Chemicals or Organics?

[Sam the Caveman]

For guerilla plots, I think chem is the way to go.

Here's why I think that, most readily available organic ferts contain fish related products and or bone meal. These attract animals, those animals dig up your plants.

If you have a backyard with a well secured area or a guerrilla pot with a large fence that is burried at the bottom, you can use organics safely, that is safely for the plants.

It also depends on what kind of critters are around your area.

From what I've read from experienced guerrilla growers, if you amend you plot early, as in a month or so before planting, all the critters can go dig and see whats up and when they find no food, they will naturally not go there again.

If you have a good supply and variety of bat guanos to choose from, the critters don't seem to mind that so much.

You can amend with guanos and lime and other things, just not fish related products and bone meal.

 

[ColBatGuano]

Chemical fertilizers, which lack carbon bonds, most definitely damage the food soil web. I learned that in high school twenty years ago. They could even heighten climate change by altering soil respiration. Now, on a small scale they might not be especially damaging, but their (admittedly necessary) widespread use could prove to be detrimental many years from now.

I am not, however, suggesting that organic production can feed the world. My hero is Norman Borlaug, and he certainly wasn't an organic grower--but he did probably save a billion-or-so lives through his plant pathology and genetics work. All I'm saying is that science most definitely supports the concept of chemical fertilizers being detrimental to the food soil web.

 

[etinarcadiaego]

As others have said here the only real concern with using chemical fertilizer is OVER application . . . as you long as you apply at the proper rate you'll be just fine and in that case organic and chemical fertilizers are equally safe . . .

There is a stigma attached to using chemical ferts, and my guess is that it comes from people who over applied it and saw negative results . . . over application leads to a number of negative effects (environmentally) however this is not the case when used in moderate doses (proper application) and it's a shame people aren't more aware of this.

I grow organically because I'm lazy and don't like fussing with adding nutrients . . .

Someone said chemical ferts = poison . . . I don't believe that's true. If you over apply like crazy sure it can reduce or even eliminate biological activity in soil, but again used correctly the amount you apply is the amount the plants can/will use . . .

 

[ColBatGuano]

I grow organically because I'm lazy and don't like fussing with adding nutrients . . .

IMHO, there's nothing wrong with that!

 

[etinarcadiaego]

I would appreciate it if you some of you more knowledgeable folk would give this a read (LINK) and let me know your thoughts . . .

It goes into some detail about the effects of chemical fertilizer use outdoors and how growing plants the rely on chemical nutrients and water can cause an excess of pathogens in the soil . . . etc.

Anyways I thought it was pretty good read, but I'm a skeptic, so I thought maybe some of you could read and let me know what you think.

Thanks!

 

[Clackamas Coot]

I would appreciate it if you some of you more knowledgeable folk would give this a read (LINK) and let me know your thoughts . . .

etinarcadiaego

I'm familiar with that article and thank you for posting a link to it. Very solid information, IMHO

Here's where I come down on the organic vs. chemical salt discussion and because as we all know, cannabis is just such a different plant from every other plant in the universe. See Advanced Nutrients for further details. Or Dutch Gold Master. Or Humboldt that. Blah, blah, blah.............

When someone can bring me a hydroponically-grown tomato, herb, lettuce, berry, whatever and it actually tastes like whatever it is then I will admit that I'm wrong.

After over 25 years in the wholesale produce industry in Los Angeles, Seattle and Portland and was in the position to look at new products, all that I could see was beautiful fruits and vegetables that had little taste. Especially on the brix levels on those commodities which have specific USDA standards. Meaning that if a shipment arrives at a warehouse and a federal inspection is requested (standard deal actually) if the commodity has a brix standard and the product arriving doesn't hit that standard then you have the right to refuse/reject the load.

Now it's compost material.

Thanks again for the link.

CC

 

[ColBatGuano]

I would appreciate it if you some of you more knowledgeable folk would give this a read (LINK) and let me know your thoughts . . .

