YOUR GARDEN IS NOT ORGANIC...

[cannaboy]

To be organic you need 7-10 year old natural home made black gold compost that you KNOW has been treated with propper ORGANIC care and attention for 10 years also you need a plot of good yearly naturally grown soil that previously had a crop of potatoes in it Ideally

Also some worm castings, some guano, your own piss and local honey are the best fertilizers to use...

TRUST THIS IS HOW TO GROW PROPPER AWSOME GANJA....

 

[ixnay007]

Honey isn't a particularly good fert, considering that it's well known for its antibacterial properties.

 

[mad librettist]

The study shows specifically that known strains of rhizobacteria which are beneficial to plant growth are not harmed by synthetic fertilizers. You have a point that it doesn't really make any comment on the condition of the soil food web, but it at least shows that synthetic users can take advantage of microbes as well. I'm not saying that there is no impact on the soil food web from fertilization, I'm just saying that p4p is right when he says "I don't believe that judicious use of synthetics will kill a soil/food web. It prompts adaptation."

For a broader look at the impact of mineral fertilizer management vs. the impact of organic fertilizer management I found this study searching the academic databases: here.


Here is the abstract:

Emphasis added by me. The bacterial biomass was higher(and thus N derived from bacteria was also higher) in the organically managed plots, which makes sense to me since organic ferts are basically food for microbes. And while soil organic matter(SOM) did differ between chemical and organic management styles, "SOM in organic-fertilizer management was not significantly higher than in mineral-fertilizer management, but it was higher than the control."

"In addition, microbial biomass and soil organic matter pools in turfgrass ecosystems were generally improved by inputs as the control resulted in lower microbial biomass nitrogen and SOM than all other regimes overall."

I agree that organically managed plots are superior to mineral fertilizer based management strategies, but both increase soil microbial activity and SOM. I think this is in contrast to what is the common understanding on this forum (ie. Synthetics harm the soil food web). Now everything can be overdone, which is why I say judicious use of synthetic fertilizers will not harm the microherd.

Peace,

UB

emphasis by me.

is none of this getting through? organic means "acting as an organism" (among other things). When we say food web, we are talking about interaction not mere presence.

Again the whole point is the interaction between organisms and the specific results and adjustments possible through said interaction. So not harming any particular organism (I noticed fungi were not mentioned - fyi fungi are the ones I worry about most) or even a majority or totality, says absolutely nothing.

I will say that you have a point as well, there is no need to get hysterical. But in the long run, synthetic fertilizer use will cost you. I guess you could discard your media after 3-6 months, but that is wasteful and - to me - distasteful.

To learn about how nutrient cycling is vital to a functioning food web, re-read microbeman's posts. Or maybe read some right-wing views on the social safety net. If you put your plants on social assistance, it's not going to bother working and trading, and its trading partners will disappear. The result is perpetually sick plants that get more disease, pests, and other problems. Since I lean to the left, I like to say "save the welfare for those who really need it".

 

[Microbeman]

The study shows specifically that known strains of rhizobacteria which are beneficial to plant growth are not harmed by synthetic fertilizers. You have a point that it doesn't really make any comment on the condition of the soil food web, but it at least shows that synthetic users can take advantage of microbes as well. I'm not saying that there is no impact on the soil food web from fertilization, I'm just saying that p4p is right when he says "I don't believe that judicious use of synthetics will kill a soil/food web. It prompts adaptation."

For a broader look at the impact of mineral fertilizer management vs. the impact of organic fertilizer management I found this study searching the academic databases: here.

Here is the abstract:

Emphasis added by me. The bacterial biomass was higher(and thus N derived from bacteria was also higher) in the organically managed plots, which makes sense to me since organic ferts are basically food for microbes. And while soil organic matter(SOM) did differ between chemical and organic management styles, "SOM in organic-fertilizer management was not significantly higher than in mineral-fertilizer management, but it was higher than the control."

"In addition, microbial biomass and soil organic matter pools in turfgrass ecosystems were generally improved by inputs as the control resulted in lower microbial biomass nitrogen and SOM than all other regimes overall."

I agree that organically managed plots are superior to mineral fertilizer based management strategies, but both increase soil microbial activity and SOM. I think this is in contrast to what is the common understanding on this forum (ie. Synthetics harm the soil food web). Now everything can be overdone, which is why I say judicious use of synthetic fertilizers will not harm the microherd.

Peace,

UB

Once again the link provided did not produce the paper in full readable format. When I clicked on the PDF download I was asked to log in. Are you able to post the PDF?

What I did read from what you posted only supports that one can feed bacteria chemical fertilizers. As I have stated many times, this is no secret. There was no assay as to species of bacteria (mentioned). I can pour diesel on a patch of ground and the bacteria which thrive in diesel will blossum. This is not the point.

The point is that when ionic form chemical fertilizers are used the bacteria/archaea>protozoa (bacterial feeding nematode)>plant interface is bypassed. Different species of bacteria and fungi are (potentially) advanced often of a pathogenic nature. Besides this the plant can end up intaking the amount which humans believe is the correct amount of nutrient, rather than what is probably the actual correct amount for normal tissue structure.

A proper study would list species and numbers of bacteria, archaea, protozoa, nematodes and fungi before and following the application of chemical fertilizers.

If the study only looked at N fixing bacteria this is a very tiny portion of the nutrient contribution.

 

[NUG-JUG]

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.

Hey to some giant pumpkins growers credit they can get big with ACT too..

 

[Clackamas Coot]

"It's so HUGE!"

"It's so HUGE!"

Hey to some giant pumpkins growers credit they can get big with ACT too..

And these guys claim that it takes their mycorrhizal tablets to grow the big ones!

