Why is Organic Cannabis better?
- Thread starter Thomkal Vwalaa
- Start date
G
GreenPlant
Lol,because i dont believe it is!
Totally Psychological.
Like soo much bro
Totally Psychological.
Like soo much bro
Here is my 2 cents on this matter were all here to grow as fast and as much yield per plant as possible if your not i call BS comparing the 2 organic vs chemicals ??? and to be honest there is a huge difference and its actual faster growth plant size healthiness, and yield person above mentions KISS whats so hard in 20 mins i have every chemical nutrient i need for a complete grow at my finger tips
There appears to be a misconception that organic plants don;t burn just go look at some organically grow journals and see for your self ???
Theres issues and a shit load many organic grows i have seen fail as plants run deficient in later stages of bloom owe no what do i do??????? HELP and there are many that do well ??? both organic and chem fed
Do i add bone meal top dress ??? posts like that lol should i make a tea list goes on
And for the ones that think its better tasting it all comes down to proper drying and curing , i read a post on ic where a person entered a organic canibus cup and Won or placed
later revealing to judges they smoked Chemically grown weed goes to show how even judges couldn't tell the difference right ??? But you can lol its in your head is all
all you here in the organic area is micro herd bla bla bla i think you should worry less as there is enough benificial bacteria for 365 day grow are you growing that long that you need to worry
Bottom line i rather feed chemicals to my plants reason its AVAILABLE FOR MY PLANTS RIGHT NOW not like organic soils where
Mineralization is the process of converting organic N to plant available inorganic forms. It is a gradual breaking down of large molecules to smaller molecules by a succession of soil microorganisms. After these microbes complete their relatively brief life cycle, they are decomposed by other microbes. Energy for this process is obtained from carbon in the material being used, so introduction of fresh plant materials stimulates breakdown activity.
Immobilization is the process of incorporating inorganic into organic form by microbes or plants. Because it is largely dependent on microbes, the availability of carbon and other nutrients determine the rate of immobilization. When residues with high carbon:N ratios are being decomposed, all readily available N within the soil system may be tied up by the microbes and therefore unavailable for plant uptake. This effect eventually fades because, without external N, the microbial population dies off and decomposes, releasing N which is available to plants. The risk of immobilization is avoided by mixing plant residues into the soil well before the next cropping cycle.
i say toss my soil into my garden and start fresh specially for the cost of Dirt isn;t soil really called dirt ?????
Any form of human intervention influences the activity of soil organisms and thus the equilibrium of the system
There appears to be a misconception that organic plants don;t burn just go look at some organically grow journals and see for your self ???
Theres issues and a shit load many organic grows i have seen fail as plants run deficient in later stages of bloom owe no what do i do??????? HELP and there are many that do well ??? both organic and chem fed
Do i add bone meal top dress ??? posts like that lol should i make a tea list goes on
And for the ones that think its better tasting it all comes down to proper drying and curing , i read a post on ic where a person entered a organic canibus cup and Won or placed
later revealing to judges they smoked Chemically grown weed goes to show how even judges couldn't tell the difference right ??? But you can lol its in your head is all
all you here in the organic area is micro herd bla bla bla i think you should worry less as there is enough benificial bacteria for 365 day grow are you growing that long that you need to worry
Bottom line i rather feed chemicals to my plants reason its AVAILABLE FOR MY PLANTS RIGHT NOW not like organic soils where
Mineralization is the process of converting organic N to plant available inorganic forms. It is a gradual breaking down of large molecules to smaller molecules by a succession of soil microorganisms. After these microbes complete their relatively brief life cycle, they are decomposed by other microbes. Energy for this process is obtained from carbon in the material being used, so introduction of fresh plant materials stimulates breakdown activity.
Immobilization is the process of incorporating inorganic into organic form by microbes or plants. Because it is largely dependent on microbes, the availability of carbon and other nutrients determine the rate of immobilization. When residues with high carbon:N ratios are being decomposed, all readily available N within the soil system may be tied up by the microbes and therefore unavailable for plant uptake. This effect eventually fades because, without external N, the microbial population dies off and decomposes, releasing N which is available to plants. The risk of immobilization is avoided by mixing plant residues into the soil well before the next cropping cycle.
i say toss my soil into my garden and start fresh specially for the cost of Dirt isn;t soil really called dirt ?????