It goes into some detail about the effects of chemical fertilizer use outdoors and how growing plants the rely on chemical nutrients and water can cause an excess of pathogens in the soil . . . etc.

Anyways I thought it was pretty good read, but I'm a skeptic, so I thought maybe some of you could read and let me know what you think.

Thanks!

To be honest, most of it reads like a introductory chapter of Soil Biology 101.

 

[etinarcadiaego]

etinarcadiaego

I'm familiar with that article and thank you for posting a link to it. Very solid information, IMHO

Here's where I come down on the organic vs. chemical salt discussion and because as we all know, cannabis is just such a different plant from every other plant in the universe. See Advanced Nutrients for further details. Or Dutch Gold Master. Or Humboldt that. Blah, blah, blah.............

When someone can bring me a hydroponically-grown tomato, herb, lettuce, berry, whatever and it actually tastes like whatever it is then I will admit that I'm wrong.

After over 25 years in the wholesale produce industry in Los Angeles, Seattle and Portland and was in the position to look at new products, all that I could see was beautiful fruits and vegetables that had little taste. Especially on the brix levels on those commodities which have specific USDA standards. Meaning that if a shipment arrives at a warehouse and a federal inspection is requested (standard deal actually) if the commodity has a brix standard and the product arriving doesn't hit that standard then you have the right to refuse/reject the load.

Now it's compost material.

Thanks again for the link.

CC

I'm glad to hear support for the article from you, because I really liked it's message and I was new to a lot of the info presented in it (plus it was in laymans terms)

Also I completely agree with your stance on organic vs chemical. It just so happens I tasted my first hydroponically grown tomato not 1 month ago while home over the holidays. My cousin grew it indoors in a kit my aunt bought, and we all agreed the taste just wasn't there. None of them thought for a second it had anything to do with the method, they all assumed she had made some mistake . . . .

To be honest, most of it reads like a introductory chapter of Soil Biology 101.

You say that like it's a bad thing, lol, but it's informative and easy for anyone to understand.

 

[ColBatGuano]

You say that like it's a bad thing, lol, but it's informative and easy for anyone to understand.

You're right, it does sound like that, but I didn't mean it that way. What I should have said was, it is pretty much correct on all the basics I know about soil biology from my college days.

 

[D.S. Toker. MD]

Organic growing isnt just about ferts. Outdoors, plants can come under insect attack. Ive had some serious infestations of voracious munching bugs and either it got sprayed with sevin or something to kill them asap or the grow is over. Also, a plant planted without snail bait isnt a plant for long, yet the snail bait seems to taste in the weed. Ive tried organic pesticides and neem oil and they seem useless here for some bugs: pissing on a forest fire: total ineffectiveness. We have some munchers that chems barely kill.

The extension agent was actually advocating for organic growing. The purpose of his article was to say that organic growing was more ecofriendly, but that some caution must be used when working with decaying matter and that the number 1 health problem in the world prior to the introduction of chemical fertilizers was that of food contamination and food born bacterial infections such as salmonella, hepatitis, causing diarhrea and death.

 

[mullray]

It always blows me away by how hot this topic can get. First off I'll state that I live by the science so therefore think much of the organics argument is based on soil agriculture practices of the past where excessive fertilizer use resulted in leaching and heavy metal accumulation (Pb, Cd, Cr, As) in soils. It seems though a futile argument because there's so much blow by organic zealots (shit about shit) that it can only be described as some form of religion (blind faith).

Since when were fertilizers chemicals? Let's face it most of the nasty shit in them (i.e. heavy metals) comes from their organic sources. Note phosphates which once upon a time were laden in cadmium. Guess what - this cadmium came from the rocks that were used to produce phosphate fertilizers...

Here's an anlysis of 2 Bat Guano products (bat shit that is full of cadmium and other heavy metals).