Who knows, eh?

LOL

CC

 

[Dignan]

The scientific definition of the word organic has little to do with the type of discussion we are having, IMVHO. It's like trying to apply the *actual* definition of the expression "stock car" to actual stock car racing. The cars aren't actually "stock" vehicles in the Webster's Dictionary sense of the word; far from it.

Within the racing industry/sport, there is a working understanding of what "stock car" means and it's spelled out in rules and regulations governing the sport.

And that's what the gardening world may be missing.

 

[ixnay007]

1,725 lbs of pumpkin.. that's a lot of pie.

 

[NUG-JUG]

And these guys claim that it takes their mycorrhizal tablets to grow the big ones!

Who knows, eh?

LOL

CC

hahaha wow funny thing is they taste bad at that size. Myco tablets? I'll put some myco powder in my keif press and make my own!

 

[Clackamas Coot]

The scientific definition of the word organic has little to do with the type of discussion we are having, by the way. It's like trying to apply the *actual* definition of the expression "stock car" to actual stock car racing. The cars aren't actually "stock" vehicles; within the industry/sport, there is a working understanding of what "stock car" means and it's spelled out in rules and regulations governing the sport.

And that's what the gardening world may be missing.

Dignan

There are standards set by USDA and various state groups (Oregon Tilth, et al) that define precisely what is and is not organic as it relates to federal and state laws.

Why those definitions seem to be dismissed out of hand by some posters on this thread is baffling to say the least.

There's conventional. There's transitional. There's organic. There's approved for organic growing. Etc.

BUT in the area of some nursery/growing products, the laws don't apply. Like potting soils. The use of the terms 'organic' and 'natural' are often used in place of the other which only adds to the confusion.

How in the world can seabird guano be organic? Were the insects eaten by the birds dining on organically grown insects? It gets stranger and stranger as you move through the various products allowed to use the term 'organic' on the label.

And OMRI doesn't mean diddly-squat as it's nothing more than a listing service for which OMRI receives money from the registrants - the larger the company the more money they have to pay to be 'OMRI Registered' - and then there's the rather anemic board of directors as it relates to education - not exactly the 'A Team' as things turn out.

CC

 

[Dignan]

I didn't know all of that CC, thanks much.

Do you personally agree with the bulk of the language in those definitions? Are they at least mostly correct, in your opinion?

 

[NUG-JUG]

And OMRI doesn't mean diddly-squat as it's nothing more than a listing service for which OMRI receives money from the registrants - the larger the company the more money they have to pay to be 'OMRI Registered' - and then there's the rather anemic board of directors as it relates to education - not exactly the 'A Team' as things turn out.

CC

Yea you check my first post on this thread I said omri sucked for that very reason. Why shouldn't I use for example an Age\Old product when they're organic, but not OMRI since they didn't "buy-in". Then people take the fact that omri isn't the "A-Team" as evidence that all organic material reviewers are bunk. Which isn't true..

 

[Clackamas Coot]

I didn't know all of that CC, thanks much.

Do you personally agree with the bulk of the language in those definitions? Are they at least mostly correct, in your opinion?

Dignan

As far as the regulations under USDA, EPA, Oregon Tilth, et al. it's pretty much set in stone on what is and is not allowed for producing organic produce - it's not a perfect system and the individual grower has to make decisions outside of what is allowed.

The big one that comes to mind are the products from cattle, i.e. blood and bone meal. This is a highly-contentious issue for American growers. In Europe it's clearly defined - bovine amendments are NOT allowed for organic farming/growing because of the concerns about BSE

When it comes to OMRI, they have some products that they have 'listed' as 'approved for organic growing' that has caused more than one farmer to shake their head in disbelief.

One product in particular is langbenite which is sold under a couple of commercial names like K-Mag and Sul-Po-Mag. There are 2 versions of this product - one which contains high levels of chloride and the other which is processed in a different manner called the 'magnesia process' - that difference seems to have escaped OMRI or at least the last time that I check which was several months back.

It's a maze to be sure.

HTH

CC

 

[Clackamas Coot]

Yea you check my first post on this thread I said omri sucked for that very reason. Why shouldn't I use for example an Age\Old product when they're organic, but not OMRI since they didn't "buy-in". Then people take the fact that omri isn't the "A-Team" as evidence that all organic material reviewers are bunk. Which isn't true..

I agree completely......................

CC

 

[Clackamas Coot]

Because of the strict labeling laws in Washington, Oregon and California, all 3 states have databases where you can look up specific products to find out what's in them and what levels of heavy metals are in a specific product.

Sometimes you can do a search by the product name and other times you have to structure your query to search by the registrant.

Here's the link to all 3 states.

Good resource, IMHO

CC

 

[GeorgeSmiley]

Quality link CC

You can type in general hydroponics and then just browse etc

 

[Microbeman]

Hey to some giant pumpkins growers credit they can get big with ACT too..

Yes; The method is to combine ACT with chems (that I've heard reported)

 

[Clackamas Coot]

Dignan

Here's a link at CCOF which will give you an idea on how many agencies are involved in the organic farming paradigm.

You should find some of the links interesting if nothing else.

CC

 

[Clackamas Coot]

Quality link CC

You can type in general hydroponics and then just browse etc

Sometimes the information is kinda scary.

I've always wondered why so much of the grow store products have such extremely high levels of Zinc - does anyone know why that is?

CC

 

[GeorgeSmiley]

And why is it the main ingredient in these supplements seems to be soluble potash from diff sources. The kelp is soluble potash primarily I think and the protekt is another form derived from silicon,...... what gives with that product? Diff sources do diff things or is it triple redundancy?

thanks
smiley