YOUR GARDEN IS NOT ORGANIC...

[Bass Akwards]

Another take ...

Another take ...

This URL contains a lot of information on what constitutes an "organic" potting mix:

http://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/potmix.html

It all depends on the definitions, and government regulations.

 

[NUG-JUG]

Nitrite delivered in synthetic form is the same compound that is excreted by a microbe that originally ate some ammonium (NH+4). Nitrite is nitrite. Nitrate is nitrate. The plants don't know the difference or care how the substance was derived. Compounds are compounds. Do you have any evidence that contests or clarifies my position?

I respectfully disagree. Not sure i'm right about this as the part in TWM about nutrient uptake is hard to grasp for me. As is chemistry in general. That being said ALL synthetic (i don't say chemical since there are organic chemicals) nutrients are derived from petroleum products no? So a plant will know that the nitrite is unnatural and go for the organic molecule right?

 

[mad librettist]

Guys, just look up nitrite.

Then look up nitrate.

How can we talk if no one is speaking the same language?

The process for making (nh4)(no3) -the ammoniUM nitrATE everyone keeps confusing with nitrate and (seperately) ammonium, is published everywhere. I don't believe it needs to involve petroleum (which is organic and natural btw). Modern ferts use petroleum because the producers can pass the cost on to the public at large while keeping the profits. In a loose regulatory climate it's a no brainer.

 

[pray4pistils]

I respectfully disagree... So a plant will know that the nitrite is unnatural and go for the organic molecule right?

You respectfully disagree because your intuition leads you to do so? Or, do you have science to back it up? Do you suppose that a plant could tell the difference between pure water (H2O) that comes from a stream and pure water (H2O) that comes from burning two hydrogen molecules with one of oxygen in a lab? There is no difference whatsoever. It's the same compound. Of course, stream water is also going to deliver other stuff which may or may not be helpful to sustaining a plant. But, the water itself (H2O) is identical regardless of origin or production method.

You're confusing synthetic with "inferior" and equating organic with "superior". Sure, there may be strong correlations involved, but they're not absolutes. It's this absolutism that has so many pure organics people on the wrong path (in my humble yet outspoken opinion).

 

[ixnay007]

The plants don't make the decision, if the nutrients they need are in soluble form they'll absorb them (even in excess). In bio growing the plants use a middle man, who'll provide the nutrients in soluble form, in the absence they'll use the nutrients which are provided by inorganic fertilizers.

 

[Nortin]

I'm so fucking organic that...



The pots I use are woven by Native Americans using only locally procured bark thread...

All of my plant water is rain water. I have a funnel system which starts at the top of my roof and filters down into a tank near my grow room. The funnel and the tank are Organic, too (made by the same Native Americans)...



When I smoke my bud, I use a flame created by the strike of a lightning bolt. Yes, this limits when and where I can smoke, but it wouldn't be Organic otherwise!

This fucking thread is cracking me up.....good stuff guys LOL!

 

[C21H30O2]

Nitrogen may be nitrogen but Im sure bio-synthesis must be more complex than this in cannabis and other crops. Consider wine which tastes different depending on the land the grapes are grown on. i have one strong personal example... Blue Dream. I live in cali, have plenty of access to genetics and have had blue dream dozens of times from different sources. However, my organic blue dream, is always better. Not just in taste and potency but the quality of the high is completely different. Whenever I bring this up, chem growers just say, its in your head, or your full of it. But Im not the only one that has noticed. O when I say organic I don't mean something out of a bottle. I mean TLO.

 

[mad librettist]

The plants don't make the decision, if the nutrients they need are in soluble form they'll absorb them (even in excess). In bio growing the plants use a middle man, who'll provide the nutrients in soluble form, in the absence they'll use the nutrients which are provided by inorganic fertilizers.

Well nobody elects to be robbed, but we still speak of commerce as a choice based activity.