BAT GUANO 0-7-0

Arsenic 11.7000
Cadmium 7.6000mg/kg
Cobalt 12.6000
Zinc 1637.0000
Lead 1.2000

BAT GUANO NATURAL ORGANIC PHOSPHATE FERTILIZER 0-7-0

Arsenic 13.3000
Cadmium 10.0000mg/kg
Lead 1.2000
Selenium 5.5000

Here's an analysis of one of those nasty chem phosphate fertilizers.

Monopotassium Phosphate (MKP 0- 52- 34)

Main content, min 99.0 %
P2O5 ≥51.3 %
K2O ≥34.0%
Water insoluble, max 0.1 %
Moisture, max 0.2%
PH 4.4-4.8
As ≤0.0025%
Heavy metal (Pb) ≤0.0003%
Hg None
Cd ≤0.0002% (2mg/kg or 2ppm/kg)
Cr ≤0.0002%
F ≤0.002%
CL ≤0.01%

Hell of a lot cleaner wouldn't you say? 2mg/kg Cd (man made nasty chemicals as the zealots would howel) versus 10.0000mg/kg Cd (heavy shit)

I could go on about this all day and throw up as much chemistry and science as I like but why bother. The organic argument is not based on science ---- it's fed by ignorance and varying kinds of shit (not to mention worm castings and molasses which are both riddled in heavy metals). BTW - just on that note the word organics is a scam. Plants uptake non organic particles (e.g. cadmium, arsenic, lead etc) from "organic" soils and therefore there is no such thing as organic mj or any other plant. MR

 

[hamstring]

Well I love Mulrays post and this topic has been beat to death so why not pile on here goes my two cents.

I totally agree that tomatoes grown in your garden taste better vs. hydro and I am even willing to make the leap of faith it takes to say the same probably goes for MJ. The problem to me is everyone talks with such wide brush strokes on the subject, which seems to me as silly as going into the voting booth and voting all D or all R on your ballet.

You can't demonize one side or the other it doesn’t make common sense. All of us guerrilla growers know from personally experience that Chem ferts work just fine and produce a product that is very good. I eat the Hydro tomatoes every year out of the supermarket because they are available and they taste like tomatoes not horse dung just not as good as locally grown tomatoes I say again "not as good" but good.

When I read all these posts where advocates on both sides of the fence talk in "absolutes" it makes me laugh because we all know its just not true. They both produce a fine product that in most cases 99 % no ones going to tell the difference in my weed grown in jet black Midwestern bottom soil with MG that’s right water soluble MG put on maybe 5 times/season. Good luck with absolutes here.

 

[bombadil.360]

It always blows me away by how hot this topic can get. First off I'll state that I live by the science so therefore think much of the organics argument is based on soil agriculture practices of the past where excessive fertilizer use resulted in leaching and heavy metal accumulation (Pb, Cd, Cr, As) in soils. It seems though a futile argument because there's so much blow by organic zealots (shit about shit) that it can only be described as some form of religion (blind faith).

Since when were fertilizers chemicals? Let's face it most of the nasty shit in them (i.e. heavy metals) comes from their organic sources. Note phosphates which once upon a time were laden in cadmium. Guess what - this cadmium came from the rocks that were used to produce phosphate fertilizers...

Here's an anlysis of 2 Bat Guano products (bat shit that is full of cadmium and other heavy metals).

BAT GUANO 0-7-0

Arsenic 11.7000
Cadmium 7.6000mg/kg
Cobalt 12.6000
Zinc 1637.0000
Lead 1.2000

BAT GUANO NATURAL ORGANIC PHOSPHATE FERTILIZER 0-7-0

Arsenic 13.3000
Cadmium 10.0000mg/kg
Lead 1.2000
Selenium 5.5000

Here's an analysis of one of those nasty chem phosphate fertilizers.