Any form of human intervention influences the activity of soil organisms and thus the equilibrium of the system
And on closing argument i can have a deficient plant or what ever and have her back in as little as 2 days as i can add more of what ever it needs and plants will absorb it as fast as i pour it in soil how long does a organic grown plant take to come back ??? where do you start when def begin ????
here a pic of chemicaly grown small plant day 58 12 /12 nice and healthy its all about knowing your plants needs i think i got it figured out lol
please do show me a organically grown plant same time frame just curious 60 days or so and is there signs of def ????
and if you tell me that its normal for def in late flower , i can tell you that a healthy plant from start to chop day is key i dont let my plants get stressed out and start using its own energy to keep it self alive like saying Stop eatting for a week and see if you gained weight only thing you might be saving is cost of nutrients cause i can guarntee you if you think your going to flush Nutes out of the plant which again has been broken down for plant absorption with last 2 weeks when you been feeding them for last 80 days you got another thing coming lol
go eat a potato see how much potasium is in your system
here a pic of chemicaly grown small plant day 58 12 /12 nice and healthy its all about knowing your plants needs i think i got it figured out lol
please do show me a organically grown plant same time frame just curious 60 days or so and is there signs of def ????
and if you tell me that its normal for def in late flower , i can tell you that a healthy plant from start to chop day is key i dont let my plants get stressed out and start using its own energy to keep it self alive like saying Stop eatting for a week and see if you gained weight only thing you might be saving is cost of nutrients cause i can guarntee you if you think your going to flush Nutes out of the plant which again has been broken down for plant absorption with last 2 weeks when you been feeding them for last 80 days you got another thing coming lolgo eat a potato see how much potasium is in your system
Attachments
Last edited:
I've been digging the General Organics Vganic stuff. Seems real clean and the plants love it. You need to use 10 ml/ gal minimum on the Calmag + for proper growth indoors.
If you could ask your plants the same question, you’d find out that at the most basic level, they really can’t tell the difference – nutrients are nutrients.
To begin with, the terminology can be confusing, since labels and gardeners freely throw around words like organic, natural, inorganic, chemical, synthetic, artificial, and manufactured. The good news is that the choice can be reduced to either organic or chemical fertilizers.
The words “organic” or “natural” in this case simply means that the product is only minimally processed, and the nutrients remain bound up in their natural forms, rather than being extracted and refined. In the case of fertilizer, “organic” does NOT refer to the standards of processing associated with food.
Organic fertilizer is usually made from plant or animal waste or powdered minerals. Examples include manure and compost, as well as bone and cottonseed meal. They are usually sold as “soil conditioners” rather than as fertilizer, because the nutrient ratios are difficult to guarantee. Organic fertilizers may be processed in a factory, or, in the case of manure and compost, at a farm.
Organic fertilizers break down according to nature’s rules, so they may not release nutrients as soon as you need them. You have to be patient – you won’t see improvement overnight. In fact, you may actually see a deficiency in your plants during the first couple of months until the first application breaks down. Hang in there! You’ll most definitely be rewarded.
Nutrient ratios are often unknown, and the overall percentage is lower than chemical fertilizers. However, some organic products are actually higher in certain nutrients.
To begin with, the terminology can be confusing, since labels and gardeners freely throw around words like organic, natural, inorganic, chemical, synthetic, artificial, and manufactured. The good news is that the choice can be reduced to either organic or chemical fertilizers.
The words “organic” or “natural” in this case simply means that the product is only minimally processed, and the nutrients remain bound up in their natural forms, rather than being extracted and refined. In the case of fertilizer, “organic” does NOT refer to the standards of processing associated with food.
Organic fertilizer is usually made from plant or animal waste or powdered minerals. Examples include manure and compost, as well as bone and cottonseed meal. They are usually sold as “soil conditioners” rather than as fertilizer, because the nutrient ratios are difficult to guarantee. Organic fertilizers may be processed in a factory, or, in the case of manure and compost, at a farm.
Organic fertilizers break down according to nature’s rules, so they may not release nutrients as soon as you need them. You have to be patient – you won’t see improvement overnight. In fact, you may actually see a deficiency in your plants during the first couple of months until the first application breaks down. Hang in there! You’ll most definitely be rewarded.
Nutrient ratios are often unknown, and the overall percentage is lower than chemical fertilizers. However, some organic products are actually higher in certain nutrients.
Advantages of Chemical Fertilizer:
Since nutrients are available to the plants immediately, improvement occurs in days.
They are highly analyzed to produce the exact ratio of nutrients desired.
Standardized labeling makes ratios and chemical sources easy to understand.
They’re inexpensive.
Can a shot of chemical fertilizer make your containers spill over with blossoms, and give you the biggest tomatoes and greenest lawn in the neighborhood? Absolutely
You get all these granola bars saying that chems is ruining the earth etc and yes it is correct but to label mj growers that use chems being in reality were such a small percentage , just look in your back yard and worry about industrial pollution just walk in LA and see it in the air ????
