AKA organic vs mineral.
I know this has been debated before, and more often than not the discussion ended in a fight, so i hope this time to approach this question in a different manner: using the scientific method.
I think this is one of the biggest problem of our stoner community: the lack of serious experiments. In 10.000 years the human being didn't lifted himself from the ground of even 1 cm, but 200 years of scientific method brought us on the moon. So i wonder which marvelous things us stoners could do, with just a little more of science.
So the topic of this debate is: Is in ANY way an organic or semi-organic-based feeding schedule better than a mineral-based one?
The rules of the debate are quite simple:
A) No violence, no arrogance.
B) We don't believe you: You have to prove any of your statement putting your references in the post. Something is not true just because of the teller: the Academician method of debating come straight from the medieval and is of no use to us.
C) Verification of the sources: Not all the sources are right, especially in the internet era. Famous sources are preferred, the validity of a source will be evaluated on the number of times the source is quoted by other scientific publication.
D) Just post useful comments: I'm sure you all stoners understand how much this could help us, so please just post if you have something useful to the discussion.
!!!DIRECT EVIDENCE ARE APPRECIATED!!! If you have grown the same clone with the same light both with organic and mineral based nutrients, AND YOU HAVE ANY EVIDENCE APART YOUR WORD, than your contribute
is REALLY welcome!!!
The poll is just for all the stoners that don't have any direct contribute to the discussion, but still want to contribute somehow.
Have fun guys!!! I hope something great could come from this thread!!!
This is the kind of thread that could elevate this community to the level of OG....
I know this has been debated before, and more often than not the discussion ended in a fight, so i hope this time to approach this question in a different manner: using the scientific method.
I think this is one of the biggest problem of our stoner community: the lack of serious experiments. In 10.000 years the human being didn't lifted himself from the ground of even 1 cm, but 200 years of scientific method brought us on the moon. So i wonder which marvelous things us stoners could do, with just a little more of science.
So the topic of this debate is: Is in ANY way an organic or semi-organic-based feeding schedule better than a mineral-based one?
The rules of the debate are quite simple:
A) No violence, no arrogance.
B) We don't believe you: You have to prove any of your statement putting your references in the post. Something is not true just because of the teller: the Academician method of debating come straight from the medieval and is of no use to us.
C) Verification of the sources: Not all the sources are right, especially in the internet era. Famous sources are preferred, the validity of a source will be evaluated on the number of times the source is quoted by other scientific publication.
D) Just post useful comments: I'm sure you all stoners understand how much this could help us, so please just post if you have something useful to the discussion.
!!!DIRECT EVIDENCE ARE APPRECIATED!!! If you have grown the same clone with the same light both with organic and mineral based nutrients, AND YOU HAVE ANY EVIDENCE APART YOUR WORD, than your contribute
is REALLY welcome!!!
The poll is just for all the stoners that don't have any direct contribute to the discussion, but still want to contribute somehow.
Have fun guys!!! I hope something great could come from this thread!!!
This is the kind of thread that could elevate this community to the level of OG....