The Organic Think Tank

[Lazyman]

funny i was thinking the same thing about you

Ha, ditto!

to be fair, your grows look like huge success. but it's not just about yield. and, it doesn't mean you are now the end all be all of chem hydro

Never said I was, not once. Yield=efficiency. A poor-yielding plant was not grown to its potential, wouldn't you agree?

you've made a lot of assumptions, presented a lot of biased studies as "facts," and shown overall that your point of view is very limited. and, you're not very open-minded.

So because it was a trifle to find a dozen studies that support my theories, I'm biased? I could say the same about you, but it might be hard to listen with your fingers in your ears!

the gist of this thread had been intended to focus on hydro - but w/ an assault on the organic concept of course there will be organic enthusiasts defending organics in whatever form.

Of course there is, and should have been expected. Or would you really prefer threads where everyone agrees with you? God that would be boring, and nothing would be learned.

your comments to the effect that there isn't enough arable land (laughable) served to further the derailment along w/ citing that piece of crap norm borlaug's words (really a very limited scope)

actually too - as has been pointed out - borlaug's work has resulted in a modern day clusterfuck - to the delight of the dupont superpower and the chem industry. they profit from it - to our demise

So his research and findings are wrong? I'd like to see your proof to the contrary, I'm sure there are a thousand phd's who would like to have that argument with you.

further, you refuse to consider the implications of the production of the materials involved and packaging/transpo to the storefronts and from the stores to home in your energy considerations.

So you can teleport bat guano and soiul amendments to your backyard? Cool! If you could torrent the plans for your teleporter up I'd appreciate it.

the thing is, something doesn't come from nothing - if anyone is experiencing higher yields, it must be from higher energy inputs.

w/ one major exception; organics.

There's leaps of faith, and there's conjecture. I posted lots of good data and research that refute your claims completely, but for some reason you cannot do the same? Is it because you might be wrong?

the reason: it's nature at work. if we were gone, it would happen by itself. something doesn't come from nothing (of course) but, the energy is there from the solar system to it's effects on this floating rock. a grand majesty of science far exceeding anyone's petty dope grow.

pile on to that the FACT that all your chem hydro growth happens due to nature as well (that's the chem grower's favorite argument, "there's no difference, an ion is an ion is an ion!")

and it's inescapable that you are wrong.

Even though 99% of research on the internet shows my point of view to be correct, I'm still wrong eh? Well if you say so it must be true! I look up other's research that know more than I do, why can't you?

sure, hydro can outyield soil 400% they say right?

Yes.

funny, they also say that terra preta soil outyields conventional soils by 800%

Again, post the research, put up or shut up!

you can skew papers and statistics and ignore the subtle details if you like but when energy input comes into the equation, the field starts to level off.

How do you measure this energy? If you can't, it's fairy-farts and a worthless thing to even mention. QUANTIFIABLE DATA is the only thing that should be posted in a debate. If you can't prove it, YOU'RE WRONG.

then, when you factor in damages to the environment (which organics would actually fix after we are gone) we start finding that we're filling an empty bucket trying to outdo nature - when there's no reason - nature does just fine all by itself.

10K years after the last human dies, there will be hardly any evidence we ever existed. Which is barely a blink of an eye in historical terms. There is very, VERY little we can do to this planet that it will not heal from, including the death of all humans.

Perhaps you're content doing "just fine," but others would prefer to push the boundaries.

I imagine you like an old man around 1910, "my oil lamp is just fine, I don't need electricity!" So stick with your oil lamp, I'm stickin my finger in the light socket and gonna find out what else it can do.

Where we the world be if everyone had your mindset? Would you prefer the whole world lived an Amish lifestyle?

 

[xmobotx]

i fully intend to push the bounds w/ my organic experiments

of course it will be over the course of years and only be in it's infantile stages when i pass

the proof of my argument is as simple as sustainability - i told you that but i guess i m just a dumbass and my observations pale in comparison to these studys you cite - which are all slanted to support commercial interests IMO

OIW its basically these opinions vs my opinion

but, "conventional" gardening is in it's infancy by far

i would never argue that organic shows numbers superior to conventional from crop to crop - no one in their right mind would

but, you start over every year w/ chem ferts

and, you cant just run your manure spreader every spring and get the best results either

(although you seem to rely on spreading a little manure yourself - IMO)

the nuts and bolts of my stance dont rely on guano and storebought amendments - you seem to ignore that repeatedly you are comparing store bought organics w/ storebought chem

same thing, i say "i dont rely on the store" and you plug your ears and say NA NA NA NA -then cite some trumped up bullshit "study" irrelevant to my argument and only w/ limited relevance to your own

