The Organic Think Tank

[Lazyman]

How do you define yield I guess is the big question. A dialed-in soil crop can yield just as much as a dialed hydro crop. Of course, the soil crop will require a longer veg, more money on veg light electricity, more plants around for longer periods etc. On a strict time-frame of a month veg and then flower, the hydro will win hands down. I hope there's not too much disagreement on that!

Nope, I agree with you, though I think most guys outyield soil with hydro, it's because mastering organics is more difficult than it is to master salt nutes. Soil takes time to establish the microbial relationships with the roots, no matter how prepped and aged the soil is. The plants are going to be new on a regular basis! In indoor cropping, where crops per year and yield per watt DO matter, I think organic soil grows will lag behind hydro and more readily available mineral nutes.

There's pros and cons to each system of course. Personally, there's no doubt in my mind that you can't beat guanos and kelp to bring out that extra funk at the end of flower. Same holds true for finishing with guanos off a chemical fert base.

Debatable, but a common report! I have plenty stinky buds on chems, but I have noticed that my organic crops cure up faster than non organic ones. In the end they're the same, but the organic ones smell slightly more strongly than the chem ones at chop. I use overkill-amounts of odor control so my indoor crops often have very little smell before trimming though.

A mixture of the two is best in my opinion to get the taste and yield. The best coco formula I've run to date (mind you only one run with these nutes so far) is a flip flop of chem ferts and organics.

I'm with you there, as I reported I start my rooted cuttings in plain FoX Farms ocean forest soil, and after a few weeks they deplete the stock charge of nutes, and I start feeding hydro nutes. I've tried coco and found that unamended coco absorbs a ridiculous amount of nutrients when new, leaving the roots and plants starving until the coco is fully saturated. FFOF solved that problem for me once again!

Lazy, while I'm not hating on organic growing of this crop in particular (I sort of enjoy just adding water), your comment above is 100% accurate for most crops (exceptions for dates, some citrus, and some row crops that are grown in the most favorable conditions). I know for a fact that organic production, in terms of both quality and quantity falls far short of non-organic farming or a hybrid thereof.

But this crop, when grown indoors, eliminates a lot of variables that most farmers would otherwise need to contend with daily...... leaving time for soil perfection.

Yeah I have no problem with them either, except when they spout propaganda as facts!

 

[Lazyman]

I don't know why people are constantly badmouthing Organics....?

Just as a measure of overall yield, organics fertilizers are made with less pure ingredients, yield less per acre, and are more difficult to master. Indoors in commercial production the yield loss is significant enough to prevent their widespread use.

I mean... what's so great about Hydro? the EC adjusting or the PH adjusting or the Feed three times a day or The Chemicals or constant running pumps.... I've lost count of how many people I've met, who have gone against my word and spent Hundreds if not, thousands, on Hydro Feeds and Equipment... to get nothing but burnt plants, that taste rubbish.

True of many systems, and then there's guys like this that grow 4 pound plants indoors with a 3 week veg:


And my hydro system is top-feed drip, with no pumps, timers, or power (except for the air pumps.) I adjust my pH every 2-3 days, and top off nutes once a week. Not as hard as you imagine. Burnt plants that taste like rubbish were grown by an inexperienced hand, as my plants are not overfed or poorly flushed before I smoke them. You probably spend more time on your grow daily watering than I do in an entire week on my 16KW grow!

and actually after a few attempts of trying to pump all sorts of AN potions & additives & thises & thats, that they totally fall out of love with the idea of growing. and sell there shit on eB**.

Yep, quitters in every game. I use AN and get great results:

I'm no scientist...and to be fair I'm not interested in becoming one.... I just LUUUUUURVE Gooood Cannabis......

A pot, some soil, a cannabis plant & some water..... Fool proof! and top banana flavour!

It's all good man, you do what you love best! We'll keep pushing the envelope of what is possible with modern chemistry

 

[Spl1fftast1ck]

These waters may be a bit deep for me as I use whatever means suits my goals (which are almost always flavor and potency) at the time without preference to Grow medium/style. I may plan projected finish dates but the plant/strain guides the rest.

