YOUR GARDEN IS NOT ORGANIC...

[asstastic]

so he no show i guess i hope you checked out the oregon tax act poll

 

[Clackamas Coot]

i hope you checked out the oregon tax act poll

I did and posted on that thread though it's probably not a popular opinion in the whole scheme of things.

I've been deeply involved in the Oregon MMJ deal going back to our first attempt in 1996 and then finally getting it passed in 1998 with the help from Jack Herer and George Soros.

I hold pretty strong opinions on the proposed legislation that you are discussing.

CC

 

[asstastic]

dont wanna ask for to much of you time but if you dont mind i need that kinda info on that thread so i can properly educate my peer group in a positive direction thanks a million

 

[ixnay007]

Well nobody elects to be robbed, but we still speak of commerce as a choice based activity.

So just because pouring on soluble nutrients forces plants to take it up, does not mean plants have no choice in a natural system. In fact, biology is discovering more and more that plants are dominant organisms in their food webs.

There us too much to tell here, but it's only a book away. Teaming with microbes. Give it a shot.

Just one example: if a plant wants less nh4 and more no3, it can produce substances from the roots that will cause bacteria to accelerate reproduction, which causes the pH to rise due to polysaccarides used by bacteria as glue and shelter, which causes nitrifying bacteria to convert nh4 to no3. If it no longer wants the no3, it stops producing the root excretions. Some plants (certain trees) actually switch completely from no3 to nh4 preference during their lives, and -get this- the soil pH changes with them from high to low.


Still not intrigued? Then why post here?

Plants will get burned if you pee on em. OD of nitrogen (ammonia I think), from a natural source, too much for the microherd to process, ends up getting directly absorbed by the roots. If the mineral salts are there, the plants will osmotically absorb them..

The fact that plants know what they need nutritionally isn't surprising (what sort of organism would survive long without this ability), and the fact that they've evolved to work with the food web to obtain it also isn't surprising, what's surprising is that you think plants make a conscious choice in performing basic chemical processes. They can guide microbes to produce them, but they don't make the choice to absorb them or not.

I'm reading teaming with microbes (although I liked the book about weeds much more.. and now I'm reading Farming and Gardening for Health or Disease, recommended by the author of the weed book because of his discussions on composting), it's interesting, but not eye opening.

 

[mrred]

so just pee on them a little bit ?

 

[pray4pistils]

Ah......ok..... not

That's it? I present a cogent argument with evidence that contradicts your philosophy and this is all you come up with? The truths I speak may be inconvenient to deal with, but really now. The lack of response speaks volumes. lol

 

[Microbeman]

That's it? I present a cogent argument with evidence that contradicts your philosophy and this is all you come up with? The truths I speak may be inconvenient to deal with, but really now. The lack of response speaks volumes. lol

All you did is present supposed facts from your own experience and unaided observations. You did not present any citations which would back up your point. [I have citations listed on my webpage which can be a beginning for you] You also misinterpreted what I said with some odd statement about feces falling on the ground, when if you read my writings you will discover that this is all part of the natural assimilation of organic matter; heirarchical microbial levels.

There are lots of blokes like you advocating for an integration of synthetics with natural growing but why work to get a living soil and then kill it just a little bit? There are two ways of perceiving this; one is ethical from a harm reduction point of view; the other is, as stated, permitting soil to remain living to the fullest extent possible.

 

[NUG-JUG]

There are lots of blokes like you advocating for an integration of synthetics with natural growing but why work to get a living soil and then kill it just a little bit?

!!!!!!!!

Not to mention the fact all these beloved synthetic nutrients will be priced out of existence in the coming years as we ride the peak oil slide....Not only is transportation oil needed to get the bottles to to the huff store, but to create, market, and make the plastic to put the stuff in. Good luck keeping all that up.

 

[mad librettist]

LOL - yeah that was the weakest part of the documentary.

If that's an example of a professional, 'Cali medical grow' I'll stick with our backwards methods here in Oregon.