We all are to blame every single one of us and out parents our children everyone Yup got to have that TV in every room got to keep up with the jones have 3 cars quads a boat etc even the god dam clothes you are wearing is made of petroleum so pollution some where down the line occured look at your self before you point the finger to someone else for there ways
If were to actually make a difference i think human kind would go extinct as we would jump back to cave man era electricity to heat your home pollution was needed to make it to your house right where does it end
Here metric tons of usa companies polluting
615.3 Million: Red Dog Operations: Kotzebue, Northwest Arctic County, Alaska
102.5 Million: Kennecott Utah Copper Mine Concentration & Power Plant: Copperton, Salt Lake County, Utah
59.5 Million: Phelps Dodge Miami Inc.: Claypool, Gila County, Ariz.
56.9 Million: Newmont Mining Corp. Twin Creeks Mine: Golconda, Humbolt County, Nev.
53.3 Million: Envirosafe Service of Ohio: Oregon, Lucas County, Ohio
48.6 Million: Barrick Goldstrike Mine Inc.: Elko, Nev.
44.5 Million: Kennecott Greens Creek Mining Co.: Juneau, Alaska
33.6 Million: Nucor Steel: Crawfordville, Montgomery County, Ind.
31.3 Million: U.S. Ecology Idaho: Grand View, Owyhee County, Idaho
30.6 Million: Solutia Inc.: Cantonment, Enscambia County, Flor.
28.4 Million: Newmont Mining Corp.: Carlin, Eureka County, Nev.
27.3 Million: AK Steel Corp. (Rockport Works): Rockport, Spencer County, Ind.
26.9 Million: Buick Mine/ Mill: Boss, Iron County, Mont.
25.4 Million: Mittal Steel USA Inc. Indiana: East Chicago, Lake County, Ind.
25.1 Million: Newmont Mining Corp Lone Tree Mine: Valmy, Humbolt County, Nev.
24.6 Million: Zinifex Clarksville Inc.: Clarksville, Montgomery County, Tenn.
24.0 Million: Steel Dynamics Inc.: Butler, De Kalb County, Ind.
23.0 Million: Solutia Chocolage Bayou: Alvin, Brazoria County, Tex.
22.1 Million: Bowen Steam Electric Generating Plant: Cartersville, Barton County, Ga.
22.0 Million: American Electric Power Amos Plant: Winfield, Putnam County, W. Va.
lets not get into nuclear waste sites where nothing grows
Since nutrients are available to the plants immediately, improvement occurs in days.
They are highly analyzed to produce the exact ratio of nutrients desired.
Standardized labeling makes ratios and chemical sources easy to understand.
They’re inexpensive.
Can a shot of chemical fertilizer make your containers spill over with blossoms, and give you the biggest tomatoes and greenest lawn in the neighborhood? Absolutely
You get all these granola bars saying that chems is ruining the earth etc and yes it is correct but to label mj growers that use chems being in reality were such a small percentage , just look in your back yard and worry about industrial pollution just walk in LA and see it in the air ????
We all are to blame every single one of us and out parents our children everyone Yup got to have that TV in every room got to keep up with the jones have 3 cars quads a boat etc even the god dam clothes you are wearing is made of petroleum so pollution some where down the line occured look at your self before you point the finger to someone else for there ways
If were to actually make a difference i think human kind would go extinct as we would jump back to cave man era electricity to heat your home pollution was needed to make it to your house right where does it end
Here metric tons of usa companies polluting
615.3 Million: Red Dog Operations: Kotzebue, Northwest Arctic County, Alaska
102.5 Million: Kennecott Utah Copper Mine Concentration & Power Plant: Copperton, Salt Lake County, Utah
59.5 Million: Phelps Dodge Miami Inc.: Claypool, Gila County, Ariz.
56.9 Million: Newmont Mining Corp. Twin Creeks Mine: Golconda, Humbolt County, Nev.
53.3 Million: Envirosafe Service of Ohio: Oregon, Lucas County, Ohio
48.6 Million: Barrick Goldstrike Mine Inc.: Elko, Nev.
44.5 Million: Kennecott Greens Creek Mining Co.: Juneau, Alaska
33.6 Million: Nucor Steel: Crawfordville, Montgomery County, Ind.
31.3 Million: U.S. Ecology Idaho: Grand View, Owyhee County, Idaho
30.6 Million: Solutia Inc.: Cantonment, Enscambia County, Flor.
28.4 Million: Newmont Mining Corp.: Carlin, Eureka County, Nev.
27.3 Million: AK Steel Corp. (Rockport Works): Rockport, Spencer County, Ind.
26.9 Million: Buick Mine/ Mill: Boss, Iron County, Mont.
25.4 Million: Mittal Steel USA Inc. Indiana: East Chicago, Lake County, Ind.
25.1 Million: Newmont Mining Corp Lone Tree Mine: Valmy, Humbolt County, Nev.
24.6 Million: Zinifex Clarksville Inc.: Clarksville, Montgomery County, Tenn.
24.0 Million: Steel Dynamics Inc.: Butler, De Kalb County, Ind.
23.0 Million: Solutia Chocolage Bayou: Alvin, Brazoria County, Tex.
22.1 Million: Bowen Steam Electric Generating Plant: Cartersville, Barton County, Ga.
22.0 Million: American Electric Power Amos Plant: Winfield, Putnam County, W. Va.
lets not get into nuclear waste sites where nothing grows
For agricultural uses, organic feeding is much more important sustainability wise than it is for most cannabis growing situations.