That being said I had thought that may put a twist into this discussion.

What if the plant were programmed via genetics to produce a finite amount of resin over a given area, and by using synthetic nutes to make bigger blooms just that would happen, bigger blooms not more resin. Then the question would then be what is the size sweet spot particular strain. (if more resin was your goal).

This thought came to me as the direct result of running the same strain many times and noticing that the smaller plants fed organically seemed to produce stronger meds. This may be just strain (Purple Trainwreck), but I have noticed it many times. I could not make the direct link before due to variations in feeding/grow methods.

high typing or common observation?

---Spliff

 

[TheBudFather]

Just as a measure of overall yield, organics fertilizers are made with less pure ingredients, yield less per acre, and are more difficult to master. Indoors in commercial production the yield loss is significant enough to prevent their widespread use.



True of many systems, and then there's guys like this that grow 4 pound plants indoors with a 3 week veg:


And my hydro system is top-feed drip, with no pumps, timers, or power (except for the air pumps.) I adjust my pH every 2-3 days, and top off nutes once a week. Not as hard as you imagine. Burnt plants that taste like rubbish were grown by an inexperienced hand, as my plants are not overfed or poorly flushed before I smoke them. You probably spend more time on your grow daily watering than I do in an entire week on my 16KW grow!



Yep, quitters in every game. I use AN and get great results:




It's all good man, you do what you love best! We'll keep pushing the envelope of what is possible with modern chemistry

Lazyman.... hommage! Those plants look insane....... lol

 

[RNDZL]

It is meant to be a civil discussion but I see a tremendous amount of "mock" authority, that is people projecting expertise when they have not put the time and trials in to see side by side results

First lets take a look at the words being dropped in this thread starting with organic

everyone has their own private definition that they don't share the definition of but certainly voice their opinions of what qualifies as organic

even trying to label pure pro blend organic or even inorganic has little relativity since the benefit of doing organics in hydro is far more than a different ion source and thats the differential people enjoy with pure blend the organically derived ion

the true benefit of organics is not the organically derived ion, its the myriad of inter relations with micro organisms that gives them much of there health and resistance

I would love to hear any one here share real life experience opposed to some hypothesis based on the one or two styles they have been able to master vs. every other style they claim to know

please tell me in your personal experience growing with just micro and macro nutes vs growing them with beneficial microorganism in the rhizosphere in the same environment

please tell me how many grows, how many styles, how many comparatives you ran to get to the conclusions you have

what strains, what environment, what regiment of nutes?

I dont hear alot of truth that I know exists, cause I know from personal experience that once you start hitting 2.5 + per light that if you don't have some bacterial or chemical regime your gonna have rot and other maladies that are gonna eat into your profits and pollute the lungs of your customers

I much prefer my plants use the mechanisms they evolved into using..

Rather than a chemical shortcut we cant prove through its limited exposure on the environment wont fuck us or anything else up, or force rapid adaptation and rendered useless

isnt that what round up resistant weeds all about

 

[Lazyman]

These waters may be a bit deep for me as I use whatever means suits my goals (which are almost always flavor and potency) at the time without preference to Grow medium/style. I may plan projected finish dates but the plant/strain guides the rest.

That being said I had thought that may put a twist into this discussion.

What if the plant were programmed via genetics to produce a finite amount of resin over a given area, and by using synthetic nutes to make bigger blooms just that would happen, bigger blooms not more resin. Then the question would then be what is the size sweet spot particular strain. (if more resin was your goal).

This thought came to me as the direct result of running the same strain many times and noticing that the smaller plants fed organically seemed to produce stronger meds. This may be just strain (Purple Trainwreck), but I have noticed it many times. I could not make the direct link before due to variations in feeding/grow methods.

high typing or common observation?

---Spliff

All strains have a maximum THC percentage programmed into their genes, but it's up to us to extract every last mg of that potential with our growing methods. In other words, you can always do worse than the plants potential, but not better.

