What's new
  • 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.

synthetic additives

G

Guest

Nutrients (nitrogen, phosphores, potassium, calcium, magnesium, boron, magnenese, etc) are taken up by plants by the roots. To facilitate this, the nutrients must be dissolved in water after which the cells of the plant roots take up nutrients by a process called osmosis which is simply the diffusion of water across a (cell) membrane.

The only molecules these cell membranes allow to pass are very small molecules, like water molecules (H20) and small molecules of individual fertilizer nutrients such as Calcium (Ca), Magnesium (Mg), Nitrate (NO3), etc.

The way it works is very simple. Take table salt as example. Sodium chloride (table salt) NaCI, consist of two molecules, Na (sodium) and CI (Chloride). Together they form the well known white chrystalized form we see in the salt shaker. When placed into water, the two negatively charged hydrogen atoms of the water molecules will surround the positively charged Sodium (Na) molecule and literally pull it apart from the Negatively charged Chloride (CI) molecule which will attach itself to the positively charged Oxygen molecules found in water (Water = H20, e.g. 1 oxygen + 2 hydrogen molecules).

What you end up with is two individual compounds: Na and Ci each sourrounded by water molecules. These molecules can now pass through the cell membrances and into the roots. In it's complex form NaCI the sodium chloride molecule could not be taken up by the roots, but as Sodium and Chloride seperately they are taken up by the roots.

In similar manner, the plants can not use organic fertilizers (NH2) as the molecules are too large and complex and further, these molecules are not easily dissolved in water (e.g. their composition do not lend themselves to be seperated by the hydrogen and oxygen molecules of water).

Thus be able to pass into the plants via the cell membranes, first the microbacterial life (microbes) in the soil must convert the organic nitrogen into inorganic nitrogen (ammonium, or NH4). Ammonium (NH4+) can be taken up by the plants, and a fair amount does, but other microbes in the soil continue to decomposition process and convert ammonium (NH4+) into nitrates (NO3-) which are also taken up by the roots.

Synthetic fertilizers typically have the nitrogen in the ammonium and/or nitrates forms. If a fair amount is in nitrate forms, the uptake into the plant is rapid, even in cold soils. In warmer soil, the level of nitrates are less critical and ammonium form fertilizers are quite acceptable.

The key point to understand here: organic fertilizer is never taken up by the plants. organic fertilizers are first converted into inorganic fertilizer by the microbes in the soil and it is these inorganic fertilizer nutrients which are then taken up by the roots after being dissolved in water.One could theorize that plants grown primarily with organic fertilizers are also grown in better soil ?

E.g. say the organic fertilizer was composted manure, adding this as fertilizer would also act as soil improvement at the same time. This alone could improve the quality of some plants especially those liking a soil with high organic matter (OM). Soil with good organic matter often have a higher CEC (caption exchange capacity) which is an important factor when you consider fertilization. High CEC soils can hold on to - and exchange - individual fertilizer nutrients with plants more easily and thus is capable of feeding the plants more consistently over a long period of time. Water holding capacity of soil with good organic content is often higher, too, which improves the final product.

Soil can be improved with organic matter by mixing in peatmoss sphagnum, compost, vermicompost, etc and then continue to use synthetic fertilizers.

You could theorize that the adding of an organic fertilizer, like composted manure, actually improved the organic matter content (OM) of the soil and this, not the organic vs synthetic fertilizer, improved the result ?

Another thing which could the reason.. adding an organic fertilizer would result in a gradual feeding of the plants as the organic nitrogen was gradually converted to synthetic nitrogen. You can further theorize that the organic fertilizer (which is converted faster in warm soil and slower in cool soil) may have suited the growth habit of the produce . If this is the case, and the inorganic fertilizer was not added gradually and in doses which suited the plants, then it is the feeding process itself (e.g. the dosing amount) which is the cause of the change .. not the type of fertilizer used.

An experienced grower would use a high nitrate fertilizer in cool whether (when microbacterial life is limited) and switch to an ammonium based fertilizer as the weather warms up. If an inexperienced grower fed the plants with high ammonium early in the season this could lead to ammonium toxicity which could explain a difference in result. For example, popular home growers choices like osmocote 14-14-14 and miracle grow 15-30-15 contain a very high percentage of the nitrogen in ammonium (and urea which is converted into ammonium) form.

To say for sure if there IS truly any difference in the choice of organic vs inorganic fertilizer you would have to provide the two types of fertilizers to two test groups: experienced as well as inexperienced growers and have them run dual tests using both fertilizer types.

In my opinion, there is no difference feeding produce or any other plant with organic vs inorganic fertilizer.

