[mushroombrew]

Well if you don't know Marijuana cannot be considered "Organic" in the US because it is not recognized by the FEDS.

So I am hip to the "it's not really organic" line.

Lets put that BS aside and continue shall we?

I have grown in Soil and Hydro for decades. So I have some real life opinions.

I primarily focus on Indoor. And I am a Hydro grower when I am inside. As such I am biased.

Obviously it will get very opinionated in here.

Please remember nobody is "WRONG". We all want to be right but lets keep the name calling to a minimum.

I am looking for personal experiences and evidence.

So somebody saying how much better Organic is who has never grown Inorganically is not helpful.

And so we don't have to type the words over and over lets use

"O" for Organic
"IO" for inorganic

Hopefully this can stay evidence based.

Here is my evidence to start this off.

"The fundamental process of nutrient absorption by plants is well established. Irrespective of whether nutrients originate from an organic or inorganic sources, plants are only capable of absorbing nutrients in certain forms. For example, nitrogen is only absorbed as nitrate (NO3-) ions or ammonium (NH4+) ions and potassium only as K+ ions. Thus, plants cannot distinguish between nutrients derived from organic and inorganic fertilizer sources"

https://msue.anr.msu.edu/news/what_o...lants_and_soil

I have a strong chemistry background. And I always believed the above statement.

[Only Ornamental]

Originally Posted by mushroombrew

Well if you don't know Marijuana cannot be considered "Organic" in the US because it is not recognized by the FEDS.
...
"The fundamental process of nutrient absorption by plants is well established. Irrespective of whether nutrients originate from an organic or inorganic sources, plants are only capable of absorbing nutrients in certain forms. For example, nitrogen is only absorbed as nitrate (NO3-) ions or ammonium (NH4+) ions and potassium only as K+ ions. Thus, plants cannot distinguish between nutrients derived from organic and inorganic fertilizer sources"
...

First: Define "organic". Suppose you're not talking about certified organic since most countries with serious organic labels (i.e. not the USA) do not allow artificial illumination, automated greenhouses, hydroponics etc.
Second: It's been proven over and over again that plants can and do assimilate small organic molecules. The assimilation speed is usually in the following order: NH4+>NO3->urea>amino acids and derivatives>nucleic acids. Roots very well distinguish between many nutrients by means of more or less selective and energy driven uptake mechanisms and up- and downregulation thereof (see for example amino acid transporters such as LHT1, AAP1 and 5, or ProT2). In addition to the ease of root assimilation, plants can't quite compete with soil microbes for organic molecules and are often left with their "mineralised leftovers". This is why the bulk of nutrients in most plants was assimilated in inorganic form. Still, you can grow plants in fully organic sterile nutrient solutions and they will cover their demands entirely on the provided organic solutes. And then, there are the carnivorous plants... just saying .
Apropos, potassium is a very stupid example of yours: Under real life growing conditions potassium is always K+ and nothing else, no matter how you add it or from what it is derived. Alkali metal cations are so weakly complexed in an aqueous environment that any sort of reasonable chelate or complex has such a negligible stability constant that it can be regarded as inexistent unless you're willing to try/buy crown ethers which, depending on the literature source, have formation constants roughly between 1 and 6 (with your "strong chemistry background" you're certainly familiar with the term logK0 and the like). On the other hand, chelates of calcium, iron and other di- and trivalent cations at least behave like organic molecules. Depending on the chelate and coordination bond strength under a given condition, they're somewhere more to one or the other side of the grey area between O and IO. Besides, if plants couldn't/wouldn't assimilate organic molecules, chelation wouldn't work the way it does. And yes, a part of EDTA is assimilated as full metal chelate.

[Easy7]

Organic soil is just easier and chem hydro is easier. Perhaps if there were complete bottled nutrients (concentrated syrup) for organic hydro. Really sucks to have to spend $700 on half a dozen different bottled nutrients).

I will chose pheno over growing method any time and every time. Probably shouldn't even be showing buds off, in the hostile legal climate that is most of the world. If you are happy then there is no need to do something else.

[mushroombrew]

Originally Posted by Only Ornamental

First: Define "organic". Suppose you're not talking about certified organic since most countries with serious organic labels (i.e. not the USA) do not allow artificial illumination, automated greenhouses, hydroponics etc.
Second: It's been proven over and over again that plants can and do assimilate small organic molecules. The assimilation speed is usually in the following order: NH4+>NO3->urea>amino acids and derivatives>nucleic acids. Roots very well distinguish between many nutrients by means of more or less selective and energy driven uptake mechanisms and up- and downregulation thereof (see for example amino acid transporters such as LHT1, AAP1 and 5, or ProT2). In addition to the ease of root assimilation, plants can't quite compete with soil microbes for organic molecules and are often left with their "mineralised leftovers". This is why the bulk of nutrients in most plants was assimilated in inorganic form. Still, you can grow plants in fully organic sterile nutrient solutions and they will cover their demands entirely on the provided organic solutes. And then, there are the carnivorous plants... just saying .
Apropos, potassium is a very stupid example of yours: Under real life growing conditions potassium is always K+ and nothing else, no matter how you add it or from what it is derived. Alkali metal cations are so weakly complexed in an aqueous environment that any sort of reasonable chelate or complex has such a negligible stability constant that it can be regarded as inexistent unless you're willing to try/buy crown ethers which, depending on the literature source, have formation constants roughly between 1 and 6 (with your "strong chemistry background" you're certainly familiar with the term logK0 and the like). On the other hand, chelates of calcium, iron and other di- and trivalent cations at least behave like organic molecules. Depending on the chelate and coordination bond strength under a given condition, they're somewhere more to one or the other side of the grey area between O and IO. Besides, if plants couldn't/wouldn't assimilate organic molecules, chelation wouldn't work the way it does. And yes, a part of EDTA is assimilated as full metal chelate.