I believe proper lighting, chemistry, and environment play a role in maximizing potential in a plant. The effects of things like UV-B lighting appear to play a significant role in converting cannabinoids into THC, but then again, some guys seem to prefer a more CBN or CBD-heavy weed. I know I do! But I still need to do some side-by-side experiments with UV-B once I have a room full of the same cuts. It's about the 4th thing on my list though, but by the end of the year I should have some data.

 

[Danks2005]

I grow organic because I choose to be as self sufficiant as I can, just a personal choice as yeild isn't too big a deal to me (within reason). I know we need fossil fuels to an extent, but I choose to minimize my impact, and they make too much money and sway policy. I also cherish the gulf of mexico and look at it now, after cleanup cost BP's financial liability is capped at 75MILLION(think of all the fishing, tourism, and tax revenue lost) 1/5000th of last years profits, while they profited 360BILLION last year plus a quarter 15months. I also don't like to go the the hydro store. I have no problem whatsoever with genetic mods, and breeding programs as a means to feed the masses. Those greenpeace hippie shmucks bitching about genetic engineering and breeding programs, are probly raving about their bomb ass "insert strain name" at home (hypocrites), as I doubt they are smoking landrace genes.

 

[RNDZL]

i think we need to focus why you would grow organically

I dont think its good for the earth is the top answer

WHY?

i mean i love the earth

let me put in a scenario

if we take inorganic compounds (safe, by products from a play doh plant) that are industrial waste and break them down into agricultural salts and we feed our plants only what they need in essence we would help the earth by redistributing the raw components we initially turned into an inorganic substance

the first focus and the one that is foremost in my mind is form the plants perspective

and that is perfect plant health

from there you can do proper evaluation based on optimal results with a complete spectrum of the plants environment, micro and otherwise, accounted for.

Take away the facets of the environment in question, beneficial in this case, and you have a comparison

but in the base evaluation that science simply takes what it find in nature and replicates it necessary function how is organic or inorganic method different at all UNTIL you get to the part of the plants biological functions and pathology that (YOU THINK) your inorganic method is not addressing

i say you think your inorganic method, not in the case of a pure GH cal.mag grow, but when someone says, hey I use AN, unless i know every product in the line they use I cant even tell if they aren't organic hydro since most of the new "cutting" edge grow companies are simply extending the functions of the soil web past base micro and macro nutrients by repackaging organic or organic like facets of the soil web not included in good ol GH 3 part

Amino acids, bacteria, enzymes and the like

 

[Lazyman]

LOL, I was just talking with one of my hippy friends whos an organic nut, she just left the room almost in tears. I showed her that hydroponic system use purer nutrients, yield more per acre, and use 50-100% less water than an outdoor soil organic grow. She's just amazed. I think her thesis was gonna be on organics but I just pulled the sky down on her head.

How can you posit the merits of something if you don't know what you're up against?

Hydro and chem nutes are the 'roided out monster in the room for production. You're free to grow in any style you like, but I'm not wholly convinced that organic growing is better for the environment.

Just the water usage alone for organic gardening outdoors makes it extremely wasteful in comparison. Between overwatering, evaporation, and just plain drainage, pouring water onto the earth is pretty close to just throwing it away.

I know matter is not created nor destroyed, but fresh water is a valuable resource and should be managed more carefully than organic farming allows. I can't help but think it's a major component of why poorer countries cannot farm this way, they often lack clean drinking water, and there's just not enough gray water to maintain any sizable plot of land. I understand that drought-resistant and pest-resistant genetics were a big part of Borlaug's work, and he's credited with saving a billion people from starvation with it.

 

[B.C.]

At the last NUGS & JUGGS party organic bud CLEARLY won over the taste of chem grown bud. I don't have a thing in the world I feel I have ta "prove" about organics to anyone though. lol But, since it's the topic here, I thought I'd throw-er out there fer discussion sake.

No matter how ya grow, if YOU are happy with the end product, well then, that's all that matters! One love... BC

 

[Lazyman]

Man, if this thread gets any better I'm gonna have to add it to my ever-growing signature. I'm very glad it's reopened!