If you feed the soil only with chemicals you will end up with a depleted soil, which is what a lot of farmers are experiencing. Bigger yields at first but yields get lower and lower each year. Soils need the organic content to be a good, productive soil. If you only feed minerals, in time the soil will become poor and low in organic content, giving all kinds of problems. Bacteria use the organic content but plants also take in organic molecules. This being digested plant material by animals, insects, bacteria, fungi, turned into carbon containing molecules like fibres, sugars, proteins, hormones etc and very importantly for the soil, humus
That in itself is a very good reason to grow organically, but as I've said in a lot if of marijuana growing situations this doesn't matter.
In indoor situations soil is absent, inert material like perlite could be used, or without a medium eg hydro. And in the situations where soil is used, it often gets dumped after one use.
Still there are other reasons to go organic. It's been proven that vegs are more nutritious when fed organically. In cannabis I believe it can lead to different terpenoids and flavanoids.
Though most chemical fertilizer manufacturers for cannabis have upped their game and include a lot of organic molecules that plants can uptake, like proteins and sugars, hormones and growth regulators. With these ferts a comparable quality end product can be achieved.
However there is one more thing organic will always have over chemical fertilizer. It allows for the microherd to strive around the roots, protecting the plant from bad microbes, besides helping it get the nutes it needs. Plants and bacteria have always lived together, the forefathers of plants are basically a bacteria and a fungi living together. Animals also need their microherd in their intestines. Humans that are unhealthy or have a weak immune system often have an unbalanced or struggling bacterial life in their intestines, likely from a bad diet, with lots of sugar/fats/processed food lacking vitamins, fibres and other essentials. Such diets deliver a lot of 'poor' calories, lots of stuff to burn but not enough good stuff to go with it, like oil to keep an engine running smoothly.
Plants Can and DO strive in hydro setups where the microherd is completely absent and highquality ferts are given but every single factor needs to be dialed in perfectly, and when one is off or intruders like bad bacteria or bugs get in the room, it can inflict heavy damage on the crop.
I believe well maintained organic grows give healthy, resilient plants that can take a bigger hit when something goes wrong.
Bad chemical feed for plants and animals and the greed for big production are the reason our meat is polluted with antibiotics, our vegs are covered in pesticides and our environment is flooded with all kinds of nasty chems. Quality of life all over the planet is lowered because of this. And now we're taking it further by altering genetic material, because poor growing practices have lead to a bunch of problems even the best chemicals can't fix.
Give it a thought. I'm not saying you should ditch your hydro setups. I can perfectly see the benefits of it and if I would grow large scale it'd be an option. But if the main goal was quality and sustainability rather than maximizing profit we would have had superior yielding organic and ecological ways of growing by now.
People seem to be waking up slowly, but the majority of vegs/meat/pot will be grown chemically as long as it stays a billion dollar industry and there is potash left to mine...
If you feed the soil only with chemicals you will end up with a depleted soil, which is what a lot of farmers are experiencing. Bigger yields at first but yields get lower and lower each year. Soils need the organic content to be a good, productive soil. If you only feed minerals, in time the soil will become poor and low in organic content, giving all kinds of problems. Bacteria use the organic content but plants also take in organic molecules. This being digested plant material by animals, insects, bacteria, fungi, turned into carbon containing molecules like fibres, sugars, proteins, hormones etc and very importantly for the soil, humus
Humic acids form complexes with minerals that otherwise would be hard to uptake
That in itself is a very good reason to grow organically, but as I've said in a lot if of marijuana growing situations this doesn't matter.
In indoor situations soil is absent, inert material like perlite could be used, or without a medium eg hydro. And in the situations where soil is used, it often gets dumped after one use.
Still there are other reasons to go organic. It's been proven that vegs are more nutritious when fed organically. In cannabis I believe it can lead to different terpenoids and flavanoids.
Though most chemical fertilizer manufacturers for cannabis have upped their game and include a lot of organic molecules that plants can uptake, like proteins and sugars, hormones and growth regulators. With these ferts a comparable quality end product can be achieved.