OIW i dont fear the debate -but i dont bring much to the table as "proof"

and neither do you

"facts" -laughable

 

[xmobotx]

If you can't prove it, YOU'RE WRONG.

and, i have seen nothing in the way of "proof" from you - so, you must be wrong

struggling w/ closing your quote brackets - lol

 

[RNDZL]

this is were most of our enegries have misdirected the thread and its purpose

FUCK what common agriculture says. I can find a ton of verifiable resoruces to all claims

but they all pale to our very specific experience with gorwing cannabis

and if everyone stopped trying to "prove" something that is stil being refined and discovered we might find all the evidence we need under our noses

the TOM HILL example is a key one. His goal for best biomass was achieved outdoors with organics.

conversley indoor hydroponics REGARDLESS of lighting and nute regime in a perfect environment allows for most rapid growth if not superior biomass (contendable but not for this thread here and now)

why are they mutally exclusive?

why do you guys argue and cite non cannabis sources?

lets discuss stuff that should mater to us

Rhizopshere biology in relation to systems that grow with inert mediums and cultivate pants with root system made of water roots not air roots

do the components of the soil web outside the macro.micro nutrient spectrum have any marked benefit in any manner, and if so what is the cost to benefit ratio of the differntial in both dollars and sense and in terms of intangibles like taste, health and ease of impact on the enviroment

lazyman

you dont want anything to do with ideation about hycro organics GREAT either contriubute some non confrontational posts or ease up ptill we can get enough info to for some plans to evaluate and test the information presented

your trying to shut it down before it starts

tis not a debate thread its an ideation thread

super buzzkill already and why alot of people dont bother trying to share shit it woudl take 20 years of practicle experince to learn

 

[Danks2005]

People have a hard time accepting the fact that some of us grow great organic crops without going to the store. Your chem nutes may seem efficient, but they are refined, and quite a bit of energy goes into the process whether you choose to accept that or not.

 

[xmobotx]

FUCK what common agriculture says. I can find a ton of verifiable resoruces to all claims

this is my point exactly - these papers are written to sell product

you can wade through the data for days debating it - and it's all just verbal masturbation - because it always comes from a biased perspective

very narrow to cite some resource and say "end of argument" esp in view of the circumstance

organic = free, the input is your own work. maybe you buy some peat (but you dont have to it's laying around on rocks and the ground if one looks) maybe you buy some dolo lime (i like wood ashes)

basically, i eat the food from my garden for energy to turn my soil and compost and seed and mulch and harvest to eat again

chem= a product you invariably buy from a supplier at whatever scale - there is no way to go out and find the materials to do your own chem grow from scratch

and, therefor it's marketable - and that's what these "studies" are; marketing

yes absolutely organic co w/ organic prod do the same thing - so all this citing #s will ultimately turn into mud-slinging about whose resources are more credible

 

[xmobotx]

People have a hard time accepting the fact that some of us grow great organic crops without going to the store. Your chem nutes may seem efficient, but they are refined, and quite a bit of energy goes into the process whether you choose to accept that or not.

which also furthers my point

further, i contend that there is damage done to the environment before the product even gets to the store's shelf

and, it continues as the product is applied

equally, many organic amendments are not sustainably supplied either - but there's choices w/ organics and you CAN sustainably supply the nutes

 

[Lazyman]

The reason why there has been little cannabis-specific research in this thread is:

1) The US Government does not allow cannabis studies
2) The studies that do exist are miniscule in scale
3) Existing cannabis studies are not usually testing growing methods as much as they do light.

So I've posted lots of information about commercial farms and university studies because they HAVE done the research we need. If you don't have 20 years to learn it, or the necessary funds to do the research, why not use someone elses?

If you choose to ignore studies than you have every right to be ignorant.

By the way, those that think I know nothing of organics are wrong. I've not only studied it extensively, I've grown organically too. I just saw no benefit to it, and the large-scale research confirms why. Is it that hard to understand why?

So we need to only argue about intangibles like taste and health. How convenient for you!

Mullray posted about the health of organic nutrients, wormcastings and guanos with high levels of arsenic, cadmium and lead. But he was ignored.

Taste is subjective, and I would love to do some double-blind taste tests someday to see if anyone actually CAN taste the difference.

Or would those results not be valid to you if they showed results you don't like too?