Monopotassium Phosphate (MKP 0- 52- 34)

Main content, min 99.0 %
P2O5 ≥51.3 %
K2O ≥34.0%
Water insoluble, max 0.1 %
Moisture, max 0.2%
PH 4.4-4.8
As ≤0.0025%
Heavy metal (Pb) ≤0.0003%
Hg None
Cd ≤0.0002% (2mg/kg or 2ppm/kg)
Cr ≤0.0002%
F ≤0.002%
CL ≤0.01%

Hell of a lot cleaner wouldn't you say? 2mg/kg Cd (man made nasty chemicals as the zealots would howel) versus 10.0000mg/kg Cd (heavy shit)

I could go on about this all day and throw up as much chemistry and science as I like but why bother. The organic argument is not based on science ---- it's fed by ignorance and varying kinds of shit (not to mention worm castings and molasses which are both riddled in heavy metals). BTW - just on that note the word organics is a scam. Plants uptake non organic particles (e.g. cadmium, arsenic, lead etc) from "organic" soils and therefore there is no such thing as organic mj or any other plant. MR

so organic farmers whose produce do not have residues of pesticides and herbicides are backed-up just by blind faith, uh?

guess all them serious tests that have determined the presence of pesticides and herbicides even in the most expensive bottles of french wine are all based on ignorance...

maybe your argument is just based on the fact that true organic farming is bad for the petro-chemical business, it is also bad news for the lazy pseudo-farmers, that needs to poison his produce or else he cannot produce.

yeah, it is the organics who don't have the science lol...

 

[Big Foot]

I prefer organic although it does attract unwanted predators. One time I left a milk jug of fish emulsion out in the woods a came back later that week to find claw marks, bear dung, and footprints.

 

[mullray]

so organic farmers whose produce do not have residues of pesticides and herbicides are backed-up just by blind faith, uh?

guess all them serious tests that have determined the presence of pesticides and herbicides even in the most expensive bottles of french wine are all based on ignorance...

maybe your argument is just based on the fact that true organic farming is bad for the petro-chemical business, it is also bad news for the lazy pseudo-farmers, that needs to poison his produce or else he cannot produce.

yeah, it is the organics who don't have the science lol...

Yep there's the organic Nazi mind at work again. Here's the science. Pesticides and plant food (essential mineral nutrition) are very different things. You cite the wine industry when we're talking mj (at least that's why I'm on an mj forum). Mineral nutrition is absolutely required by plants whereas "chemical" pesticides aren't and many hydro growers know this and do not use any chemical pesticides ever. A bit more science ----- recently they tested a crapload of med products from LA dispensaries and found 5.47% of the products tested contained "trace" residues of pesticides. That should have ideally been 0% but here's the real bummer - it turned out the bulk of this was Pyrethrum (an organic approved pesticide) in both organic and hydro samples. I was impressed that only 5.47% tested positive and most of this was for an organic pesticide - the med movement has done itself proud. Turns out we're more ethical than wine growers and many other growers for that matter. No one is debating that traditional agricultural practices, in some instances, need to be questioned and ideally regulated to ensure food is safe. I doubt anyone here is debating this ---- I sure aren't.

Bottom line: Whether you grow hydro or organics there is no need to use chemical pesticides and its always been my experience that more bugs are outdoors than indoors (and I grow indoors).

A bit more science (actually biochemistry) - it makes no difference to a plant whether an atom of nitrogen is derived from poultry manure or synthetically derived from air (as is the case in most man made nitrogen fertilizers - yep air ---- pretty organic really huh --- so far we have rocks and air).

However, if you really want to talk about nasty shit maybe we ought to talk mycotoxins (toxic secondary by-products of fungi) that are just under 2000 times more toxic than even the most toxic pesticides. Mycotoxins are a result of a.Flavus fungi (among other fungi) which are everywhere and organic (or at least naturally occurring in nature). And yep among other organic nasties they have been found in many samples of mj (nature kills.... eat shit that'll kill you too).