The organic fertilizer may meet recycling goals and also meet individual ethical goals of grower. They may also provide for automatic addition of organic matter to the soil (would require a fertilizer like manure used and not just liquid fish fertilizer for example). The organic fertilizers may also make dosing easier, feeding more gradual and thus meet specific plant preferences.

Inorganic fertilizers are often cheaper, they contain nutrients which are readily available and which work in poor soils, in low temperatures, and which does not require microbacterial life to convert them. Some people prefer inorganic fertilizers to hauling manure in their private cars, and the same people may appreciate buying inorganic factory produced fertilizers which has created local jobs as opposed to organic kelp fertilizers which may have been harvested using techniques which destoyed marine life...

it is impossible to give the explanation for preferences. it is almost certain, however, that the plants don't care much. they can only take up inorganic nutrients to begin with.

Note: the most common organic fertilizer in the world: UREA is often considered 'inorganic' or 'artificial' (chemical) by the organic community. This is often because it is produced in factories as opposed to being 'recycled' from plant or animal matter. However, it does contain carbon and thus is organic according to the true definition of organic.


I hope this answered your question.
Thanks.
 
Last edited:

Berry_Coughin'

Active member
Veteran
you're gonna have the green party all over you brainthor..... I in fact find it quite puzzling how some might think the plants can consume 'organic matter'. I'm not going to go through all that again.... but yeah... what brainthor said.....


Point is you cannot compare organic/inorganic at the atomic or sub-atomic level.... again

ORGANIC= molecule containing at least one or more carbon, and one or more hydrogen atom.....
 
Greetings syztem,

Generally fertilizers derived from an organic source tend to be "slow release." That is, all of the nutrients are not available at once; the fertilizer is processed by micro-organism in the media.

Synthetic fertilizers are "quick release". The nutrients are ready to be assimilated by the plant. As a result, the effect of overfertilization when using synthetic fertilizers, is more pronounced.

The Atami products contain bio-catalysts, enzymes and hormones that promote faster uptake of nutrients by the plant. If used in conjuction with a synthetic fertilizer (at full strength) the result of this faster uptake is overfertilization. The products also help process organic source fertilizers, so that the nutrients become available faster, but not as fast as the synthetics would.

The quality of the synthetic fertilizer also come into play. Poor quality synthetics in conjunction with Atami's stimulants, will simply "poison" your plant faster. A high quality synthetic, used at less than full strength will more likely offer the results that many indoor garden enthusiasts are hoping to experience.

Sincerely,
Charles.
 

Berry_Coughin'

Active member
Veteran
Point is saying an element is not organic....is mis-informing, you're talking apples and oranges...

when in fact if you take two different compounds... one a derivative of organics and one synthetic... we'll say emeralds... now tear them down to the atomic level... there is no difference at the atomic level.... all I'm saying.....

Much respect.....
peace...
 
G

Guest

In similar manner, the plants can not use organic fertilizers (NH2) as the molecules are too large and complex and further, these molecules are not easily dissolved in water (e.g. their composition do not lend themselves to be seperated by the hydrogen and oxygen molecules of water).

Thus be able to pass into the plants via the cell membranes, first the microbacterial life (microbes) in the soil must convert the organic nitrogen into inorganic nitrogen (ammonium, or NH4). Ammonium (NH4+) can be taken up by the plants, and a fair amount does, but other microbes in the soil continue to decomposition process and convert ammonium (NH4+) into nitrates (NO3-) which are also taken up by the roots.


The key point to understand here: organic fertilizer is never taken up by the plants. organic fertilizers are first converted into inorganic fertilizer by the microbes in the soil and it is these inorganic fertilizer nutrients which are then taken up by the roots after being dissolved in water.One could theorize that plants grown primarily with organic fertilizers are also grown in better soil ?




In my opinion, there is no difference feeding produce or any other plant with organic vs inorganic fertilizer.

The organic fertilizer may meet recycling goals and also meet individual ethical goals of grower. They may also provide for automatic addition of organic matter to the soil (would require a fertilizer like manure used and not just liquid fish fertilizer for example). The organic fertilizers may also make dosing easier, feeding more gradual and thus meet specific plant preferences.

Inorganic fertilizers are often cheaper, they contain nutrients which are readily available and which work in poor soils, in low temperatures, and which does not require microbacterial life to convert them. Some people prefer inorganic fertilizers to hauling manure in their private cars, and the same people may appreciate buying inorganic factory produced fertilizers which has created local jobs as opposed to organic kelp fertilizers which may have been harvested using techniques which destoyed marine life...

it is impossible to give the explanation for preferences. it is almost certain, however, that the plants don't care much. they can only take up inorganic nutrients to begin with.