That's the thing that pisses me off about this debate, is that when presented with facts (would you like me to repost them all a third time?) many on here say "well that doesn't prove anything. Who cares if it yields more in less space and uses less water and has fewer heavy metals. THAT's not what is important."

If organics don't suck, you guys are doing an absolutely lousy job of proving it. Post some studies, do some research, do some reading, post your findings with citations, as I have done.

I didn't do these studies myself, so I must have made them up or something? You guys are killing me over here.

 

[RNDZL]

The reason why there has been little cannabis-specific research in this thread is:

1) The US Government does not allow cannabis studies
2) The studies that do exist are miniscule in scale
3) Existing cannabis studies are not usually testing growing methods as much as they do light.

So I've posted lots of information about commercial farms and university studies because they HAVE done the research we need. If you don't have 20 years to learn it, or the necessary funds to do the research, why not use someone elses?

If you choose to ignore studies than you have every right to be ignorant.

By the way, those that think I know nothing of organics are wrong. I've not only studied it extensively, I've grown organically too. I just saw no benefit to it, and the large-scale research confirms why. Is it that hard to understand why?

So we need to only argue about intangibles like taste and health. How convenient for you!

Mullray posted about the health of organic nutrients, wormcastings and guanos with high levels of arsenic, cadmium and lead. But he was ignored.

Taste is subjective, and I would love to do some double-blind taste tests someday to see if anyone actually CAN taste the difference.

Or would those results not be valid to you if they showed results you don't like too?

That's the thing that pisses me off about this debate, is that when presented with facts (would you like me to repost them all a third time?) many on here say "well that doesn't prove anything. Who cares if it yields more in less space and uses less water and has fewer heavy metals. THAT's not what is important."

If organics don't suck, you guys are doing an absolutely lousy job of proving it. Post some studies, do some research, do some reading, post your findings with citations, as I have done.

I didn't do these studies myself, so I must have made them up or something? You guys are killing me over here.

Bro here is your problem

your so sure of yourself and your 9.5 lb per 8k grow you think you know it all


standard cropper doing dirt here pulls 2 lb off a k in all day long

2.5 is the gold standard for 3 x 3 under 100 k no gas in dirt horizontal lighting. You do that in a ahnd watered system, you earned your degree

if they invest in water, co2, and environmental controls its to break the 2.5 per mark and thats using traditonal horizontal lighting

when you get to a gram per watt with hydro an system any strain any room YOU YOURSELF

then you can say you at the start of the journey and still dont hvea the right to say fucking shit based on your own personal experience

so really give it a fucking rest already

 

[Lazyman]

I've said it thrice in this thread already, but I'll say it again:

I'M NOT AN EXPERT GROWER AND HAVE NEVER CLAIMED TO BE! My yields SUCK. Have always sucked! I yield for shit! They just sucked more with organics!

There, are we done?

I don't use my own grows to indicate whether a particular technology is any good, because the scale is too small. That is why I use data from larger studies, because they are better able to measure efficacy on repeated crops.

If you're able to do better with organics than salts, does that mean everyone should switch?

Or am I not allowed to participate in this conversation at all because my own worthless experiences don't measure up to your new standards? Can I borrow that stick?

 

[RNDZL]

contribute but stop asserting applied fact in the grow room based on some non relative agriculture based growing using the logic that if you applied it it woudl work

cause based on that logic you fail

you arent contributing your being combative

there is a fucking distinct differnce

why dont yo look back pages and see how many timems i asked nice not to bring a energy that destroys any synergy we could have

its a think tank

not a just what I think tank

now i know why so many talented dudes who came before me say fuck the web

and im not shit

im trying to get my shit next level

i didnt realize i had to stoop to learn

the cost of your arrogance and ego is your piss poor yields

in dollars and cents that alof of money, how the fuck can you argue efficency when you cant apply it

peace

 

[toohighmf]

I still have no idea what's more entertaining. the argument, or the facts. Lazy, when it comes to debate, you certainly aren't "lazy" and as you just won't go down. no surrender. love the tenacity!

in all this banter back in forth, I am still no less interested in grabbing me a tub of maxibloom and be done with it.