 

[mrwags]

From what I was to understand even an organic field uses some type of pesticide. It went on to say that since the science of pesticide has progressed to the point that it has the one's there using for the organic field is worse for the environment than the chemically grown field.

On another note I to want to thank the community for their making this a sticky thread in the making.

I hope you all understood that I've been here long enough to see what these kind of threads turn into and do some things a bit different then some mods but the bottom line is all of our quest for knowledge and the search for civility will forever be at the heart of ICM IMHO.


Keep It All You All
Mr.Wags

 

[grapeman]

LOL, I was just talking with one of my hippy friends whos an organic nut, she just left the room almost in tears. I showed her that hydroponic system use purer nutrients, yield more per acre, and use 50-100% less water than an outdoor soil organic grow. She's just amazed. I think her thesis was gonna be on organics but I just pulled the sky down on her head.

How can you posit the merits of something if you don't know what you're up against?

Hydro and chem nutes are the 'roided out monster in the room for production. You're free to grow in any style you like, but I'm not wholly convinced that organic growing is better for the environment.

Just the water usage alone for organic gardening outdoors makes it extremely wasteful in comparison. Between overwatering, evaporation, and just plain drainage, pouring water onto the earth is pretty close to just throwing it away.

I know matter is not created nor destroyed, but fresh water is a valuable resource and should be managed more carefully than organic farming allows. I can't help but think it's a major component of why poorer countries cannot farm this way, they often lack clean drinking water, and there's just not enough gray water to maintain any sizable plot of land. I understand that drought-resistant and pest-resistant genetics were a big part of Borlaug's work, and he's credited with saving a billion people from starvation with it.

while I agree that organics can be taken too far at times, I think your points on water savings is a straw man argument.

As you know, water is a closed system. It just takes different forms in different places at different times. It's still all there.

And BTW - when we converted our flood irrigated fields to drip irrigation back in the 1970's & early '80's, we never saw much savings in water use.... just more efficient use.

 

[og dmc]

I remember an experiment in high school when we burned a strip of magnesium. once i smoked some chemically grown bud that wasnt flushed properly i guess and when u hit it with the flame it sparked. It reminded me of that magnesium strip. Im not a full organic grower. I like organically based bottled nutes like pure blend and they are easy to use. People love the taste of my bud and i think it has a lot to do with the nutes. Right now I am trying the HG line, im curious to see if thereis a bid difference in taste.

 

[enter sandman]

tried organics 5 or so years ago but went back to the tried & true MIRACLE-GRO deathpoisonyerpenisrotsoff bloombooster. I still cannot believe these poor souls are being brainwashed into buying $50 bottles of organic nutes...and yes, did I say MIRACLE GRO?

 

[extreegrowerrr]

I grow inside for a reason...to make the environment my bitch what I say goes. lol So saying that why not feed the plants steroids (chem ferts) instead of apples and steaks(organics). Im already altering the environment. Now outside I'm abiding by the rules of Mother Nature...so in that case I use organic soils.
Simply said!

 

[RNDZL]

I grow inside for a reason...to make the environment my bitch what I say goes. lol So saying that why not feed the plants steroids (chem ferts) instead of apples and steaks(organics). Im already altering the environment. Now outside I'm abiding by the rules of Mother Nature...so in that case I use organic soils.
Simply said!

great I love this as a starting point

A) because before I explored plant nutrition more thoroughly, I ran GH 3 part exclusively, early to late 90's.

I killed it in controlled environments, I taught ppl how to kill it in the same, I also come from professional background in herpaculture, was a charter member of a particular Biotope society and have over a decade experience working with breeders, zoological societies and worked with zoos and on television

I have been able to take most any organism and make it thrive in natural environs and sterile ones, I think I can give so many examples of how natural mechanisms are superior to man replicated ones

The trend in the fish hobby industry in the 80's was to create self balancing natural systems because they were superior in all regards

this is what wet/dry filters and bio-balls are about


B) simple logic dictates that if you have a bunch of guys say hey, i tried organics and never had success and the others go I've only done what I know, but all the n00bs i've shown are impressed.