Note: the most common organic fertilizer in the world: UREA is often considered 'inorganic' or 'artificial' (chemical) by the organic community. This is often because it is produced in factories as opposed to being 'recycled' from plant or animal matter. However, it does contain carbon and thus is organic according to the true definition of organic.


I hope this answered your question.
 

Berry_Coughin'

Active member
Veteran
didn't you already say that? point taken on organics.... when it all boils down to it... synth or organic... it's all the same in the plants eyes.....
 
G

Guest

exactly...peace my friend...organics is about the earth the planet..we stopped caring for that along time ago..why she has not done us in yet...i have know idea perhaps to make plastic as the dinosaurs did oil...
 
Last edited:

Berry_Coughin'

Active member
Veteran
hehe... here we go.... dino oil??? you've got to be kidding me... all that on chemistry and you spout dino oil??? We are but a blink of an eye to the earth....
 
G

Guest

extract oil from the planet and think not that the surface gets hotter is ignorance..the oil we burn will burn us...extract the oil from your engine and replace with water...does your car over heat...the core of our earth is 233,000 degrees centigrade what do you think in your spoon fed ignorance that oil is for?
 

Berry_Coughin'

Active member
Veteran
What hole did you just fall into??? What ignorance do you speak of.... your opinion that oil is from dinosaurs that is powering the earth to 233,000 degrees? Listen to yourself... so how my friend when thousands of years ago did the planet come out of an ICE AGE??? Did we drive too many SUV's then????
 
G

Guest

actually you need to read my post again drop the dinosaurs and understand the equation...im sorry for what appears to be a personal attack
 
Last edited:
G

Guest

ok and for the record


(Bituminous Rocks)


(1.5" x 2.0" Rocks)





Where does oil come from and where is oil found in?



Petroleum crude oil comes from and is found in sedimentary

rocks such as shale, sandstone, limestone and dolostone.

Sedimentary rocks are layered rocks that are made

from the consolidation of sediments that have

been eroded from pre-existing rocks and minerals.



Shale and sandstone are clastic sedimentary rocks

which are rocks made from mud and quartz fragments.

Limestone and dolostone are carbonate sedimentary

rocks which are rocks made from calcite and dolomite.
 
G

Guest

for the record i do agree with you.....partly
www.hosecraftusa.comFrom the scene in the movie "Airplane!" in which the character Johnny says, "then the dinosaurs got too fat and died and turned into oil," to the famous Sinclair Oil dinosaur, petroleum and fossil vertebrates have been mistakenly linked together. In reality, dinosaurs and other vertebrate animals did not produce petroleum.
The word "petroleum" comes from the Greek words "petra" meaning "rock" and "oleum" meaning oil, so petroleum is "rock oil"! Petroleum, or crude oil, is a hydrocarbon (a chemical compound that contains hydrogen and carbon), which can be distilled into gasoline, kerosene, oils of different viscosities, and waxes. But where does it come from?

Humans are one of the main forces acting on the Earth's environment today. We generally do not leave large amounts of plant or animal matter lying about in one area long enough for them to accumulate and decompose in large deposits. Millions of years ago, however, plants could die and remain on the ground to decompose over a long period of time, and micro-organisms could accumulate over ocean and lake bottoms.

The best environments for the production of petroleum is restricted basins of water, such as ocean or lake bottoms, where there is little or no water circulation. The poor circulation results in very little oxygen in the water. The micro-organisms decompose partially, using up what little oxygen there is in the water and sediments. When the oxygen is completely used up, the decomposition stops, and what remains of the micro-organisms is preserved. (If the organic matter of the micro-organisms completely decomposes, there will be nothing left to be turned into petroleum.) As more micro-organisms die in the area, an enormous amount of decomposing animal material could accumulate over a period of hundreds or thousands of years.

As more decomposing micro-organisms or soil are deposited on top, the animal material at the bottom of the pile would become compressed by the weight of the material on top. Over millions of years, the animal material at the bottom of the pile would become so compressed that the hydrogen and carbon that composed the micro-organisms when they were alive would become long chains of hydrocarbons. As the sediments become more compacted, the crude oil and natural gas are squeezed out of the sediments, and travel to layers of sand that are more porous and permeable.
 

Berry_Coughin'

Active member
Veteran
holy crap it just started snowing out of no-where.... I can agree that the above is plausible.... omit 'Humans are one of the main forces acting on the Earth's environment today' that is a huge statement..... when you wake up every morning do you not notice the giant ball of burning gas up there in the sky... to say that we as people are an attributing factor equal to that of the sun is not smart on your part.... do we have some impact... yes... but are we a main force... I think that's an overstatement IMO.
 
Top