 

[xmobotx]

If you don't have 20 years to learn it, or the necessary funds to do the research, why not use someone elses?

even if you studied the studys for 20 years you would never learn it because its absolutely based on experience -and the studies begin to conflict when you compare them

so what do you do? pick the studies you like?

we could all do that all day - mudslinging based on whose sources are more credible

BTW, i have the 20 years - and i figure to go a good 20 yrs more

and, i have done the chem thing (much to my mom's chagrine as she was concerned about getting certified)

i was never impressed that one method yielded better results than the other - in pro-mix

of course, that's soil-less medium and some folks call it hydro

at whatever rate, the bud from organics tasted better and smoked more easily - all subjective but mirrored by numerous other enthusiasts (some of whom do grow chem)

no one is ignoring you, they just may have the insight to see through the charade of your documentation - which is biased

its not that i wont listen, i have read and heard and seen for myself

YOU ARE WRONG -period

and so are your ballswinging studies

 

[xmobotx]

I'M NOT AN EXPERT GROWER AND HAVE NEVER CLAIMED TO BE! My yields SUCK. Have always sucked! I yield for shit! They just sucked more with organics!

OG is a little more involved than mixing 6 ml from 1 jug and 3 mil from another or whatever ratios - or a tsp of some peters 20-20-20

it may not be for everyone - and the chem genie is out of the bottle

the masses may be better served (results wise) by the simple method

but, that doesn't mean anyone should discount organics - as you yourself said our species influence on this planet is minimal and if we go extinct our influence will eventually disappear - because organics works

nature's methods will ultimately consume all of our garbage if we stop producing it (which speaks to minimize the negative effects of chem ag)

DONT GET ME WRONG - i think you may be a genius and your hydro grow is fantastic

but give people like me a shot too

our gardens are highly effective and deliver top drawer product -often at little or no cost

and, i know this from experience

the sky is fucking blue - and no matter how much proof you cite, it wont change that

 

[RNDZL]

I still have no idea what's more entertaining. the argument, or the facts. Lazy, when it comes to debate, you certainly aren't "lazy" and as you just won't go down. no surrender. love the tenacity!

in all this banter back in forth, I am still no less interested in grabbing me a tub of maxibloom and be done with it.

ok


see this is why i had to be a critical douche before

i mean i tried a long time to nicely say stop being combative so we could take the statement above and see

what does that mean??

it means it shouldn't take a hundred pages to determine that everyone has a different agenda and a few pages of shared experience would give everyone far more data to work with, apply and build on than the constant

google, a good buzz and my 2 cents say your wasting your time contributing to this because the article I just referenced somewhere in Minnesota they proved lettuce produces a tastier head when feed to a test group of hungry Ethiopians

i would have given a nut to have learned on someone else's experience

but hey go with your gut and google but he i doing nothing to add anything of value to this thread but counter with abstract conjecture

see as the it goes legal and the professional, educated agricultural and medical professionals explore what there is to learn or be had on the internet that this type of belligerence will be attractive

its a very narrow weak way of information gathering using criticism to extract info

many micro managing neurotic nazi bosses in Babylon work that way

they walk in, question everyone intensely, put them on the defensive and use gauge the truth based on the reaction, not on any real truth, just on shaking the tree with nest and counting the birds that come out

 

[Lazyman]

Tenacity indeed!

Gentlemen, how do you judge your gardens?

Indoors it seems most growers worry about grams per watt. If you organic fans don't, that's dandy, but how would you WANT them to be judged? We clearly can't taste or smell on the internet, so is there anything at all tangible about how you judge them yourself?

So is the biggest benefit to organics (in your opinions) the ability to reuse materials and amend them? I know there are some guys here that re-use soil for indoor grows, but I don't think I would go so far as to say they are the majority. Let me go find the thread where a poll was taken...

 

[Lazyman]

even if you studied the studys for 20 years you would never learn it because its absolutely based on experience -and the studies begin to conflict when you compare them

I agree that book learning is not a good substitute for experience, but I didn't mean just reading books for 20 years, I meant doing the actual work and grows. The budget and scale of the large operations allow better comparisons, more detail, and tighter control over variables. In short, everything we wish we could do ourselves, no?

so what do you do? pick the studies you like?

we could all do that all day - mudslinging based on whose sources are more credible

I understand that, and honestly all of the studies I found were on the first page or two on Google. To counter it, I've seen one article/study posted in favor of organics. If you can find articles that show organics to outperform hydro, I would be delighted to see them!

