. One in media one in DWC.
It is plainly evident when taking clones. Media produces denser plants in my experience.

Same nutes brother. Woody in rockwool soft in DWC. Odd.
 

Cannabologist

Active member
Veteran
@cannabiologist

Do you believe the theory that freshwater melt from the north pole interrupts the Gulf stream eventually?

It is lighter than salt water and stays up top. Some believe the fresh water layer will prevent transmission of heat from the G.S. to the atmosphere in the northern hemisphere.

That results in re-icing of the pole and possibly a mini ice age.

Or is that just James Lovelock's Gaia theory...
That "thermohaline circulation" your talking about has indeed been cut off, and the last time that happened, as I am aware, was from a freshwater influx that happened all at once, and was not gradual, ... And was what I was referring to before, likely caused by an impact event some 12k years ago, leading to the extinction of the great mega flora and fauna, as well as causing the younger dryas period that lasted for 1000 years.

This event (these events) happen in rapid, catastrophic intervals that are not gradual, rather the result of random occurrences are shocking and sudden - not on the scale of hundreds of years, but decades or less, and their ripple effects occur as quickly upon the environment.

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.

The last great extinction event was less than 12k years ago after the turn of the last ice age and it resulted in the extinction of numerous species, particularly across North America.
 

mushroombrew

Active member
Veteran
That "thermohaline circulation" your talking about has indeed been cut off, and the last time that happened, as I am aware, was from a freshwater influx that happened all at once, and was not gradual, ... And was what I was referring to before, likely caused by an impact event some 12k years ago, leading to the extinction of the great mega flora and fauna, as well as causing the younger dryas period that lasted for 1000 years.

This event (these events) happen in rapid, catastrophic intervals that are not gradual, rather the result of random occurrences are shocking and sudden - not on the scale of hundreds of years, but decades or less, and their ripple effects occur as quickly upon the environment.

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.

The last great extinction event was less than 12k years ago after the turn of the last ice age and it resulted in the extinction of numerous species, particularly across North America.

I am not saying pollution etc is a good thing. But it is so insignificant in comparison to historical natural events. Wait till yellow stone pops. See if we are still talking about our carbon footprint afterwards.
 

mushroombrew

Active member
Veteran
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?!
 

Cannabologist

Active member
Veteran
A yellowstone event is game over for the human race, our life, our civilization(s), and we will be knocked back to the... Bronze age.

The kinds of events I am talking about happen much more often, and just keep knocking us back a bit. In this day and age though, it'd be much much more massive and damaging due to the global economy, with likely hundreds of thousands dead in the immediate event, and millions in the aftermath. Not gonna really fuck us up and doom the species, but it's gonna suck, bad, for awhile.

That shit happens every 100-200 years ;)
 

Douglas.Curtis

Autistic Diplomat in Training
Tell me how you would get 350 ppm of Ca in your feed? At that point you have weak, water logged cells that are easy prey for pest/disease
Why would I want 350ppm of Ca, when my max feed is 750ppm? There's "enough calcium" and then there's overkill. Hot, super white ash anyone?
 
Top