I am a fan of both organics and hydro but I'm sick of hearing the organic movement beating their gongs about shit they clearly don't understand (or would rather not discuss) and picking up on questionable examples when there are multitudes of other examples that contradict their so called facts. Hmm the petrochemical industry --- there's a bit of impressive -albeit reductive- fear mongering (more organic nazi dribble) but I despise the petrochemical industry as much as I disdain the hippy hoax of a 16 billion a year organic food scam which feeds wealthy white people but threatens to starve everyone else (i.e. the poor living in developing nations) because organic food is overpriced, yields less, and is far more labour intensive . Oh and don't even go with developing nations grow organically --- you'll be citing more flawed facts. i live and work in developing nations and have done so for the past six years and will assure you that developing nations need food and therefore grow using anything that helps food grow. Shit man - these guys couldn't give a shit about chems (as the organic nazis like to call them) - it beats starving yeah? So let's hope the future is in sustainable use of low heavy metal content fertilizers (i.e. hydroponics which separates mineral elements from the earth) and organic pesticides.


Here's a few links to those who want to check out both sides of the debate...


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/f...al-health-benefits-reveals-food-watchdog.html


http://www.integralhydro.com/advancednutrients.html (go to base of the page and read about heavy metals in fertilizers and cannabis - also a very good story about suspect marketing by Advanced Nutrients )


http://www.slate.com/id/2198756/ (great article and raises some very good points)


Here's a concept to mull over


"One issue frequently overlooked by organic enthusiasts is the prevalence of excess arsenic, lead, cadmium, nickel, mercury, copper, and zinc in organic soil. Soil ecologists and environmentalists—and, to some extent, the concerned public—have known for more than a century that the synthetic pesticides of conventional farming leave heavy metals in the ground but the fact that you'll find the same toxins in organic soil and composts has been largely obscured from the public.


Scientists have known since the 1920s that organic fertilisers (composted animal manure, rock phosphates, fish emulsions, guano, and wood ashes etc) contaminate topsoil with varying concentrations of heavy metals. Organic advocates, who rely exclusively on these fertilisers, are well aware of the problem, although they rarely publicise the point."


MR

 

[rubbanutz420]

WOW Mullray, Very very interesting... Im not an expert, but i have grown organically and with synthetics... I'd love to hear more organic growers chime in as to what they think about these last post....from my stand point, it seems very hard to argue with the facts you have provided...Ill be following this thread...Take care...

 

[cascadian]

nice job mullray and p4p, unfortunately science and detailed explanations are over the head of most who will feel compelled to reply to these threads...

might be amusing to see more of the 'rebuttals' at least

 

[bagada]

For guerilla plots, I think chem is the way to go.

Here's why I think that, most readily available organic ferts contain fish related products and or bone meal. These attract animals, those animals dig up your plants.

If you have a backyard with a well secured area or a guerrilla pot with a large fence that is burried at the bottom, you can use organics safely, that is safely for the plants.

It also depends on what kind of critters are around your area.

From what I've read from experienced guerrilla growers, if you amend you plot early, as in a month or so before planting, all the critters can go dig and see whats up and when they find no food, they will naturally not go there again.

If you have a good supply and variety of bat guanos to choose from, the critters don't seem to mind that so much.

You can amend with guanos and lime and other things, just not fish related products and bone meal.

i strongly agree with this....if growing form home just use organic...since its easier at home...and so far the best organic fert for me is compost tea...which i find better than even chems...but for guerilla growing in jungles and forests...chems is a must for the most product...and if your growing for your own stash, then always go organic...guerrilla growers cant haul water or heavy shit in general so chems seems to be the best option...and chem grown weed needs less rootspace to gather nutrients so you dont need to amend as much as organic

 

[bombadil.360]

Yep there's the organic Nazi mind at work again. Here's the science. Pesticides and plant food (essential mineral nutrition) are very different things. You cite the wine industry when we're talking mj (at least that's why I'm on an mj forum). Mineral nutrition is absolutely required by plants whereas "chemical" pesticides aren't and many hydro growers know this and do not use any chemical pesticides ever. A bit more science ----- recently they tested a crapload of med products from LA dispensaries and found 5.47% of the products tested contained "trace" residues of pesticides. That should have ideally been 0% but here's the real bummer - it turned out the bulk of this was Pyrethrum (an organic approved pesticide) in both organic and hydro samples. I was impressed that only 5.47% tested positive and most of this was for an organic pesticide - the med movement has done itself proud. Turns out we're more ethical than wine growers and many other growers for that matter. No one is debating that traditional agricultural practices, in some instances, need to be questioned and ideally regulated to ensure food is safe. I doubt anyone here is debating this ---- I sure aren't.