However there is one more thing organic will always have over chemical fertilizer. It allows for the microherd to strive around the roots, protecting the plant from bad microbes, besides helping it get the nutes it needs. Plants and bacteria have always lived together, the forefathers of plants are basically a bacteria and a fungi living together. Animals also need their microherd in their intestines. Humans that are unhealthy or have a weak immune system often have an unbalanced or struggling bacterial life in their intestines, likely from a bad diet, with lots of sugar/fats/processed food lacking vitamins, fibres and other essentials. Such diets deliver a lot of 'poor' calories, lots of stuff to burn but not enough good stuff to go with it, like oil to keep an engine running smoothly.
Plants Can and DO strive in hydro setups where the microherd is completely absent and highquality ferts are given but every single factor needs to be dialed in perfectly, and when one is off or intruders like bad bacteria or bugs get in the room, it can inflict heavy damage on the crop.
I believe well maintained organic grows give healthy, resilient plants that can take a bigger hit when something goes wrong.
Bad chemical feed for plants and animals and the greed for big production are the reason our meat is polluted with antibiotics, our vegs are covered in pesticides and our environment is flooded with all kinds of nasty chems. Quality of life all over the planet is lowered because of this. And now we're taking it further by altering genetic material, because poor growing practices have lead to a bunch of problems even the best chemicals can't fix.
Give it a thought. I'm not saying you should ditch your hydro setups. I can perfectly see the benefits of it and if I would grow large scale it'd be an option. But if the main goal was quality and sustainability rather than maximizing profit we would have had superior yielding organic and ecological ways of growing by now.
People seem to be waking up slowly, but the majority of vegs/meat/pot will be grown chemically as long as it stays a billion dollar industry and there is potash left to mine...
Nunsacred
Active member
There might be hundreds of differences in environment
which the plants responded to.
I believe the physical damage they get from insects and heavy weather helps kick in extra terpene gene expression.
Having said this, a really dull indoor strain can remain pretty dull grown outdoors. I've had stinky stems yield boring but oily bud.
That was quite annoying. Super Skunk it was described on the seed pack but it was boring.
's well said 
"If you could ask your plants the same question, you’d find out that at the most basic level, they really can’t tell the difference – nutrients are nutrients.
To begin with, the terminology can be confusing, since labels and gardeners freely throw around words like organic, natural, inorganic, chemical, synthetic, artificial, and manufactured. The good news is that the choice can be reduced to either organic or chemical fertilizers."
There are imo two sorts of chemical fertilizers, those which are just NPK and all the essential minerals - but most weed fert lines include a bunch of beneficial molecules which the bacteria normally produce.
They really try to mimic an organic environment. In a lot of cases this works really well. As I've said, comparable end results can be achieved from chem or organic ferts. But you can't mimic the protection the microherd gives, and it will never be able to deliver the exact molecules in the proportions the plant wants it.
"Organic fertilizers break down according to nature’s rules, so they may not release nutrients as soon as you need them. You have to be patient – you won’t see improvement overnight. In fact, you may actually see a deficiency in your plants during the first couple of months until the first application breaks down. Hang in there! You’ll most definitely be rewarded."
That's true for very crude organic stuff. You can't dump fresh leaves on topsoil and expect the plants to get a boost overnight. Most store bought stuff is processed and requires less time to break down. Liquid organic fertilizers get taken up really fast. I actually look at that stuff as chemical fertilizer but with a lot of essential goodies to keep the microherd happy, and thus the plant healthy.
If you know about composting and making teas you can get comparable results but you will need more experience.
"Nutrient ratios are often unknown, and the overall percentage is lower than chemical fertilizers. However, some organic products are actually higher in certain nutrients."
That depends on the product completely. The biocanna line I use lists the NPK ratios. A lot of the chemical fertilizer is mislabeled which is imo worse than being unlabeled. If you don't have a PH or EC meter and an idea of how much the plants actually need it should be avoided... The way I see it 99% of the bad weed - and food too, for that matter - out there is due to people not using chemical fertilizer the right way - even using the label instruction will cause severe overdose in most cases - and not flushing properly. I've smoked buds that were literally hard from the salt content, ash hard as a rock not to mention the taste.
Organic ferts are harder to overdo and when you do it won't result in chemical tasting pot. It won't be great, but it'll still be smokeable.
To begin with, the terminology can be confusing, since labels and gardeners freely throw around words like organic, natural, inorganic, chemical, synthetic, artificial, and manufactured. The good news is that the choice can be reduced to either organic or chemical fertilizers."
There are imo two sorts of chemical fertilizers, those which are just NPK and all the essential minerals - but most weed fert lines include a bunch of beneficial molecules which the bacteria normally produce.
They really try to mimic an organic environment. In a lot of cases this works really well. As I've said, comparable end results can be achieved from chem or organic ferts. But you can't mimic the protection the microherd gives, and it will never be able to deliver the exact molecules in the proportions the plant wants it.
