C
CANNATOPIA
I have tried both. Very good Organic & Very good other. Differences are very little as long as the grower is good with his methods.
-
ICMag with help from Landrace Warden and The Vault is running a NEW contest in November! You can check it here. Prizes are seeds & forum premium access. Come join in!
YOUR GARDEN IS NOT ORGANIC...
- Thread starter ActuallyOrganic
- Start date
Because of the different sourcing under what is and what is not an acceptable source of 'soluble potash' and without the correct identifier (like potassium sulphate K2SO4 vs. potassium chloride KCl) it's difficult to ascertain what they're using.
CC
C
CANNATOPIA
We have a farm. Some times Pumpkins just grow realy big like that all on their own 
Granted Ive never grown one quite that big but have had some that deffinatly would give it a challange.
Granted Ive never grown one quite that big but have had some that deffinatly would give it a challange.
Word.
T
treefrog
Indeed~
Thanks for the links CC.
Oregon is the measuring stick for standards in the U.S., imho.
Thanks for the links CC.
Oregon is the measuring stick for standards in the U.S., imho.
You are baffled because outlaw pot growers don't respect the law of the land as supreme?
Yes, and the study does show that chemicals do not actively kill microbes, rather they are made more available by the microbes. Fungus was mentioned in the study as they also inoculated certain groups with arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi.
Of course what you are saying is getting through, I don't even disagree with you. What I am saying though is that synthetics and "organics" as it is called are not mutually exclusive practices. One can feed the soil, and the plant as long as one applies chemical fertilizers judiciously.
Please don't misunderstand my tone, the bold was for emphasis, not to imply any sort of anger or hysteria. Why would I discard my media simply because I used some chemical fertilizer? Soil can be recycled regardless of nutrients used as long as excessive amounts were not used.
Again, nutrient cycling takes place in mineral fertilizer managed soils as well as organically managed soils. The long term study I posted before shows that both systems increase nutrient cycling over un-managed control plots. Organically managed soils are superior, but again this proves organic practices and non-organic practices are not mutually exclusive.
The "working and trading" you're speaking is the creation of phytohormones by the plant and the plant growth promoting rhizobacteria. The first study I posted proves that this process does not stop with the addition of synthetic fertilizers.
The link I provided shows the entire document, with its original formatting preserved. If you don't want to read it online, just sign up.
The study shows that contrary to what you're saying the "bacteria/archaea>protozoa (bacterial feeding nematode)>plant interface" is not bypassed. It is merely disturbed, not only that but organic management disturbs the soil food web as well. Interestingly enough it found that high levels of N in either form(organic or synthetic) resulted in lower a nematode nematode maturity index. Additionally, I don't see how you can comment on the quality of the study having not read it.
Peace,
UB
Dignan
Here's one example how the patchwork of laws/regulations work in the real world.
Hydrated lime (Calcium hydroxide) aka slaked lime, slack lime, or pickling lime is not approved as a soil amendment but is approved as an pesticide. How exactly one could apply hydrated lime as a pesticide and not have it impact the soil is something I can't figure out.
That approval is under the USDA's National Organic Program (NOP) but under some state organic regulations (like Oregon, Washington & California) it is not approved for anything.
So if you're a certified Oregon Tilth grower (takes about 5 years to go from conventional to transitional to full organic) and you're selling your products with the Oregon Certification for your production fields you cannot use hydrated lime. But if you're selling your products under NOP regulations you can use it.
And instead of a Oregon Tilth sticker on your boxes/crates (which is required) you'll have the USDA Organic label on that box.
Things get stickier when you factor in what giant food retailers like Walmart, Safeway, Kroger, et al. are pulling with the USDA Organic label.
There are probably at least 6 or 7 different organic certification groups (at the national level) so if you want to be considered an organic grower you have options. Unfortunately.
CC
there is more to the forest than a few trees. And more to The rhizosphere than phytohormones. It's simplistic reduction that has led you astray.
Also, I disagree with your conclusions, plain and simple. It's also difficult to exchange information if my partner chooses to ignore what I say in favor of a point he can refute. I did not bring up arbuscular mycorrhizae, I said fungi. As in all fungi.
It is absolutely not readable on my system. It will not scroll past the abstract. I tried repeatedly. It may because I live on a farm and have limited download capacity. It does sound as if you are confusing "plant growth promoting rhizobacteria" and free living N fixing with nutrient cycling. These are very different things.
.
UgBun Is this the article you were refering to? I finally got it to sort of cooperate so I could read it with great difficulty. It discusses PGPRs and the use of AM. PGPRs are EXTREME minor league in the context of nutrient cycling. Did I read the wrong article?
2nd try are you out there? Maybe someone will listen to your brilliant tone.
These are not my conclusions, they are the conclusions of multiple PhD. holders which were reviewed by a board of their peers before publication. There have been studies of the rhizosphere as a whole and they came to the conclusion that certain strains of fungi and bacteria benefit plant growth. They also determined that the mechanism which causes the increased plant growth is increased production of phytohormones, increased production of organic acids, and increased root surface area due to symbiotic relationships with plants and fungi.
