Are Organics people more snobby than other Potheads ?

[Rosy Cheeks]

What a wealth of knowledge that rains forth from so many contributors here. Alas, with as many contributors, comes as many opinions, philosophies, and personalities!

Why "alas"? Are different opinions something negative? Would everything be better if we were all programmed to think and reason the same way? To me, multitude means variety, and variety means wealth.

Thus organic fertilization has been around for, oh I don't know exactly, but hundreds of millions of years! Chem, or "refined" fertilizers have only been around since the industrial revolution. So, if anything is a fad, and anyone is an evangelical, then it would have to be synthetic fertilization and you guys!

Instead of drawing a straight line between the beginning of organic life and present day, I would like to make a stop around ten thousand years ago, when human beings first started cultivating plants. Ever since agriculture was invented, the basis has always been to improve on agricultural methods in order to improve yield and crop quality. It's called evolution. Genetics have been selectively bred in order to improve crop quality, yield and pest resistance. Cultivation methods have evolved or adapted to particular environmental conditions in order to create more favorable conditions for the plant (take the Incas as an example. Not only did they genetically engineer the potato plant, from a toxic tuber to an edible food crop, they created ingenious terrace plantations with artificial irrigation, able to sustain tenfold populations). Every now and then, our ancestors fucked up. It seems that the great Khmer empire in present day Cambodia (with Angkor Wat at its center) fell apart mainly because of soil erosion due to massive irrigation and aggressive agriculture.
We learned from our mistakes, and how to get around them. We developed crop rotation, and new techniques of farming. Hydroponic growing actually isn't something new, it's been around ever since smart people realized that plants growing by rivers with their roots dipping in water got way bigger and yielded better, and the famous hanging gardens of Babylon is a great example of ancient hydroponic growing. Bla bla, the point being? Mineral based nutrients inscribe themselves in the same tradition, of developing agriculture to the benefit of man. It is not a fad, it is the logical evolution of ten thousand years or so of human prowess.
We should of course be thankful to mother nature for what she has to offer, but the rest is our own doing.

Secondly, non-organic nutrients have been around as long as organic nutrients, in the form of sodium nitrates, rock phosphates and limestone. In a strict technical sense, water is also a non-organic nutrient. Plants have learned to assimilate these nutrients as well as organic nutrients, which - of course - is why they can assimilate mineral-based nutrients.

So what is more natural - in tune with nature - organics or non-organics? Neither, or both.

Which leads me to my central point. It's not WHAT you feed your plants, but HOW you feed them, that matters. You can create an "unsustainable" farming with organic agriculture as well as non-organic agriculture. You can pollute ground water sources and rivers with massive doses of organic fertilizers as well as mineral-based fertilizers, and you can deplete the soil culture in the same way. It's just easier to do it with mineral-based ferts, just as it's easier to kill a buffalo with a Winchester than with a sling-shot.

Mineral-based fertilizers present a threat to eco system, simply because human beings have a hard time understanding that more isn't always better.
But, when it comes to indoor growing, we're not affecting the eco system since we're growing in an enclosed environment (whatever spills that go down the drains isn't any worse than the piss and poop you flush down in much larger quantities). So it's only between the nutrients and the plants, and the plant doesn't care. It cares about growing and reproducing.

Let us not split hairs asking how many hippie treehuggers drive a car and eat at fast food reataurants. I love the planet and hate our dependence on fossil fuels, cheap products, and fast food as much as anyone. But can I afford a down payment on a hybrid vehicle, or do I live in an area that caters enough to the organic fanatic that I don't have to eat at those places... sadly, the answer is, no. But what I can do is choose to grow, everyhthing that I plant, organically. So we do.

Guess what? I'm close to being a vegetarian, eat almost no processed or cooked food, I use a bike as sole means of transport (If I marry, I'll tie the string of cans to my parcel carrier), use only energy efficient electrical equipment, try not to fly, I vote for the Green party since more than 20 years, I'm a member of Greenpeace and regularly donate money to them, the Wildlife Heritage Foundation and a number of other similar organizations, and I use mineral-based nutrients for my plants with the cleanest of conscience.

Does that make any sense to you?

 

[Stoned Cold]

Welcome Faery Organica!


Rosy: Well said. One of the more sensible explanations I've read in quite some time!

 

[tenfeetofganja]

Why do you type in a Jamaican accent on every other post?

Because my roomate also frequents IC on this account.

 

[Faerie Organica]

Ah, geeze, Rosy. Defensive much? "Does that make any sense to you?" - Rosy Cheeks Some things, yes. Some things, not so much - like why you're defending your obviuosly consciensious lifestyle. I guess you're just a better person than I am? Did you even read the last thing you quoted me for? There's not really anything to argue about.

And look, I am well aware that not ony do hydroponically grown plants occur everyday in nature, but also of the fact that I made no arguement against hydroponic gardening in the first place. Yet, need I mention that naturally occurring hydroponics is going to fed organically? Oh, and are we really going to define organic in geologcal terms??? I understand that organic means - contains carbon. But I don't think that anyone is confusing, "organic processes" (i.e. natural) with "organic" meaning, containing carbon.

Furthermore, I'm all about technological advances in everything, including agriculture. But the fact is, mineral based ferts - which I'm well aware have been around since the existence of the planet - yet case and point - they're in stone, the slowest degrading natural material. We've built strip mines that harvest this stone by millions of tons a day, pulvarize it to extract these minerals, process them, and ship around the world to be dumped into the soil where they WILL leave residues in the form of salts which, over time, destroy the composition and structure of the soil by killikng the microbial life that exists in it. So, have we, "...learned our mistakes..."? You say it as if all the mistakes have been made, and now we live in a time of pure agricultural progress. Actually recent analysis shows quite damaging evidence of the havoc that these government sudsidised nutrients have reaked on our nation's topsoils. So does it matter that you use them in your indoor setup? Probably not so much. But then again, did I say that it does? I don't think so.

Please, no animosity
Good smoking-
-FO

 

[Sammet]

Have a look at the process of eutrophication, a process resulting from the use of refined fertilisers.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

The bottom line...
There is nothing in my GH grown buds that is not in organic grown buds.
There are things present in organic buds that are not present in GH buds, and are not part of the plant itself.
Organics have never been proved to be better for you than hydroponics.
Hydroponic grown vegetables have more nutritional value than those grown with traditional methods, and more mirco-nutrients than organically grown ones.

The reason this discussion rages, is because organic growers do have some sort of faith that their way is somehow better, despite the overwhelming lack of concrete evidence...

I don't look down on organic growers at all, but it is obvious that most organic growers actually do look down on growers who use inorganic compounds. It is obvious that this belief is not solely fact based... In Fact, i'd be willing to bet large that the majority of organic growers do it because of feelings rather than a true study of all the facts... Sure there may be a couple of exceptions, but in every discussion on the topic, after all of the available facts fail to prove the superiority of the organic method, the discussion turns to the "moral or spiritual inferiority" of mineral salts...

If you organic guys want to make it about your love for the environment, then I don't want hear another word about it from anyone who drives a car, uses electricity, or eats beef, or shops wal-mart. All the hydro in the world isn't doing a fraction of the environmental or social harm that these things do...

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Also, sammet, isn't the nutrient runoff from animal manure at factory farms doing at least as much to contribute to the eutrophication as runoff from refined fertilizers? It is not the refined-ness that is doing harm, it is the overwhelming amount of nutrient. It's not as though organic nutrient sources do not cause this, but refined ones do... nutrient runoff, regardless of source, is the cause... and one of the chiefest causes of elevated nutrient levels in our streams and rivers and ocean, is manure from factory farms... and I'd bet 'hydroponic nutrient solution' would be one of the smallest causes...

The use of refined nutrients does not cause problems... The mis-use of any nutirient source can and does cause problems...

How you grow is much more important than nutrient source.

 

[Sammet]

Also, sammet, isn't the nutrient runoff from animal manure at factory farms doing at least as much to contribute to the eutrophication as runoff from refined fertilizers? It is not the refined-ness that is doing harm, it is the overwhelming amount of nutrient.

Manure based fertilisers aren't as water soluble as refined fertilisers are, so they are less of a problem.

You say that it's not the fact that they're refined that is doing the harm, it is the amount - well you could say that the vast amounts are needed because they are refined. (fast acting, short lifespan - compared to organics which are slow acting and long lifespan)

It's swings and roundabouts.

 

[Babbabud]

The San Juaquin Valley.... the biggest producer of food in the state of Cali... is turning into a giant salt desert.... a direct effect of chemical ferts used to grow crops. Not sure how all this works its way into this convo but what used to be a desert... then awesome farm land after the introduction of water .... is now becoming a salt desert. Just an interesting fact.

 

[Sammet]

It's not as though organic nutrient sources do not cause this, but refined ones do... nutrient runoff, regardless of source, is the cause... and one of the chiefest causes of elevated nutrient levels in our streams and rivers and ocean, is manure from factory farms... and I'd bet 'hydroponic nutrient solution' would be one of the smallest causes...

The use of refined nutrients does not cause problems... The mis-use of any nutirient source can and does cause problems...

How you grow is much more important than nutrient source.

It's obvious that hydroponic nutrient solution will be one the smallest contributors to eutrophication because it's probably used by a tiny proportion of all fertiliser users out there.

I was simply commenting on the larger discussion between Faerie and Rosie Cheeks and specifically the organic vs refined farming impact on the environment which they were talking about.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Manure based fertilisers aren't as water soluble as refined fertilisers are, so they are less of a problem.

You say that it's not the fact that they're refined that is doing the harm, it is the amount - well you could say that the vast amounts are needed because they are refined. (fast acting, short lifespan - compared to organics which are slow acting and long lifespan)

It's swings and roundabouts.

Mineral based fertilizers are faster acting and have a shorter lifespan.

Righto.

This actually means that the plants can more efficiently use the nutrients. Used nutrients are metabolized by the plants and NEVER become part of the problem.

Animal manures from factory farms break down slower, so the runoff makes it farther down the water cycle than mineral nutes.

Animal manures are not used by the plants until microbes have processed the nutirent, unfortunately a large amount of runoff makes it far downstream before being broken down.

I absolutely can prove where ecosystems are being destroyed by this exact process in areas where cattle manure is the major cause of the problem, I've posted up links around here somewhere before.

It's absolutely the abuse of the environment, and improper method and practise which causes harm, NOT the source of the nutrient.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

All the problems you blame on the nutes themselves are due to methods, not sources.

There is absolutely no nutrient being dumped into the environment by my hydroponic grow.

 

[Sammet]

Mineral based fertilizers are faster acting and have a shorter lifespan.

Righto.

This actually means that the plants can more efficiently use the nutrients. Used nutrients are metabolized by the plants and NEVER become part of the problem.

Animal manures from factory farms break down slower, so the runoff makes it farther down the water cycle than mineral nutes.

Animal manures are not used by the plants until microbes have processed the nutirent, unfortunately a large amount of runoff makes it far downstream before being broken down.

I absolutely can prove where ecosystems are being destroyed by this exact process in areas where cattle manure is the major cause of the problem, I've posted up links around here somewhere before.

It's absolutely the abuse of the environment, and improper method and practise which causes harm, NOT the source of the nutrient.

Maybe I wasn't clear - the ammonia, nitrates and phosphates in chemical fertilisers are water soluble. Plants can only take up nutrients at fixed maximum rate. Fertilisers are applied to soils in excess, eg. enough for 2 weeks. During that time they are susceptible to an increased level of leaching during any rain due to their increased solubility.

As you said above, manures have the useful ammonia, nitrates and phosphates locked inside them until bacteria can release them for the plants to use. This process insures less is washed into rivers and streams.



I'm not disagreeing with you about manure causing a problem, but when compared to an equal effective amount (eg. 2 weeks supply) refined nutrients are much worse.


please note this is aside comment about organic/chemical fertilisers in their real world application and does not pertain specifically to anyone growing with refined nutes indoors

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Maybe I wasn't clear - the ammonia, nitrates and phosphates in chemical fertilisers are water soluble. Plants can only take up nutrients at fixed maximum rate. Fertilisers are applied to soils in excess, eg. enough for 2 weeks. During that time they are susceptible to an increased level of leaching during any rain due to their increased solubility.

As you said above, manures have the useful ammonia, nitrates and phosphates locked inside them until bacteria can release them for the plants to use. This process insures less is washed into rivers and streams.



I'm not disagreeing with you about manure causing a problem, but when compared to an equal effective amount (eg. 2 weeks supply) refined nutrients are much worse.

No, the process insures that more of it is washed into streams, where it breaks down on the way to the ocean. Do you really think that the runoff has to be immediately soluble to do harm? Do you really not see how nutrients which have to take longer to break down will make it further downstream?
Guess I'll have to start with the actual evidence, if you're gonna keep arguing. For starters, everyone google up how the runoff nitrogen from cattle farms is destroying the ecosystem in the Buffalo National River.

While you are doing that, I can find more examples to back up my point, if need be.

 

[Sammet]

I'm not arguing with you mate, but you have to compare effective quantities. You're 100% correct in saying that organic runoff goes further, but in lower concentrations. Solubility and concentration are directly related. Higher solubility equals higher concentrations.

I have no doubt the runoff nitrogen from cattle farms is destroying the ecosystem in the Buffalo National River. I have no reason to doubt you - I'm sure it produces a huge amount of runoff nitrogen.

It's just not a scientific comparison if it you're comparing a cattle farm to a farm using ferts on it's crops. They're two different things.

(I'm talking two identical fields, side by side with the same identical crop. One is fertilised with manure, one is fertilised with an refined nutes. If you could then measure the runoff somehow from just those 2 fields you'd find the refined are worse)

 

[The_Leader]

babbabud i hate to be the one to tell u this, but that is not at all caused by ferts. it all has to do w/irrigation.

we are flnally coming to the realization that empires have fell due to salt build up from irrigation.

iv not the time to explain, but im sure google has the info i speak of. if not public tv does.

this will be a hot topic because humans are argumentive as we are only animals.

P.S. all water has salt. irrgating bringr water and waters salt. the plants use the water and discard salt.

 

[Rosy Cheeks]

Babbabud, I think that the enlightened people in these forums - and I count you in - could agree to that an organic compound as well as a non-organic compound are both 'chemical', since the definition of 'chemical' is any substance with a definite chemical composition. There's no reason to call salt/mineral-based nutrients 'chemical', to separate them from organic nutrients, unless you want to give non-organic nutrients a negative connontation (since the word 'chemical' has a negative aspect to most people).

It's sad that some industrial installations using mineral-based nutrients have negative effects on the environment. Although, I would say that the main reason why the San Juaquin Vally is turning into a desert is that that those installations are too large and to productive, and perhaps production regulations are not strict enough in terms of environmental conciderations. Without having any information about this particular case, I would say overexploitation and too high concentrations is the culprit, not the mineral-based nutrients in themselves.

I could dig up studies made on industrial, so called ecological pig farming, showing that that they pollute the environment badly, and that is really the same thing. Too many pigs in one place, pooping in too high concentrations.

 

[PazVerdeRadical]

Rosy,

I think you are a bit confused; mineral nutrients, as you call them, can be considered organic, such as lime etc... however, synthetic nutrients are derived from petroleum, and the results are obtained through a process of refinement, hence the name "refined nutes". so when the source material is petroleum then it is called "chemical/refined nutes", and when the source materials are either organic/mineral, then it is called "organics". yes, we could argue that petroleum is also a natural resource, but the way it decomposes is not the same as regular organic matter found on the surface of the planet does. yes, petroleum can also be found the surface of the planet, yet it is not the same and nutrients made from it leave a lot of unhealthy residues even when you use them properly, something that does not happen with organic farming, if you do it right, you won't do damage.

the leader, petro-chemical use accelerates salt-built up, as well as changes the nature of the salts that mineral water deposits; that is, salts comming from mineral water are different and affect the soil differently than salts resulting from petro-chemical use.

peace

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

I'm not arguing with you mate, but you have to compare effective quantities. You're 100% correct in saying that organic runoff goes further, but in lower concentrations. Solubility and concentration are directly related. Higher solubility equals higher concentrations.

I have no doubt the runoff nitrogen from cattle farms is destroying the ecosystem in the Buffalo National River. I have no reason to doubt you - I'm sure it produces a huge amount of runoff nitrogen.

It's just not a scientific comparison if it you're comparing a cattle farm to a farm using ferts on it's crops. They're two different things.

(I'm talking two identical fields, side by side with the same identical crop. One is fertilised with manure, one is fertilised with an refined nutes. If you could then measure the runoff somehow from just those 2 fields you'd find the refined are worse)

Sorry mate, you'll have to prove that instead of just saying it...
And regardless, if the runoff from the mineral field is worse, then the farmers are wasting nutrient...
My point still stands, method is way more important than source.
Refined nutrients can be used responsibly.

I absolutely agree 100% that the improper use of refined nutrients is a big problem. I just realize that the problem isn't the nutrient itself, but the way it is misused.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Rosy,

I think you are a bit confused; mineral nutrients, as you call them, can be considered organic, such as lime etc... however, synthetic nutrients are derived from petroleum, and the results are obtained through a process of refinement, hence the name "refined nutes". so when the source material is petroleum then it is called "chemical/refined nutes", and when the source materials are either organic/mineral, then it is called "organics". yes, we could argue that petroleum is also a natural resource, but the way it decomposes is not the same as regular organic matter found on the surface of the planet does. yes, petroleum can also be found the surface of the planet, yet it is not the same and nutrients made from it leave a lot of unhealthy residues even when you use them properly, something that does not happen with organic farming, if you do it right, you won't do damage.

the leader, petro-chemical use accelerates salt-built up, as well as changes the nature of the salts that mineral water deposits; that is, salts comming from mineral water are different and affect the soil differently than salts resulting from petro-chemical use.

peace

No, you're confused... Nothing in GH flora is petroleum based. AFIK no nutrients are made from petroleum.
Refined nutrients come from mineral mines, not oil wells...