Appreciate your input. I guess O would have to be "rock" derived vs.
IO synthesized. As I mentioned O is a gray area in the US.

The K example is not mine see link.

But the thing I am getting at is I cannot see any measurable differences in plant response to ions from differing sources O or IO. Because once dissolved in water they behave the same.

And yes soil is complicated. But the microbial competition may be off topic?

Maybe we ought to assume an inert media?

Soil vs Hydro is a much more complex debate I think.

But maybe soil and O go hand in hand too often to do so?

[Granger2]

I choose not to participate since there are numerous threads that will show up if you do a simple search on this site. I find this subject tiresome. Have fun. -granger

[mushroombrew]

Originally Posted by Granger2

I choose not to participate since there are numerous threads that will show up if you do a simple search on this site. I find this subject tiresome. Have fun. -granger

Not sure how I missed those. Saw lots of soil vs hydro but not specifically addressing uptake and performance differences if any.

Well I will look again and see.

[meizzwang]

While organic versus inorganic may have an effect on the quality of the end product, I doubt the relationship is linear, and the circumstances for one method yielding more favorable, quality results compared to the other is likely dynamic.

Assuming we're talking about a single clone, the chemistry and diversity of organic versus inorganic micronutrients in the medium, rate of macronutrient uptake at particular stages of development, growth rates at different phases of development, timing of harvest/curing techniques, EC and chemistry of the clear water being used, and just to cover it all, the nebulous "environmental factors" all likely contribute to the quality of the end product.

That being said, I personally can't tell a difference between well grown, pesticide free, inorganically grown weed versus well grown organically grown weed. I do notice that plants that aren't pumped like Arnold tend to have lower disease incidences and taste better regardless of organic or inorganic nutrient sources.

[Weird]

imhe the biggest difference is found between living soil and ionic fed plants

the differences are articulated in the secondary metabolite production and this is where for most people the are becomes quite grey

the plants produce secondary metabolites based on environmental cues, so in a natural system you get a natural baseline for the plant's performance secondary metabolites included where in ion fed that baseline is on the farmer

now the natural conclusion is control is premium, that is until you research what facilitates production of particular secondary metabolites like mycrene

in some plants, for example, mycrene production is reduced in light of increased nitrogen.

these are phytochemicals that are evolutionary adaptations to environmental stresses

"true organics" to me is replicating the natural system the genes evolved in, not eliciting an artificial result based on some static maximum macro and micro nutrient scenario

TBH I have found it counter intuitive to proper cultivar performance

Simple side by sides with my own cultivars and tons of elites that I have run for decades all have different expressions in LOS versus transitional and sterile.

Burkle for example had a strong grape taste (single profile taste and distinct) in transitional gardens and lavender (bouquet of flavors much more complex) in los gardens, it goes deeper than this including soil mictobiota and rhizosphere interactions that work with the plant's immune system

I recycle my soil and avoid minerals and have found that matching natural soil baselines opposed to theorized perfected ones allows for microbiology to bridge the gap so my costs, labors and ecological foot print reduced while maintaining performance metrics.

[mushroombrew]

Originally Posted by Weird

imhe the biggest difference is found between living soil and ionic fed plants

the differences are articulated in the secondary metabolite production and this is where for most people the are becomes quite grey

the plants produce secondary metabolites based on environmental cues, so in a natural system you get a natural baseline for the plant's performance secondary metabolites included where in ion fed that baseline is on the farmer

now the natural conclusion is control is premium, that is until you research what facilitates production of particular secondary metabolites like mycrene

in some plants, for example, mycrene production is reduced in light of increased nitrogen.

these are phytochemicals that are evolutionary adaptations to environmental stresses

"true organics" to me is replicating the natural system the genes evolved in, not eliciting an artificial result based on some static maximum macro and micro nutrient scenario

TBH I have found it counter intuitive to proper cultivar performance

Simple side by sides with my own cultivars and tons of elites that I have run for decades all have different expressions in LOS versus transitional and sterile.

Burkle for example had a strong grape taste (single profile taste and distinct) in transitional gardens and lavender (bouquet of flavors much more complex) in los gardens, it goes deeper than this including soil mictobiota and rhizosphere interactions that work with the plant's immune system

I recycle my soil and avoid minerals and have found that matching natural soil baselines opposed to theorized perfected ones allows for microbiology to bridge the gap so my costs, labors and ecological foot print reduced while maintaining performance metrics.

I like you point of view. I am at the opposite end in chem Hydro. But I enjoy hearing your experience as I am not done learning.

I would think in a natural scenario a plant would take up most of its nitrogen as NH4 as that is the most readily available and plentiful form near the surface.

We feed primarily NO3 as it does not cause acidification.

Do you think it has any effect? The type of nitrogen?

[jidoka]

I believe your opening statement is wrong. Of course plants can take up N in organic form. And when they do they save a ton of energy converting the N into protein. And protein vs nitrate in plant sap is a far healthier plant.