At what point are your egos selling your own selves short?

Same people who preach trial and error or scientific trial exonerate something without a SUCCESSFUL side by side trial

and is a scientific side by side accurate if the person has skill in one technique and NONE in the other?

having done almost every tech here time and again to a point of success I can tell you the pros and cons of almost any system in a given situation

thats form EXPERIENCE not CONJECTURE

im not knocking anyones own personal success stories but I really think the projected ones or the ones with incomplete information are really putting out so much mis informations its alarming

I don't know about you, but I never stop wanting to perfect the art.science (as defined by wikipedia) of organic gardening

now before we continue

DISPELL THE NOTION that considering organics has to be a complete endeavor or not add additional benefits that far out weigh the costs

Its not either all or nothing - the best strategy imo for a synth hydro farmer to explore hydro is by the introduction of simple bacteria

thats it. Not a deviation from what makes you succeed but a small inclusion of something that the plant has adapted to and is lacking in the sterile environment

non-organic: aquashied

organic: bio-cat


those contain beneficial that resist disease and drought

yes you will be more wilt resistant by having beneficial in the rhizosphere than without

guaranteed if you apply those properly you will see a positive quantifiable result by harvest

organics is really more than how it was derived, or replicating the whole of the environ

for us its the application of natural mechanisms to add to plant health

natural mechanisms that have zero negative imprint on the environ based on the fact its evolved to interact gracefully wiht it

its not all or nothing, like taking the macro.micro nutrient functions and putting them to use in a sterile environment we can pull out other beneficials parts of the soil web

 

[RNDZL]

here is a bacterial product that uses just one bacteria, the most common, one that is in organic remedies like serenade and bio-cat

im not suggesting the use or have experience with the particular bacteria source below

but they do a good job of explaining the benefits of bacillus subtilis in particular


plantacillian


Future Harvests’ Plantacillin contains beneficial Bacillus subtilis GB03, a naturally occurring bacteria that colonizes and lives on plant roots and root hairs.

Bacillus subtilis GB03 is gram-positive (spore producing), making it extremely persistent and able to withstand stressful conditions like heat, drought, and cold. Plantacillin’s non-clogging, non-abrasive liquid formulation also includes a food source to ensure the survival of the GB03 once they are applied.

Plantacillin is 100% natural, and contains no chemicals. What does this mean for you and your plants?
Well, to start with, you’ll get some secondary benefits that you wouldn’t when using chemicals. For instance, it is a known fact that the use of chemical products will actually prune the roots of your plants. In stark contrast to chemical fungicides, Plantacillin actually encourages stronger, denser root mass and length! That is because Bacillus subtilis GB03 excretes auxin-like substances that encourage such growth.

The product is also easy to use. Plantacillin can be reservoir-mixed with fertilizers without detrimental effects to the product. That’s right … you won’t have to do any extra work with Plantacillin and that can mean big time savings!


Plantacillin is a valuable tool for resistance management. Why? A naturally occurring beneficial like Bacillus subtilis GB03 will crowd out less desirable microbes, in what amounts to a game of “survival of the fittest”.
GB03 quickly adapts to its environment, and reproduces more quickly than other microbes. Additionally, they also establish colonies that make it difficult for detrimental microbes to gain a foothold. This process may be likened to a crowded parking lot … once all of the spaces are filled, there aren’t any spaces for new microbes.

 

[cannaboy]

Would a run with 100% homemade teas made in a wilma rez feeding plants water till it had femented then just hook the drippers up is this a hydro organic soil grow,, will nothing surpass this yield or technolgy,,

guano's, water, worm casts, composte, bubblehash water and honey are the ingreedients for medicene any 1 argueing this is with dim views,,

 

[montanaorganics]

Could we really quit talking about this frickin 40 year old scientific hypotheses that has never been quantifiably concluded in anyway? Einstein had a way to take care of the extra 2 billion people too, I`m tired of speculative conjecture from 40 years ago being touted as relevant new technology.
And why has nobody jumped on the MPB bandwagon in here? Isnt that currently the top yielding hybrid system... in general right now anyways...