BTW, i have the 20 years - and i figure to go a good 20 yrs more

No question you've got the years on me growing, I've only been a "professional grower" for about 6 years now. I do plan on learning more every day of my life!

and, i have done the chem thing (much to my mom's chagrine as she was concerned about getting certified)

I understand that, you have to stop using pesticides and chem ferts for something like 3 years before you can apply correct?

i was never impressed that one method yielded better results than the other - in pro-mix

of course, that's soil-less medium and some folks call it hydro

So two watering methods, one medium? What did you try? Just curious.

at whatever rate, the bud from organics tasted better and smoked more easily - all subjective but mirrored by numerous other enthusiasts (some of whom do grow chem)

I don't doubt you, I just have had similar experiences (wow, this must be organic its so tasty!")

no one is ignoring you, they just may have the insight to see through the charade of your documentation - which is biased

So, how many pro-chem fert studies have you posted? Do I have to argue both sides myself?

its not that i wont listen, i have read and heard and seen for myself

YOU ARE WRONG -period

and so are your ballswinging studies

So what am I wrong about? please be specific.

 

[RNDZL]

Tenacity indeed!

Gentlemen, how do you judge your gardens?

Indoors it seems most growers worry about grams per watt. If you organic fans don't, that's dandy, but how would you WANT them to be judged? We clearly can't taste or smell on the internet, so is there anything at all tangible about how you judge them yourself?

So is the biggest benefit to organics (in your opinions) the ability to reuse materials and amend them? I know there are some guys here that re-use soil for indoor grows, but I don't think I would go so far as to say they are the majority. Let me go find the thread where a poll was taken...

OK

before you go scouring polls you found a great starting point

i even posted lets use it as a starting point

what is *IT*

*IT* is a very EZ concept

no matter who you are or what you do you can always improve, but is *IT* worth the cost?

the value of *IT* is different for every grower

BUT WHAT VALUE SHOULD *IT* REPRESENT IF *IT* IS WORTH THE COST !?!??!

in business they use metrics, very simple concept

My personal grow value of *IT*, that is, anything new is a visual notable difference in growth or a noticeable measurable difference in smoke

if *IT* is a new bloom booster and i have one i want to see a viable noticeable difference i dont want it to be so marginal i need equipment to measure it

understand that TOM HILL for example didn't get to growing 10 pound trees by being satisfied with 5 pounders

by limiting your perspective you are limiting your potential

but lets all find some fair and reasonable measures so we can all see how organic hydro can even be compared fairly in our real world gardens

trust me I hate to be a vitriolic fuck and would love to have some of my non productive posts deleted if we can all play nice

WE WILL ALL be better growers for it

trust me on that one

im no where near the best but i have been around the block a few times

 

[cannaboy]

Lazy If you wanna get a flight to the LGA cannabis cup and think that blind folded we won't taste your shwag!!!! You just said you can't grow for your life why do it...
All the judges are seasoned veteran growers and smokers some from the time "you were shitting in your hands and rubbing it in your face!"

Blind taste after the medi users your click sell to???? They never smoked good herb!!! that's why there there buying your's !!!


You said:
If organics don't suck, you guys are doing an absolutely lousy job of proving it. Post some studies, do some research, do some reading, post your findings with citations, as I have done.

I didn't do these studies myself, so I must have made them up or something? You guys are killing me over here.



Really!! Are we? That is where your problem lies my friend.

And you said:

Gentlemen, how do you judge your gardens?


By efficency cost and production and on how little help we need..year in and out,

How many light's you bought lazy you payed them off yet??

Big grows can be done on a shoestring Lazy the best ones,,


On the hills in spain soon!!

 

[xmobotx]

so this is me publicly apologizing for calling you out and claiming you are wrong lazyman (before i was being sarcastic)

I am sorry - sir

you have posted well-documented resources and the point that hydro has extraordinary yields is difficult to escape

my point has always been that, when you consider energy input, that superiority is diminished
and, that there are numerous studies on all fronts (as RNDZL pointed out)

like RNDZL, i dont want to see this turn into a fury of arguing studies and credibility of sources

what's more, it strikes me as irresponsible to discount organics automatically. for me, the "proof" is common sense:
once i produce a crop for free (outdoors) using organics - it's hard to argue that anything with a cost factor is superior unless it produces a significantly superior product

similarly, indoors, the cost is decreased significantly (as it's power -lights/fans only)

i have no intention to argue anything to the benefit or detriment of bottled nutes "organic" or otherwise.

and i believe i have proved for myself that the organics are superior in pro-mix (and isn't that hydro?)

diversity is an issue here, unless we make some divisions, we are comparing oranges to apples.

as, aero/NFT to hand watered coco for instance

i do not have 20 years as a grower per se - but i do as a gardener and a fair chunk of that is gardening my favorite herb

actually, some would say i have been doing it hydro too - but i don't really see it that way