"Organic fertilizers break down according to nature’s rules, so they may not release nutrients as soon as you need them. You have to be patient – you won’t see improvement overnight. In fact, you may actually see a deficiency in your plants during the first couple of months until the first application breaks down. Hang in there! You’ll most definitely be rewarded."
That's true for very crude organic stuff. You can't dump fresh leaves on topsoil and expect the plants to get a boost overnight. Most store bought stuff is processed and requires less time to break down. Liquid organic fertilizers get taken up really fast. I actually look at that stuff as chemical fertilizer but with a lot of essential goodies to keep the microherd happy, and thus the plant healthy.
If you know about composting and making teas you can get comparable results but you will need more experience.
"Nutrient ratios are often unknown, and the overall percentage is lower than chemical fertilizers. However, some organic products are actually higher in certain nutrients."
That depends on the product completely. The biocanna line I use lists the NPK ratios. A lot of the chemical fertilizer is mislabeled which is imo worse than being unlabeled. If you don't have a PH or EC meter and an idea of how much the plants actually need it should be avoided... The way I see it 99% of the bad weed - and food too, for that matter - out there is due to people not using chemical fertilizer the right way - even using the label instruction will cause severe overdose in most cases - and not flushing properly. I've smoked buds that were literally hard from the salt content, ash hard as a rock not to mention the taste.
Organic ferts are harder to overdo and when you do it won't result in chemical tasting pot. It won't be great, but it'll still be smokeable.
because people are too lazy to research and come up with their own opinions. so its easier to just fall in line on way to slaughter...
the main problem w/ this comparison is wading through all the involved misconceptions as well as the lack of parameters
there are organic methods {meaning one could be certified organic} which vary little if any from 'conventional' <-using 'conventional' to describe 'chem' is a poor term also
i cant help but wonder how many growers have chosen an 'organic' product line; grown just as they did w/ chem resources then; {in their infinite wisdom} declared, "there is no difference!"
most chem growers wont see the problem here <-they dont even realize there is more to it than that
in the 1800s there was a side by side done between a closed loop organic farm {e.g. all the inputs came from the farm} and the conventional of the time <while the conventional trucked in fertilizers herbicides, and pesticides at significant cost; the closed loop organic farm made use of the 'waste' from the farm as fertilizers & didnt require the herbicides or pesticides
of course the organic fans are going to emphasize the organic farm's superior produce {better, more nutritious and, MORE} but there's actually a significant factor which history has conveniently swept under the rug <the 'conventional' farm cost exponentially more to run ~producing less, inferior produce.
some may argue that conventional has improved since the 1800s well; so have organic methods
but the confusion has gotten more mystifying as well lets clear that up some
'conventional' is man's attempt to figure out what nature already knows and then do it a different way
'organic' is man's attempt to figure out what nature already knows and use it
so you can see that most organic farmers are really 'conventional'
and; it also boils down to a philosophical debate whether man can out do nature
there are organic methods {meaning one could be certified organic} which vary little if any from 'conventional' <-using 'conventional' to describe 'chem' is a poor term also
i cant help but wonder how many growers have chosen an 'organic' product line; grown just as they did w/ chem resources then; {in their infinite wisdom} declared, "there is no difference!"
most chem growers wont see the problem here <-they dont even realize there is more to it than that
in the 1800s there was a side by side done between a closed loop organic farm {e.g. all the inputs came from the farm} and the conventional of the time <while the conventional trucked in fertilizers herbicides, and pesticides at significant cost; the closed loop organic farm made use of the 'waste' from the farm as fertilizers & didnt require the herbicides or pesticides
of course the organic fans are going to emphasize the organic farm's superior produce {better, more nutritious and, MORE} but there's actually a significant factor which history has conveniently swept under the rug <the 'conventional' farm cost exponentially more to run ~producing less, inferior produce.
some may argue that conventional has improved since the 1800s well; so have organic methods
but the confusion has gotten more mystifying as well lets clear that up some
'conventional' is man's attempt to figure out what nature already knows and then do it a different way
'organic' is man's attempt to figure out what nature already knows and use it
so you can see that most organic farmers are really 'conventional'
and; it also boils down to a philosophical debate whether man can out do nature
M
MrSterling
My issue with the term "conventional" is that except for the last hundred or so years conventional agriculture was the same as organic agriculture.
From my experience growing and probably more importantly observing my friends grow, who use different techniques, I think a few statements are probably true.
1) If you feed your plant correctly, organic vs "chemical" or "traditional" or whatever, the plants are optimally happy regarding their nutrient condition.
2) Organically grown is most often in soil, I know there are organic hydro setups and such, but usually people are referring to soil grows with carefully selected nutrient versions. And I dont think that there is much discussion that certain hydroponic techniques grow plants much faster than soil techniques. Several reason and one is that people who use DWC/Undercurrent/EbbFlow often have more light per plant. Not the only reason and not always the case of course. But hydro setups just grow quicker, ie, bigger plants in the same time.