The reason the PGPR paper focuses on only one strain of fungus is because its main goal was to provide a solid link between the use of growth promoting bacteria and reduced fertilizer application rates. The researchers are simply setting up a model, showing their conclusions and asking others interested in the same thing to look at different factors. The fungal element was merely an extension of the original goal, and extends the model to show that certain fungi will help further. Others can now cite the article and say "Now that we know PGPR and AMF increase plant growth, does XXXX strain of fungus/bacteria further improve things.
The authors acknowledge that their study does leave out certain factors and they encourage interested researchers to explore those factors in more depth. I will try to look for more studies if you would like.
Microbeman
The PGPR study does not focus on nutrient cycling. The long term comparative study on turf grass systems is the one which discusses it further. I will post both articles in downloadable form in the next couple of minutes...
Here we go:
PGPR study
Effects of long-term turfgrass management practices on soil
nematode community and nutrient pools
Peace,
UB
Last edited:
MikeRoOrganix
Member
Certification, wow
Microbeman
Thank you because I went bonkers trying to read the nematode one; it kept flipping to the top of the page.
Thank you because I went bonkers trying to read the nematode one; it kept flipping to the top of the page.
C
Carl Carlson
If the plant is grown indoors and you call it organic, it had better be grown using lights made out of and housed in products made out of organic materials. Same thing goes for the solar panels or totally organic bio-diesel powered generator (also made of organic materials).
I believe I said you are misrepresenting the conclusion to mistakenly infer broader points for which you have thus far provided zero evidence. People keep trying to bring up the forest...
It's allowed in pseudo-organick though!
Uglybunny:
I did find this to be an interesting study but not truly reflective of the microbial nutrient cycling network as I have already outlined in how I believe a proper study should be conducted. I had problems with how they evaluated the microbial biomass. They really should have measured this microscopically including all of the player groups. Interestingly the nematodes that are players in nutrient cycling are the bacterial and fungal feeders and the authors have stated;
“Soil food webs in undisturbed natural grasslands
and forest systems are mainly fueled by high cellulosic and
lignified organic matter and usually exhibit fungal dominated
decomposition pathways which favor fungivorous nematodes
belonging to Fu2, Fu3, and Fu4 guilds (Ferris et al., 2001). Fu3 and
Fu4 are important contributors to the Structure Index, and soil
food webs in natural grasslands and forest systems are usually
highly structured and poorly to moderately enriched (Quadrat
C in the model) (de Goede and Bongers, 1998; Ferris et al., 2001).
However, in turfgrass soil, enrichment opportunistic nematodes
of low c–p values dominated, while nematodes of high c–
p values did not. Therefore, the food webs in managed
turfgrass soil indicated a disturbed food web compared to
natural grasslands and forest ecosystems.”
If anything this reflects the shortcomings the authors perceive in the general applications of their findings. They go on to exemplify that the findings related to chemical fertilizers apply ‘really’ only to lawns and to nematode populations;
“Our results also showed that organic-fertilizer management further promotes soil
microbial biomass and SOM in turfgrass systems, although
it had no significant effect on the nematode community.”
I fail to see how you have applied this study to the interactions of; plant roots releasing carbon molecules> feeding bacteria/archaea> eaten by protozoa and bacterial feeding nematodes (& fungi eaten by fungal feeding nematodes)> producing ionic form nutrients> feeding roots = microbial nutrient loop.
I was further disappointed they used ferts instead of compost.
I did find this to be an interesting study but not truly reflective of the microbial nutrient cycling network as I have already outlined in how I believe a proper study should be conducted. I had problems with how they evaluated the microbial biomass. They really should have measured this microscopically including all of the player groups. Interestingly the nematodes that are players in nutrient cycling are the bacterial and fungal feeders and the authors have stated;
“Soil food webs in undisturbed natural grasslands
and forest systems are mainly fueled by high cellulosic and
lignified organic matter and usually exhibit fungal dominated
decomposition pathways which favor fungivorous nematodes
belonging to Fu2, Fu3, and Fu4 guilds (Ferris et al., 2001). Fu3 and
Fu4 are important contributors to the Structure Index, and soil
food webs in natural grasslands and forest systems are usually
highly structured and poorly to moderately enriched (Quadrat
C in the model) (de Goede and Bongers, 1998; Ferris et al., 2001).
However, in turfgrass soil, enrichment opportunistic nematodes
of low c–p values dominated, while nematodes of high c–
p values did not. Therefore, the food webs in managed
turfgrass soil indicated a disturbed food web compared to
natural grasslands and forest ecosystems.”
If anything this reflects the shortcomings the authors perceive in the general applications of their findings. They go on to exemplify that the findings related to chemical fertilizers apply ‘really’ only to lawns and to nematode populations;
“Our results also showed that organic-fertilizer management further promotes soil
microbial biomass and SOM in turfgrass systems, although
it had no significant effect on the nematode community.”
I fail to see how you have applied this study to the interactions of; plant roots releasing carbon molecules> feeding bacteria/archaea> eaten by protozoa and bacterial feeding nematodes (& fungi eaten by fungal feeding nematodes)> producing ionic form nutrients> feeding roots = microbial nutrient loop.
I was further disappointed they used ferts instead of compost.