To say the least. That part of the film was an pitiful by any standards. And here I thought that 'Cali' taught the rest of the world how to grow medicine - go figure.

CC

hey now, let's be nice. it looked like a nice couple, and they seem to have picked a place with GOOD LIGHT and room for camera lighting because they were shooting images. My plants look awesome, but my options for taking shots are very limited. On the other hand the photography in the documentary is superb.

Probably some friends of friends of mr. pollan.

 

[guest2012y]

Is this where Miracle Grow potting soil get's thier goodness?

https://www.icmag.com/ic/picture.php?albumid=16314&pictureid=341051

 

[NUG-JUG]

ML- Yea they did seem nice enough, and their plants were healthy. I swear that plant had mites that they kept doing the closeups on.

 

[NUG-JUG]

Is this where Miracle Grow potting soil get's thier goodness?

https://www.icmag.com/ic/picture.php?albumid=16314&pictureid=341051

Imagine how badass the creatures who stick around have to be...

 

[mad librettist]

Plants will get burned if you pee on em. OD of nitrogen (ammonia I think), from a natural source, too much for the microherd to process, ends up getting directly absorbed by the roots. If the mineral salts are there, the plants will osmotically absorb them..

The fact that plants know what they need nutritionally isn't surprising (what sort of organism would survive long without this ability), and the fact that they've evolved to work with the food web to obtain it also isn't surprising, what's surprising is that you think plants make a conscious choice in performing basic chemical processes. They can guide microbes to produce them, but they don't make the choice to absorb them or not.

I'm reading teaming with microbes (although I liked the book about weeds much more.. and now I'm reading Farming and Gardening for Health or Disease, recommended by the author of the weed book because of his discussions on composting), it's interesting, but not eye opening.

wrong again. in fact, the mechanism for shutting out N to protect from urination is one so old that your own DNA shares close to the same code.

I have stated in this thread that plants have not been shown to have agency or consciousness. But as you read more about interactions it gets harder and harder to believe that.

the below can be found here.

In earlier research the Carnegie scientists, with colleagues, identified the genes responsible for initiating nitrogen uptake in plants. That identification has helped other researchers find the relatives of these genes in a variety of species from bacteria to humans. In this study, the scientists wanted to identify how ammonium transport is regulated.

Plants import nitrogen in the form of ammonium from the soil. The researchers found that the end portion, or so-called C-terminus, of the protein Arabidopsis ammonium transporter AtAMT1;1, located at the surface of the cell membrane, acts as a switch.

“The terminus is an arm-like feature that physically grabs a neighboring short-chain molecule, binds with it, and changes the shape of itself and its neighbor thereby activating all the pores in the complex,” continued Loqué. “The pores can’t function without this physical stimulation.”

“The rapid chain-reaction among the different pores allows the system to shut down extremely fast and can even memorize previous exposures,” noted co-author Wolf Frommer. “Imagine a large animal marking its territory. A sudden flow of ammonia could be toxic to the plant. If it weren’t for a rapid-fire shutdown plants could die. The conservation of this feature in the related transporters in bacteria, fungi, plants, and animals suggests that an ancient organism, which was a precursor to all known organisms on Earth, had developed this feature because there was much more ammonia on the early Earth. The ubiquitous presence of this structure in all of the known ammonium transporters suggests that the regulation is still necessary today for all of these organisms—cyanobacteria in the ocean, fungi that grow on grapes and make our wine, plants that provide our food—and even in our kidneys, which excrete nitrogen. We also suspect other different types of transporters will be discovered to work in this way.”

The scientists don’t yet know what triggers the rapid shut-off. They think it might be a very common regulatory event called phosphorylation, where a phosphate molecule is introduced to another molecule, changing the latter, and preparing it for a chemical reaction. They have found a site for phosphorylation and are looking at this possibility further.

A leading expert in transporters, Professor Dale Sanders, head of the biology department at the University of York in the U.K. commenting on the work said: “Loqué, Frommer and co-workers have demonstrated very beautifully how plant ammonium transporters are controlled. A switch domain in the protein facilitates rapid and sensitive control of ammonium transport to preclude over-accumulation of an ion that is beneficial at low concentrations, but potentially toxic at high concentrations. This is a major advance in the field of plant mineral nutrition.”