3) If you grow a plant crazy fast with hopped up DWC system or otherwise, pour the light on crazy amounts, I dont think you get quite as quality of a product as if you grow it slower. And I am in the grow it quickly with tons of light camp, trees for me.
So my experience shows, that all things equal as far as giving the plant the nutes that it wants.... slower growing plants (with adequate light and environment of course) produce frostier buds that are denser and sometimes have more flavor. Hydro/ chemical/ non organic often grows more weight per time.
and I think that the organic "benefits" often are really benefits of letting the plant grow at a more natural speed, because sometimes dwc with tons of light is just not natural, its super natural.
The benefits of organic, I think, get tangled up in this other effect that I believe is more important.
That said, I turn most of my plant into oil, so I want tons of weight regardless if it is the most perfect looking buds or the most perfect tasting. Mine still is frosty and tastes great.
1) If you feed your plant correctly, organic vs "chemical" or "traditional" or whatever, the plants are optimally happy regarding their nutrient condition.
2) Organically grown is most often in soil, I know there are organic hydro setups and such, but usually people are referring to soil grows with carefully selected nutrient versions. And I dont think that there is much discussion that certain hydroponic techniques grow plants much faster than soil techniques. Several reason and one is that people who use DWC/Undercurrent/EbbFlow often have more light per plant. Not the only reason and not always the case of course. But hydro setups just grow quicker, ie, bigger plants in the same time.
3) If you grow a plant crazy fast with hopped up DWC system or otherwise, pour the light on crazy amounts, I dont think you get quite as quality of a product as if you grow it slower. And I am in the grow it quickly with tons of light camp, trees for me.
So my experience shows, that all things equal as far as giving the plant the nutes that it wants.... slower growing plants (with adequate light and environment of course) produce frostier buds that are denser and sometimes have more flavor. Hydro/ chemical/ non organic often grows more weight per time.
and I think that the organic "benefits" often are really benefits of letting the plant grow at a more natural speed, because sometimes dwc with tons of light is just not natural, its super natural.
The benefits of organic, I think, get tangled up in this other effect that I believe is more important.
That said, I turn most of my plant into oil, so I want tons of weight regardless if it is the most perfect looking buds or the most perfect tasting. Mine still is frosty and tastes great.
please do not take this as argumentative as i do agree w/ your overall post
where i say; 'they dont realize there is more to it than that' the furthering of that concept is that organic growers do not 'feed' the plant
in the living soil paradigm; we take care of the soil, feeding soil biology and taking care to eliminate amendments not friendly to the soil food web ~leaning to plant-based amendments w/ little or no concern to NPK or trace but more concern for biological sources
as: composting in general {main concept} along addition of enzymes and helpful plant compounds ~then comes parameters such as temps/conditions <where we are specifically concerned w/ temps @ the soil, in the compost pile, in the worm bin
granted; the plant is the primary recipient of this care but our view is much wider than pouring in x of N and x of P and x of K along w/ x of trace or even @ a certain pH
MrS in the world today many things are upside down and out of whack ~not the least of which is agricultural paradigms
i hate the term 'conventional' in reference to chem ag; it is the opposite of the truth
shouldnt 'conventional' be the way we have done it most consistently and the longest or the way it happens in nature?
chem ag should be called like "freaky" or something like 'scientific'
where i say; 'they dont realize there is more to it than that' the furthering of that concept is that organic growers do not 'feed' the plant
in the living soil paradigm; we take care of the soil, feeding soil biology and taking care to eliminate amendments not friendly to the soil food web ~leaning to plant-based amendments w/ little or no concern to NPK or trace but more concern for biological sources
as: composting in general {main concept} along addition of enzymes and helpful plant compounds ~then comes parameters such as temps/conditions <where we are specifically concerned w/ temps @ the soil, in the compost pile, in the worm bin
granted; the plant is the primary recipient of this care but our view is much wider than pouring in x of N and x of P and x of K along w/ x of trace or even @ a certain pH
MrS in the world today many things are upside down and out of whack ~not the least of which is agricultural paradigms
i hate the term 'conventional' in reference to chem ag; it is the opposite of the truth
shouldnt 'conventional' be the way we have done it most consistently and the longest or the way it happens in nature?
chem ag should be called like "freaky" or something like 'scientific'
I do add beneficials to my media based hydro. Not saying it's the same, but beneficials and humics don't alone make the difference.
and dont take mine as argumentative as I agree that the well grown "organic" pot that I've been party to is better tasting and often more potent than the same genetics that I've grown in stupid excessive hydro setups. now I end up with a multi pound tree and my hippie friend with compost tea who talks to his plants and all ends up with a few ounces per plant, but theres more to it than that of course. And I like his better for sure.