Bottom line: Whether you grow hydro or organics there is no need to use chemical pesticides and its always been my experience that more bugs are outdoors than indoors (and I grow indoors).

A bit more science (actually biochemistry) - it makes no difference to a plant whether an atom of nitrogen is derived from poultry manure or synthetically derived from air (as is the case in most man made nitrogen fertilizers - yep air ---- pretty organic really huh --- so far we have rocks and air).

However, if you really want to talk about nasty shit maybe we ought to talk mycotoxins (toxic secondary by-products of fungi) that are just under 2000 times more toxic than even the most toxic pesticides. Mycotoxins are a result of a.Flavus fungi (among other fungi) which are everywhere and organic (or at least naturally occurring in nature). And yep among other organic nasties they have been found in many samples of mj (nature kills.... eat shit that'll kill you too).


I am a fan of both organics and hydro but I'm sick of hearing the organic movement beating their gongs about shit they clearly don't understand (or would rather not discuss) and picking up on questionable examples when there are multitudes of other examples that contradict their so called facts. Hmm the petrochemical industry --- there's a bit of impressive -albeit reductive- fear mongering (more organic nazi dribble) but I despise the petrochemical industry as much as I disdain the hippy hoax of a 16 billion a year organic food scam which feeds wealthy white people but threatens to starve everyone else (i.e. the poor living in developing nations) because organic food is overpriced, yields less, and is far more labour intensive . Oh and don't even go with developing nations grow organically --- you'll be citing more flawed facts. i live and work in developing nations and have done so for the past six years and will assure you that developing nations need food and therefore grow using anything that helps food grow. Shit man - these guys couldn't give a shit about chems (as the organic nazis like to call them) - it beats starving yeah? So let's hope the future is in sustainable use of low heavy metal content fertilizers (i.e. hydroponics which separates mineral elements from the earth) and organic pesticides.


Here's a few links to those who want to check out both sides of the debate...


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/f...al-health-benefits-reveals-food-watchdog.html


http://www.integralhydro.com/advancednutrients.html (go to base of the page and read about heavy metals in fertilizers and cannabis - also a very good story about suspect marketing by Advanced Nutrients )


http://www.slate.com/id/2198756/ (great article and raises some very good points)


Here's a concept to mull over


"One issue frequently overlooked by organic enthusiasts is the prevalence of excess arsenic, lead, cadmium, nickel, mercury, copper, and zinc in organic soil. Soil ecologists and environmentalists—and, to some extent, the concerned public—have known for more than a century that the synthetic pesticides of conventional farming leave heavy metals in the ground but the fact that you'll find the same toxins in organic soil and composts has been largely obscured from the public.


Scientists have known since the 1920s that organic fertilisers (composted animal manure, rock phosphates, fish emulsions, guano, and wood ashes etc) contaminate topsoil with varying concentrations of heavy metals. Organic advocates, who rely exclusively on these fertilisers, are well aware of the problem, although they rarely publicise the point."


MR

Your only argument here is that you call organic growers "nazis" and that somehow supports your argument...

because if we are talking science, you simply have none.

To begin, Elemental Nitrogen, Ammonia and Nitric Acid are not the same in composition at all. Just because there are vast amounts of Elemental Nitrogen in the atmosphere it does not translate that either Ammonia or Nitric Acid obtained through the Haber Process or Ostwald Process means that the end product is safe to use.

what they get is not Elemental Nitrogen dummy, they use Elemental Nitrogen found in the atmosphere to then synthesize either Ammonia or Nitric Acids which are then used for either ferts or to make bombs

so it does matter, and no, it is no the same, to have nature provide nitrogen to plants and to have man do it through a synthesis that produces NOT Elemental Nitrogen, period.