 

[ixnay007]

They still burn though..

A reaction to a possible life ending event isn't a sign of agency or consciousness.. you can be unconscious and still react to certain stimuli. It's not a choice of what kind of ammonium, just one of survival.

 

[pray4pistils]

All you did is present supposed facts from your own experience and unaided observations.

"Supposed facts"? Are you saying that I didn't find earthworms in my soilless mix? You're accusing me of lying to support a point?

You did not present any citations which would back up your point. [I have citations listed on my webpage which can be a beginning for you]

This isn't a scholarly review. I don't need to provide citations to make an obvious point. That is that the presence of synthetics does not rule out the possibility of sustaining a healthy microbial population. Of course, scientific validation is very valuable. But, I'm not submitting a doctoral thesis or testifying before Parliament or Congress. We're simply having a discussion.

You also misinterpreted what I said with some odd statement about feces falling on the ground, when if you read my writings you will discover that this is all part of the natural assimilation of organic matter; heirarchical microbial levels.

I'd make no such discovery. I'm very aware that this is "all part of the natural assimilation of organic matter". That's fancy talk for what I've been saying all this time -that nature can adapt to process foreign chemicals -even heavy concentrations of them.

There are lots of blokes like you advocating for an integration of synthetics with natural growing but why work to get a living soil and then kill it just a little bit?

I don't believe that judicious use of synthetics will kill a soil/food web. It prompts adaptation via the same plant/microbial synergies that both of us understand and value. Btw, do you live in a house or in a cave? Do you drive a car or do you walk everywhere? You obviously use a computer and use the Internet. You obviously choose to make use of modern synthetics even if there is potential for damaging the environment around you. Taking a stand on organic growing is good, but the absolutist philosophy contradicts your daily practices.

There are two ways of perceiving this; one is ethical from a harm reduction point of view; the other is, as stated, permitting soil to remain living to the fullest extent possible.

I consider it highly unethical to bombard natural environments with heavy concentrations of synthetic fertilizers. For instance, I see what happens when phosphates run off farm lands, wash into rivers or oceans, and feed algae blooms which suck O2 out of the waters, etc. I don't have any such problems with feeding synthetics in a closed a soil container or in hydro.

For the record, I also have an ethical problem with feeding organic materials that lead to heavy metal accumulations. Unsuspecting consumers buy them thinking that the "organic" label automatically means "superior". Organics are not 100% "good" and synthetics are not 100% "bad". Each can be wielded responsibly and effectively. Methods and minds must each be flexible enough to accomodate different environments and economic conditions.

 

[mad librettist]

I don't believe that judicious use of synthetics will kill a soil/food web. It prompts adaptation. Btw, do you live in a house or in a cave? Do you drive a car or do you walk everywhere? You obviously use a computer and use the Internet. You obviously make a choice to make use of modern synthetics. Taking a stand on organic growing is well and good, but the absolutist philosophy contradicts your daily practices.

buddy, if it's not a scholarly review, let's not make sweeping assumptions of scientific fact or theory backed up by nothing but imagination. I would have less trouble with a mystical argument than this one.

ixnay,

They still burn though..

A reaction to a possible life ending event isn't a sign of agency or consciousness.. you can be unconscious and still react to certain stimuli. It's not a choice of what kind of ammonium, just one of survival.

They burn with repeated application, or an overwhelming one. Just like really big guns will breach even really good defenses. That's not how natural selection works, or adaptation. The idea is to pass on genes, not individual survival. That means balance. A plant that is really good at processing harsh shit is probably a wetlands or riparian plant, and it has a plant version of a liver. A dry land plant only needs some protection, while most energy can go to other areas more needed on dry land.