I would grow organic but I just trade my oil made from my non organic hydro for his somewhat better tasting bud. win win
and dont take mine as argumentative as I agree that the well grown "organic" pot that I've been party to is better tasting and often more potent than the same genetics that I've grown in stupid excessive hydro setups. now I end up with a multi pound tree and my hippie friend with compost tea who talks to his plants and all ends up with a few ounces per plant, but theres more to it than that of course. And I like his better for sure.
I would grow organic but I just trade my oil made from my non organic hydro for his somewhat better tasting bud. win win
Again better tasting is strain, proper drying and curing that's what makes or breaks it
when growing with organics amendments <---- not Fertilizer as its all comes down to amendments and i would like to see a guarnteed analysis on any amendment ????? i don't think there will be one not like Chem ferts kinda reminds of Advanced nutrients issues what they guaranteed and what bottles tested @ Right ????
When using organic nutrient sources—for example, compost, manure, green manures, meals, and so forth—recommendations for crop
nutrient needs will need to be translated. Soil test reports do not give specific recommendations for using organic fertilizers/amendments. This
is because the percentage and availability of plant nutrients in such materials is highly variable and usually depends on its source, method of storage, and the amount and type of materials used to make the nutrient source. Generally, the low nutrient
content and often limited sources of many organic materials add to the difficulty in developing a specific recommendation.
Most organic materials (including compost) do not contain nutrients in balanced amounts as needed by plants. In particular, many nutrients from animal sources (e.g., manure)
have an excess of phosphorus and potassium relative to plant demand for nitrogen. In soil these nutrients can accumulate to levels exceeding crop needs with repeated application based on plant nitrogen needs. When using organic materials,
regularly soil test to monitor phosphorus, potassium, and salt accumulation. Nutrient amendments should also be tested regularly, as similar
organic materials may vary considerably in nutrient content depending on their source, handling, and conditions present when the plant or organism was living. The use of
other sources of plant nutrients may be necessary to correct imbalances
(for example, legume green manure crops that contribute nitrogen without increasing phosphorus and potassium).
Nutrient Availability from Organic Nutrient Sources
Suggested amounts of organic amendments or fertilizers to be applied in lieu of chemical or inorganic fertilizers may or may not be equally effective because of differences in the physical and chemical nature of organic materials. Most
nutrients from organic materials are very slowly to slowly available to
plants compared to inorganic fertilizers.
organic materials. Materials rated “very slow” to “medium” in nutrient availability may be used to maintain a given level and nutrient balance in the soil. Where a rapid change in
nutrient levels or balance is necessary, materials having “medium” to “rapid” nutrient availability should be used.
when growing with organics amendments <---- not Fertilizer as its all comes down to amendments and i would like to see a guarnteed analysis on any amendment ????? i don't think there will be one not like Chem ferts kinda reminds of Advanced nutrients issues what they guaranteed and what bottles tested @ Right ????
When using organic nutrient sources—for example, compost, manure, green manures, meals, and so forth—recommendations for crop
nutrient needs will need to be translated. Soil test reports do not give specific recommendations for using organic fertilizers/amendments. This
is because the percentage and availability of plant nutrients in such materials is highly variable and usually depends on its source, method of storage, and the amount and type of materials used to make the nutrient source. Generally, the low nutrient
content and often limited sources of many organic materials add to the difficulty in developing a specific recommendation.
Most organic materials (including compost) do not contain nutrients in balanced amounts as needed by plants. In particular, many nutrients from animal sources (e.g., manure)
have an excess of phosphorus and potassium relative to plant demand for nitrogen. In soil these nutrients can accumulate to levels exceeding crop needs with repeated application based on plant nitrogen needs. When using organic materials,
regularly soil test to monitor phosphorus, potassium, and salt accumulation. Nutrient amendments should also be tested regularly, as similar
organic materials may vary considerably in nutrient content depending on their source, handling, and conditions present when the plant or organism was living. The use of
other sources of plant nutrients may be necessary to correct imbalances
(for example, legume green manure crops that contribute nitrogen without increasing phosphorus and potassium).
Nutrient Availability from Organic Nutrient Sources
Suggested amounts of organic amendments or fertilizers to be applied in lieu of chemical or inorganic fertilizers may or may not be equally effective because of differences in the physical and chemical nature of organic materials. Most
nutrients from organic materials are very slowly to slowly available to
plants compared to inorganic fertilizers.
organic materials. Materials rated “very slow” to “medium” in nutrient availability may be used to maintain a given level and nutrient balance in the soil. Where a rapid change in
nutrient levels or balance is necessary, materials having “medium” to “rapid” nutrient availability should be used.