So just because pouring on soluble nutrients forces plants to take it up, does not mean plants have no choice in a natural system. In fact, biology is discovering more and more that plants are dominant organisms in their food webs.

There us too much to tell here, but it's only a book away. Teaming with microbes. Give it a shot.

Just one example: if a plant wants less nh4 and more no3, it can produce substances from the roots that will cause bacteria to accelerate reproduction, which causes the pH to rise due to polysaccarides used by bacteria as glue and shelter, which causes nitrifying bacteria to convert nh4 to no3. If it no longer wants the no3, it stops producing the root excretions. Some plants (certain trees) actually switch completely from no3 to nh4 preference during their lives, and -get this- the soil pH changes with them from high to low.


Still not intrigued? Then why post here?

 

[grapeman]

My bad. I re-read your post and and see that you are comparing raw products to finished organic products. So much for my ADHD.
Sorry.

 

[mad librettist]

It used to be maybe.

Now it is established scientific fact.

 

[Microbeman]

As ML has intimated, it is the system which is important and relevant when discussing the difference between ionic nutrients uptaken from synthetic or organic sources. In natural systems there is molecular communication and feed/starvation interaction between plants and microbial consortia. When the plant is 'hungry' for certain nutrients it stimulates a population advance of the microbes which supply those nutrents. When it has had enough or if there is danger of these microbes competing for those nutrients the plant effects uptake which starves out the microbes forcing them into dormancy and lower activity. If synthetic ionic form nutrients are applied, this system is disrupted, resulting in (potentially) over saturation of plant cells with the nutrient, build up of salts in the media, die off of soil microbes, imbalance of microbial populations allowing the advancement of pathogenic microbes [usually fungal] leaching of nutrients into the water table. {I have written of this many times here as well as on my webpage}

It is not so simple as 'the plants can't tell the difference'. BTW science has not shown that plants cannot tell the difference so its one of those statements which should be qualified.

 

[Trichgnomes]

 

[pray4pistils]

In natural systems there is molecular communication and feed/starvation interaction between plants and microbial consortia. When the plant is 'hungry' for certain nutrients it stimulates a population advance of the microbes which supply those nutrents.

Bingo!

If synthetic ionic form nutrients are applied, this system is disrupted, resulting in (potentially) over saturation of plant cells with the nutrient, build up of salts in the media, die off of soil microbes, imbalance of microbial populations allowing the advancement of pathogenic microbes [usually fungal] leaching of nutrients into the water table.

The presence of "synthetic ionic form nutrients" prompts the plants to change its interaction with microbial populations as does the absence or saturation of raw foods. Do you contend that the soil/food web can't efficiently adapt to temporary/localized applications of synthetic nutes? I state as fact that it can. I depend on the microherd to keep my rhizosphere and reservoir water clean and free of disease, for instance. A good 2/3 of my total nutrition formula is synthetic. My plants would become sick and starve without that critical organic third.

It is not so simple as 'the plants can't tell the difference'.

In this context I agree completely. (-not that I presume my agreement or challenges are really all that important other than good debate/discussion.)

BTW science has not shown that plants cannot tell the difference so its one of those statements which should be qualified.

Has science shown that plants CAN tell the difference (other than microbial interactivity)?

 

[mad librettist]

Well science has shown they can tell nh4 from no3, minus the idea that plants can cogitate.

 

[pray4pistils]

Well science has shown they can tell nh4 from no3, minus the idea that plants can cogitate.

Ammonium and nitrate are not the same thing. There's no debate whether plants can differentiate between these substances. The question is whether or not they can distinguish organically-supplied "compound x" from synthesized "compound x". All the research that I've done (as a non-chemist or botanist) clearly states that they do not and, very importantly, cannot.

The rigid notion that synthetic "compound x" < organic "compound x" is one of the pillars of absolutist organic grow philosophy. I'm here to undermine it. Chaos... panic... disorder... My work here is done. (chuckle)

 

[Microbeman]

Do you contend that the soil/food web can't efficiently adapt to temporary/localized applications of synthetic nutes? I state as fact that it can.

Really? show me.

Has science shown that plants CAN tell the difference (other than microbial interactivity)?

Why would that be necessary or even contemplated when it is the disruption of the plant-microbe interaction which has any contextual validity?

 

[Microbeman]

All the research that I've done (as a non-chemist or botanist) clearly states that they do not and, very importantly, cannot.

Supposing this is true. Why is it important within the locked logical system I have outlined?

 

[grapeman]

As ML has intimated, it is the system which is important and relevant when discussing the difference between ionic nutrients uptaken from synthetic or organic sources. In natural systems there is molecular communication and feed/starvation interaction between plants and microbial consortia. When the plant is 'hungry' for certain nutrients it stimulates a population advance of the microbes which supply those nutrents. When it has had enough or if there is danger of these microbes competing for those nutrients the plant effects uptake which starves out the microbes forcing them into dormancy and lower activity. If synthetic ionic form nutrients are applied, this system is disrupted, resulting in (potentially) over saturation of plant cells with the nutrient, build up of salts in the media, die off of soil microbes, imbalance of microbial populations allowing the advancement of pathogenic microbes [usually fungal] leaching of nutrients into the water table. {I have written of this many times here as well as on my webpage}

It is not so simple as 'the plants can't tell the difference'. BTW science has not shown that plants cannot tell the difference so its one of those statements which should be qualified.

A question MM. I got the picture of the interaction within the soil.

But what if I thought I needed more P, say at the beginning of stretch, and sprayed a light shot of phosphite on the leaves, giving the plant an immediate shot of P without disrupting the soil life?

How do you see this type of approach? Will the declining need for P then be translated to the activity in the soil?

 

[grapeman]

Guys, just look up nitrite.

Then look up nitrate.

How can we talk if no one is speaking the same language?

The process for making (nh4)(no3) -the ammoniUM nitrATE everyone keeps confusing with nitrate and (seperately) ammonium, is published everywhere. I don't believe it needs to involve petroleum (which is organic and natural btw). Modern ferts use petroleum because the producers can pass the cost on to the public at large while keeping the profits. In a loose regulatory climate it's a no brainer.

You forgot urea.

 

[pray4pistils]

Really? show me.

First, I can point to my own experiences in aerated hempy buckets. (Actually, they were more like flat pans -good for SOG.) The main grow medium was:
55% perlite
20% vermiculite
15% coco coir
10% earthworm castings

Beneath that was a thin layer of pure perlite on top of lava rocks. Embeded within the rocks were several 12" air stones. Base nutrient was FloraNova Grow/Bloom. Along side that I bubbled compost teas in a five gallon bucket. Recipes were picked up and adapted from y'all organic chaps (especially CT Guy and BurnOne). Silly me didn't know any better and hand watered tea + salt nutes. My plants reacted positively and I got away with not sterilizing things. Ever. Final yield was great and all that stuff. The real proof in the pudding was revealed when I began emptying the soilless mix after harvest. Lo and behold there they were. Earthworms! -fat n' juicy earthworms that I didn't put in there myself.

Go ahead and consider all the lovely implications. If you'd like to actually see something in action, then you're welcome to participate in this thread here.

Why would that be necessary or even contemplated when it is the disruption of the plant-microbe interaction which has any contextual validity?

Your term "disruptive" presumes that constancy itself is normal (or even possible) in nature. I stress that micro-biology is capable of adjusting to various chemical stimuli. Examples might be rains or ice melt which introduce new substances to a local environment. Sudden presence of an animal's dung on top of living soil will certainly initiate radical changes in biochemistry within minutes. My point is that the "disruption" that you describe can, in my view, be experienced by nature as just another type of stimulation.

Supposing this is true. Why is it important within the locked logical system I have outlined?

It's not at all important within your "locked logical system". As articulated above, I reject your premise .