 

[Microbeman]

For the record, I also have an ethical problem with feeding organic materials that lead to heavy metal accumulations. Unsuspecting consumers buy them thinking that the "organic" label automatically means "superior". Organics are not 100% "good" and synthetics are not 100% "bad". Each can be wielded responsibly and effectively. Methods and minds must each be flexible enough to accomodate different environments and economic conditions

And for my record, I have never once advocated the use of substances/amendments marketed under the organic title. Like I said you are attributing ideas and lifestyles to me which do not exist. The field I am researcing is cutting edge science, not a throwback to ages gone by so the 'computer use' argument is stale. [I also use microscopes integrated with computers] The observation of worms in your media is exactly what I meant by unaided observations. The fact that you saw worms does not bring about any substantive conclusion. I do not have the time nor inclination to continue this fruitless discussion. It is just a repitition of many already had. There are lots of people who have your outlook, like giant pumkin growers etc. so have at it just try not to equate your observations to facts about what's really going on down there in the soil.

 

[pray4pistils]

buddy, if it's not a scholarly review, let's not make sweeping assumptions of scientific fact or theory backed up by nothing but imagination.

My stance is backed up by first-hand experience and research -not imagination.

And for my record, I have never once advocated the use of substances/amendments marketed under the organic title.

That's fine. I didn't claim that you did. I'm contesting the idea that synthetics are necessarily bad for plants, eco systems, or humans. Of course, they *can* be but they aren't necessarily. That is my root point. Everything else is just dressing.

Like I said you are attributing ideas and lifestyles to me which do not exist.

My assumption is that you (like 99.9% of the population) do partake in lifestyle choices are are not as "organic" as the grow methods that you insist upon. If I'm factually incorrect then I actually respect your absolutist arguments much more than from somebody who grows organically and drives a Hummer or drinks bottled water (when clean tap is available), for instance.

The observation of worms in your media is exactly what I meant by unaided observations. The fact that you saw worms does not bring about any substantive conclusion.

The worms obviously hatched from eggs that came from the castings in the grow mix. That's no big deal at all. That they lived through 9 weeks of flowering and grew to about 3" on average, however, is a very big deal when you consider that 2/3 of my grow formula was synthetic. This experience of mine would need to be validated before it was included in scientific journals, etc. But, it's plenty good for good faith conversation.

I do not have the time nor inclination to continue this fruitless discussion.

I'll bet you'd enjoy this discussion a lot more if I was backing up your claims rather than contesting them. Putting that aside, though, it's a empirical fact that the worms were there. It's informed speculation on my part that they were sustained by a "complete enough" food web (that may or may not resemble what exists in nature). If that makes my input not worth your time, so be it. Carry on.

 

[mad librettist]

My stance is backed up by first-hand experience and research -not imagination.

let's see it then! the experience you can't transmit. The citations you have declined to submit. something's gotta give... like microbeman I find your account of worm survival for a few months to be completely irrelevant. Yes, your worms dying suddenly would be a bad sign. But it's not the only thing to look for. I keep worms in my pots too, and it isn't exactly hard to achieve. As in your case, they are often a surprise.

y assumption is that you (like 99.9% of the population) do partake in lifestyle choices are are not as "organic" as the grow methods that you insist upon. If I'm factually incorrect then I actually respect your absolutist arguments much more than from somebody who grows organically and drives a Hummer or drinks bottled water (when clean tap is available), for instance.

really? the old "all or nothing" argument to establish hypocrisy as a means of invalidating a totally unrelated and independent point of view? I can be a hypocrite like the rest of us, and still be right about this. so can microbeman. Although I suspect he is less of a hypocrite than I am.

It's useless to engage in ad hominem, subtly or otherwise, because no one can be wrong about everything.

I've seen microbeman debate this over and over with clueless people, starting with me. For someone who knows what he knows, I'd say he's damn patient and maybe one should look up the ideas and facts he gives rather than argue as a reflex. Nothing creates certainty like ignorance does.

 

[guest2012y]

Relax............No need to get all frustrated. I was saving this for a better situation,but it sort of fits here. Be cool.
https://www.icmag.com/ic/picture.php?albumid=16314&pictureid=341052