 

[mullray]

Your only argument here is that you call organic growers "nazis" and that somehow supports your argument...

because if we are talking science, you simply have none.

To begin, Elemental Nitrogen, Ammonia and Nitric Acid are not the same in composition at all. Just because there are vast amounts of Elemental Nitrogen in the atmosphere it does not translate that either Ammonia or Nitric Acid obtained through the Haber Process or Ostwald Process means that the end product is safe to use.

what they get is not Elemental Nitrogen dummy, they use Elemental Nitrogen found in the atmosphere to then synthesize either Ammonia or Nitric Acids which are then used for either ferts or to make bombs

so it does matter, and no, it is no the same, to have nature provide nitrogen to plants and to have man do it through a synthesis that produces NOT Elemental Nitrogen, period.

What you are talking about my friend is NO3 N Nitrate N (which is mostly the N you will find in any hydroponic fertilizer and is highly bioavailable), NH4 N (ammonium nitrogen which should be no more than 1%w/v of any hydroponic fertilizer and is not used at all in many cases) and (NH2)2CO (urea which by the way naturally occurs in the human body and is soil based and shouldn't be used in hydroponic fertilizers due to slower uptake and translocation rates). NO3 stands for one atom of elemental N and 3 atoms of oxygen - organic if you see the point. NH4 (ammonium nitrogen) stands for one atom of elemental N and 4 atoms of Hydrogen (all organic). Should I break down urea for you? or can we manage this one ourself? Next - what the plant uses is elemental N which is elemental N which is elemental N no matter where it derives from - of course plants also require O, H and C - all of which are naturally occurring. You need to do some reading as this stuff is elemental science/chemistry and no one credible debates that to a plant N is N, P is P, K is K and so on. It's old news that the only difference between man made fertilizers and organic fertilizers is the potential for heavy metal contaminants (which I'm saying occurs in both and more so in many instances in organic fertilizers) OK mate you obviously know science/chemistry so keep throwing it at me and I can give you a lesson in chemistry and molecular biology (which BTW just happens to be my profession). Oh also ammonium is naturally occurring in nature and so is a death adders bite but that'll still kill you. BTW Nitric Acid is seldomly used in nutrients and provides elemental N but reduces pH drastically so is only used to top up elemental N levels where all else can't be used. Technical grade Nitric Acid is typically 68% HNO3. Note the atoms - again all organic and naturally occurring. We begin with HNO3 at 68%. We now need to pull apart our HNO3 at an atomic level to equate the percentage of elemental N in tech grade 68% Nitric Acid.

Firstly look at the chemical/molecular structure of HNO3. We have one H (Hydrogen) atom, one N (Nitrogen) atom and three O (Oxygen) atoms.

The atomic weight of Hydrogen (H) = 1.00794

The atomic weight of oxygen (O) = 15.99. We have three O atoms; therefore O3 = 3 x 15.99 = 47.97 (total atomic weight of 3 Oxygen molecules).

The atomic weight of N = 14.00674

Therefore the total atomic weight of HNO3 equals 1.00794 (1 x H atom) + 47.97 (3 x O atoms) + 14.00674 (1 x N atom) = 62.984

So our equation to establish elemental N percentage from tech grade Nitric Acid becomes the atomic weight of N (the element we want) divided by the total molecular weight of HNO3 multiplied by 100, divided by one. I.e.

% elemental N in HNO3 =

(Molecular weight of N =) 14.00674 x ** 100 = 22.238% (elemental N)
(Total Molecular weight HNO3 =) 62.984 1

We now know that 100% HNO3 contains 22.238% of elemental N. We have 68% pure HNO3 so we now need to equate this. That is, 22.238 (elemental N in 100% nitric acid) x 68% (tech grade purity) = 15.12% N.



Yep - I don't know crap about chemistry - let's talk about organic N if you like because then we have to start breaking down all sorts of chemistry also (but do we really need to?)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen