-
As of today ICMag has his own Discord server. In this Discord server you can chat, talk with eachother, listen to music, share stories and pictures...and much more. Join now and let's grow together! Join ICMag Discord here! More details in this thread here: here.
Tutorial Organics for Beginners
- Thread starter BurnOne
- Start date
I hear ya man, most of us here to read share and learn, not all the drama that goes with public forums. troublemakers tend to move on, nice to see your with us again BurnOne, learned a lot organic wise because of here. I wasn't into organics yet back on overgrow, but was happy to see all this info here. Been our base for a good year or so before we started playing around. Were def hooked on the guano tea's. Would be nice to have another spot to talk about not so basic/beginner but like you said, they tend to get off topic and more drama.
Well I hope your return is a sign of life on the upswing. Stress can manifest itself in many ways physically, rarely to good result.
It's fun getting into Trouble...
mrS0ul
Meatball in Residence
Abby Normal.
We are killing in it when we re run / recycle / re use the LC blood / bone.
My best Mother loves the recycled with one good hard run on it.
I throw n a dash of that useless ole dolomite for my peace of mind which I value above all.
40 lbs Pulverised Dolomite Lime. 3.98 + tax
PEACE OF [my] MIND. $Priceless
We are killing in it when we re run / recycle / re use the LC blood / bone.
My best Mother loves the recycled with one good hard run on it.
I throw n a dash of that useless ole dolomite for my peace of mind which I value above all.
40 lbs Pulverised Dolomite Lime. 3.98 + tax
PEACE OF [my] MIND. $Priceless
Last edited:
That's funny right there.
Not wanting to use guanos(ecological destruction of virgin environments,wars, species extinction), blood or bone meal(factory farms) or dolomite lime (known to be to hi in Mg and non reactive, way better sources of Ca) is not dogmatic. It's common sense. It's peoples choice but they should get info on all sides.
Will they all work. Yes.
Do we live in a time in the world where we need to be mindful of our decisions. Yes.
There are great alternatives that minimize our impact on the plants and out soils.
It is our duty as stewards of this planet to minimize our impact.
Many was to skin a cat.
Will they all work. Yes.
Do we live in a time in the world where we need to be mindful of our decisions. Yes.
There are great alternatives that minimize our impact on the plants and out soils.
It is our duty as stewards of this planet to minimize our impact.
Many was to skin a cat.
It absolutely is dogmatic. To say the usage of blood and bone (factory farms) that is produced within a couple hundred mile radius ... is some how morally elite than shipping neem meal from half way around the planet...
Is ridiculous.
Factory farms do not exist for the purpose of creating fertilizer, but feeding people, and such things are a by product of their existence. The oil industry exists for the sole purpose of moving crude, which is a direct necessity to move a product from one side of the world to the other.
Your decision to support a given methodology based on a self-perceived notion of doing what is "better for the world" - does nothing but embody ideology.
Sorry. That is a fact.
That doesn't mean some amendments aren't better than others, in regards to what they contribute to the soil ecosystem, because there are. However, global impact, is not what I make my decisions based on. I'm trying to grow THE BEST. And the basic circle jerk of ideological superiority does not stand in my way of doing so.
I do what works. I use what I can find relatively locally. I often take the path of less resistance over that of thinking the 50 lb, 3 year supply, bag of something I purchase is somehow going to change the world.
I'm not saying one is better than another, I'm merely acknowledging there is a value in simply saying to each their own when it comes to ideology. To say otherwise, that one way is better than another, based on one's own personal convictions of right and wrong - then it absolutely does become projection of a personal dogma.
dank.Frank
Last edited:
I do not agree. You are using a static view of a dynamic scenario.
We, as individuals and as a society, can choose to accept causation or deny it.
One thing many people do is acknowledge causation that empowers them and denies causation where their actions contribute something negative to the world.
Time to put everything in its proper perspective.
The "BEST" pot does not come from one methodology, but the "BEST" pot need not come at a cost to our environment either.
It is short sighted to throw the baby out with the bathwater, which is what you do when you deny that on some level source of amendments doesn't have an underlying causation.
The reality is that there is enough information for people to use sustainable methods in everything they do, and that we are in the process of understanding the impact of when we don't.
If we add the underlying value and context of use, there becomes less of an excuse to the "whatever works? methodology.
Let us make one more thing clear, I never go into any other grow threads or forums and suggest sustainability except the one that uses it as part of its methodology.
Why do people come in here and try to rationalize why it is not important?
What is the benefit and the point?
My point was that one persons version of sustainability could be another persons version of destruction.
Factory farms are bad only to those that care about animal rights. The millions of people they feed on the other hand might beg to differ. Not buying the byproducts of these industries does not mitigate their existence. It could be argued that the failure to use the byproducts creates more harm than good. What else are we supposed to do with all the blood and bone and feathers and manure, etc, - make massive piles of all these to sit and leach into specific watersheds? Is not utilizing the byproducts in a manner to grow agricultural commodities not only environmentally friendly but also THE BEST application in regards to sustaining an ever growing populace?
TECHNICALLY, animal husbandry, and the usage of farms lands to grow grains to feed these animals is unsustainable in the long term. These are lands that could be growing food crops for human consumption. I suppose, if sustainability is the primary concern, we should all become vegan.
Global shipping of amendments is bad to those that concern themselves with carbon footprint and destruction of ecosystems due to crude spills, etc.
TECHNICALLY, if one is against such things we should all be encouraging people to drive an electric car and invest in solar farms so the electricity needed to charge said cars is coming from a sustainable/renewable source.
Guano bad to those who consider animal habitat.
Peat bad for those who consider ecosystem and renew-ability.
Oyster shell bad for those that consider marine coral systems.
Rock dusts of all types bad to those that are against commercial strip mining.
Comfrey, nettle, yarrow, horsetail, etc could all be considered invasive non-native plants depending on where live that could quickly overtake the local fauna.
I mean, really. The list could go on forever. There is an caveat that could be applied to the usage of pretty much anything. THAT is my point.
When people discuss why they use a given amendment, it should be from the perspective of soil health and nutritional provision - not from the notion of a superior moral high ground on global impact.
I don't mind people sharing their personal decisions for why they use what amendments they use - but to the point a group of people tries to influence the masses based on that subjective morality, which indirectly states others are some how inferior in their methodologies, again, it becomes dogmatic. I don't view that statement as being derogatory either, as much as I see it applying definition to the scenario being discussed.
I don't disagree with these statements. What I do have an issue with, (and not saying this applies to you, we are just conversing) is when people decide their particular niche of encouraging sustainability or particular model of eco-friendliness is somehow better than that of another.
I'm not trying to defend my usage of any particular amendment or belittle the choices others make on what to use, but I am acknowledging the fallacy that comes into play once you open that can of worms. There isn't MUCH we do as humanity that is truly in line with living in harmony with nature. Doesn't mean we shouldn't TRY - it just means where one seeks to make an argument or defense of a given practice, it is far to easy to make a rebuttal that is equally as based in logic or principal, depending on what your personal ideologies are, and how one personally views their interaction with the world around them. I would imagine, we each feel, in our applied usage of various materials, that we are making the "best" choice.
I think the ONLY truth to be had in such discussions is to the tune of sourcing LOCAL. That means "best" is going to be something different for everyone.
Good conversation, Weird. You know I have respect for you - and I appreciate how often you present your opinions in a manner that is well thought out and defended without using language that attacks or belittles. You're good people, F.A.M.
dank.Frank
Factory farms are bad only to those that care about animal rights. The millions of people they feed on the other hand might beg to differ. Not buying the byproducts of these industries does not mitigate their existence. It could be argued that the failure to use the byproducts creates more harm than good. What else are we supposed to do with all the blood and bone and feathers and manure, etc, - make massive piles of all these to sit and leach into specific watersheds? Is not utilizing the byproducts in a manner to grow agricultural commodities not only environmentally friendly but also THE BEST application in regards to sustaining an ever growing populace?
TECHNICALLY, animal husbandry, and the usage of farms lands to grow grains to feed these animals is unsustainable in the long term. These are lands that could be growing food crops for human consumption. I suppose, if sustainability is the primary concern, we should all become vegan.
Global shipping of amendments is bad to those that concern themselves with carbon footprint and destruction of ecosystems due to crude spills, etc.
TECHNICALLY, if one is against such things we should all be encouraging people to drive an electric car and invest in solar farms so the electricity needed to charge said cars is coming from a sustainable/renewable source.
Guano bad to those who consider animal habitat.
Peat bad for those who consider ecosystem and renew-ability.
Oyster shell bad for those that consider marine coral systems.
Rock dusts of all types bad to those that are against commercial strip mining.
Comfrey, nettle, yarrow, horsetail, etc could all be considered invasive non-native plants depending on where live that could quickly overtake the local fauna.
I mean, really. The list could go on forever. There is an caveat that could be applied to the usage of pretty much anything. THAT is my point.
When people discuss why they use a given amendment, it should be from the perspective of soil health and nutritional provision - not from the notion of a superior moral high ground on global impact.
I don't mind people sharing their personal decisions for why they use what amendments they use - but to the point a group of people tries to influence the masses based on that subjective morality, which indirectly states others are some how inferior in their methodologies, again, it becomes dogmatic. I don't view that statement as being derogatory either, as much as I see it applying definition to the scenario being discussed.
I don't disagree with these statements. What I do have an issue with, (and not saying this applies to you, we are just conversing) is when people decide their particular niche of encouraging sustainability or particular model of eco-friendliness is somehow better than that of another.
I'm not trying to defend my usage of any particular amendment or belittle the choices others make on what to use, but I am acknowledging the fallacy that comes into play once you open that can of worms. There isn't MUCH we do as humanity that is truly in line with living in harmony with nature. Doesn't mean we shouldn't TRY - it just means where one seeks to make an argument or defense of a given practice, it is far to easy to make a rebuttal that is equally as based in logic or principal, depending on what your personal ideologies are, and how one personally views their interaction with the world around them. I would imagine, we each feel, in our applied usage of various materials, that we are making the "best" choice.
I think the ONLY truth to be had in such discussions is to the tune of sourcing LOCAL. That means "best" is going to be something different for everyone.
Good conversation, Weird. You know I have respect for you - and I appreciate how often you present your opinions in a manner that is well thought out and defended without using language that attacks or belittles. You're good people, F.A.M.
dank.Frank
Just what I would say 'almost' along with the factual opinion that to this day what I consider the highest quality cannabis was grown topped with horse, donkey and cattle manure mixed with straw. It was grown in the highlands of Oaxaca by poor Mexican 'Indian' farmers.
I was a regular customer for years until the luvly US guvment began spraying poison from the air.
Wouldn't it be great if humans became vegetarian? Even Einstein projected that as the way to save the world.
Anyway, if one is truly concerned with sustainability and protection of the environment local is the answer. We had over 1500 regular customers who just loved our farm grown cannabis. We grew it mostly in topsoil, local clay, local river sand and gravel, with homemade vermicompost fed with horsepoo, hay/straw bits and woody debris. The only other amendments were ACT and homemade fermentations.
Dank.Frank
(I am not quoting you just to save on the redundancy)
I can't claim to know of a metric that can tell us the true sustainable value of all amendments side by side. This is why local is so valuable, but not always available. The same can be said for DIY which can be considered a luxury or necessity based on the grower.
This does not discount that when we adopt organic practices we are in some way understanding more about and moving closer to sustainability in the process. At some point desire becomes the driver of our actions and sets our expectation for results.
If we add to our list of desires that they be fulfilled in a sustainable manner, we are more likely to meet that goal.
I personally have my own take on the amendments. I do not DIY, and I buy local if it makes sense. I do not buy local if it not readily available and I can source a sustainable amendment elsewhere. I understand the carbon footprint of getting product from point a to point b, but in a money driven world supporting sustainable agriculture helps support sustainability.
I do feel there is a disconnect in logic when it comes to some of the schools of sustainability. Growing invasive species because they have good known nutrient profiles makes no sense to me. In fact the whole take on plant nutrition across the board is a bit delusional.
Beyond the reality that soils that don't meet perfect nutrient profiles can produce optimal results most people look at it if it where digital, i.e. if the numbers aren't perfect the system is completely dysfunctional and broken, which it isn't because Nature is analogous to analog.
That is where microbes and other organisms fill the gap in interactive relationships developed over eons. Sterile growing proved some species and cultivars can exist without but none of that negates evolutionary implications and manifestations of the natural world.
Ultimately though I think as people come to understand organics they are really embarking on a journey to understand understand natural systems and there potential stewardship thereof.
Part of our makeup is our evolutionary relationship with all flora and fauna, and I feel sustainability is a realization of that, a necessary one at that, but it is not something we can just do 100% but a process that requires observation and mindfulness over a term to actualize benefit through results.
(I am not quoting you just to save on the redundancy)
I can't claim to know of a metric that can tell us the true sustainable value of all amendments side by side. This is why local is so valuable, but not always available. The same can be said for DIY which can be considered a luxury or necessity based on the grower.
This does not discount that when we adopt organic practices we are in some way understanding more about and moving closer to sustainability in the process. At some point desire becomes the driver of our actions and sets our expectation for results.
If we add to our list of desires that they be fulfilled in a sustainable manner, we are more likely to meet that goal.
I personally have my own take on the amendments. I do not DIY, and I buy local if it makes sense. I do not buy local if it not readily available and I can source a sustainable amendment elsewhere. I understand the carbon footprint of getting product from point a to point b, but in a money driven world supporting sustainable agriculture helps support sustainability.
I do feel there is a disconnect in logic when it comes to some of the schools of sustainability. Growing invasive species because they have good known nutrient profiles makes no sense to me. In fact the whole take on plant nutrition across the board is a bit delusional.
Beyond the reality that soils that don't meet perfect nutrient profiles can produce optimal results most people look at it if it where digital, i.e. if the numbers aren't perfect the system is completely dysfunctional and broken, which it isn't because Nature is analogous to analog.
That is where microbes and other organisms fill the gap in interactive relationships developed over eons. Sterile growing proved some species and cultivars can exist without but none of that negates evolutionary implications and manifestations of the natural world.
Ultimately though I think as people come to understand organics they are really embarking on a journey to understand understand natural systems and there potential stewardship thereof.
Part of our makeup is our evolutionary relationship with all flora and fauna, and I feel sustainability is a realization of that, a necessary one at that, but it is not something we can just do 100% but a process that requires observation and mindfulness over a term to actualize benefit through results.
Well said, brother.
These conversations are important to be had and are always insightful and help grow character as long as we (collectively as a sub-forum) keep our egos out of the equation and allow the weight and importance of our interaction with the world around us to be more important than constantly trying to prove we are right for the collection of little imaginary green dots!!
It's always been interesting to me when someone is so very insistent there is only one way to do something or talk of "best" begins, regardless of topic or trade, it oft times leads to a path of monetization. I'm not against making a living, but it's been an interesting observation I've made over the course of my life. I'm guilty of it myself on many facets. I suppose everyone wants to making a living doing what their good at, but it does make me stop and scratch my chin and ponder what a trade based society would be like - where agreed upon exchange of ability to meet mutual necessity is currency...anyway!!!
AT LEAST WE AREN'T GROWING HYDRO!!!!
dank.Frank
Last edited:
mrS0ul
Meatball in Residence
Viva la Difference!
Viva la Difference!
IMO.
If planetary / environmental harmony are not core principles in organics, which i believe it central, then it seems it boils down to two camps. Practicality does have significant weight as does complacency / apathy.
This does not change the category that practicality falls in.
1. Environmental Harmony Based
2. Not / Practical / Complacent / Apathy
Viva la Difference!
IMO.
If planetary / environmental harmony are not core principles in organics, which i believe it central, then it seems it boils down to two camps. Practicality does have significant weight as does complacency / apathy.
This does not change the category that practicality falls in.
1. Environmental Harmony Based
2. Not / Practical / Complacent / Apathy
Last edited:
Here's a novel idea.
Respect others choices.
If you find your panties tightening into a tumorous Gordian knot at the mere mention of dolomite, blood, bone, etc., and take it as a personal offence, try repeating "This doesn't effect me personally, to each their own" until your blood pressure drops.
If that doesn't work, maybe the Internet isn't for you.
People make choices for a variety of reasons. Economy, availability, ease of use, etc, but rarely are they known before some self appointed ecojustice warrior fires both barrels.
Respect others choices.
If you find your panties tightening into a tumorous Gordian knot at the mere mention of dolomite, blood, bone, etc., and take it as a personal offence, try repeating "This doesn't effect me personally, to each their own" until your blood pressure drops.
If that doesn't work, maybe the Internet isn't for you.
People make choices for a variety of reasons. Economy, availability, ease of use, etc, but rarely are they known before some self appointed ecojustice warrior fires both barrels.
