Chemical vs Organic fertilizers

[jmansweed]

I've done numerous, accurate tests with organic vs. chemical/synthetic nutrients. You guy's can read some in the "Nute Study" thread if your interested.

Dr. Fever, I have run multiple organic farms in my day. The process of OMRI certification (and many independent certifiers) inspections is beyond simply insuring the level of processing - specifically in terms of nutrients. There are typically multiple requirements to achieve the certification, including the amount of chemicals and synthetic processed nutrients used (there is a negligible amount allowed), but also how much the farm is supporting the natural ecological system. Your 100% correct in that it is not the same process for food items, but I'm not sure it should be?

Importantly, it is typically the pH balancing required when developing synthetic nutrients that produces most of the ill effects we see. EXtracted and refined strong acids are often utilized and dangerous to the environment and microbial life - plain and simple.

Organic fertilization is a process, it is a system of decay releasing and sequestering nutrients much like ocean tides. Rather than the moon and gravity being the applied force however, it is the demands of microbial life and associated organisms, like plants. With rich organic soil, there is no waiting for nutrients to become available - that is a signal of a poorly prepared medium.

Plants absorb nutrients according to things like soil organic matter, temperature, atmospheric pressure and intricate environmental changes. They don't wait for nature to provide. It is a far more global symbiosis occurring, one exposing the interwoven simplicity of life on the level we as organic cannabis growers are taking advantage of. Plants release enzymes to attract specific microbes with specific nutrients according to it's growth stage and environmental (seasonal) atmosphere. Provided a properly balanced mix of organic matter is available then said microbe exists with said nutrient and the plant achieves the goal. Microbial life, typically lacks the ability to produce energy and utilizes the plants energy production to generate life processes. This energy is stored in a packet of sorts, called ATP and exchanged for the nutrient. I'll spare us the intimate details but it's important to understand organic soil mixes provide equally as efficient nutrients as synthetics, it's only a matter of providing the right ingredients.

With organic nutrients, levels are known fairly accurately, all of my nutrients come with N-P-K ratios I rely on. And with accurate records its even easy to predict at home compost and teas etc.

Synthetic and chemically produced nutrients do indeed have adverse effects on the environment. It's foolish to say they don't. This is a proven and studied fact and these days, there is no mystery at all. Simply google the subject or stroll through and Iowa corn field. These types of nutrients, although effective, eliminate diversity on a massive ecological scale. Again, I'll spare us the details but the research has been thoroughly put forth at this point.

In terms of what to use for your cannabis? Of coarse thats all about grower priorities and opinions but the proof about environmental standards is beyond question. Organic methodology is far and away the more environmentally responsible way to grow.

 

[Rosebud]

very good post.

You nute study was so good, i should read it again. Thank you jmansweed.

 

[WeedHopper]

Nice read.
Me and the Wife just started our 1st Compost.
Gonna build me a Tubbler type pretty soon.

I remember when I was a kid living in Cali,,,we lived on the fields in housing. Airplanes would come over while we were playing outside and Cropdust. That stuff would go all over us(me and my sis). Course we didnt know crap about those things back then.We were just lucky it didnt happen to often. Mostly cause we moved back home to Texas.

 

[pcduck]

WeedHopper...You ever give any thoughts to a worm bin? or Bokashi?

These can be done indoors with little space.

 

[WeedHopper]

WeedHopper...You ever give any thoughts to a worm bin? or Bokashi?

These can be done indoors with little space.

Yeah,,my Grandaddy use to raise worms. Im thinking about it.

 

[TwoHighCrimes]

The grower just needs to be informed enough to know what they want.

Use AACT's teas and one is able to see improvement "overnight" ime.

Organic gardening is a way of life. And when I use organic methods I feel like I am doing my little bit in improving the environment .

:goodposting: :yeahthat:

And jman that was a good read as well.
:48:

 

[DrFever]

I copied and pasted this from a soil testing site When using organic nutrient sources—for example, compost, manure,
green manures, meals, and so
forth—recommendations for crop
nutrient needs will need to be translated. Soil test reports do not give
specific recommendations for using
organic fertilizers/amendments. This
is because the percentage and availability of plant nutrients in such materials is highly variable and usually
depends on its source, method of
storage, and the amount and type of
materials used to make the nutrient
source. Generally, the low nutrient
content and often limited sources of
many organic materials add to the
difficulty in developing a specific
recommendation.
I would think this is because they cannot guarantee how much of NPK is in any manure or meal added there fore most organic additives are amendments not FERTILIZER
Balance and Imbalance of
Nutrients in Organic
Nutrient Sources
An unbalanced plant-nutrient status
can be the result of using either
organic or inorganic fertilizers.
Most organic materials (including
compost) do not contain nutrients
in balanced amounts as needed by
plants. In particular, many nutrients
from animal sources (e.g., manure)
have an excess of phosphorus and
potassium relative to plant demand
for nitrogen. In soil these nutrients
can accumulate to levels exceeding
crop needs with repeated application based on plant nitrogen needs.
When using organic materials,
regularly soil test to monitor phosphorus, potassium, and salt accumulation. Nutrient amendments should
also be tested regularly, as similar
organic materials may vary considerably in nutrient content depending on their source, handling, and
conditions present when the plant
or organism was living. The use of
other sources of plant nutrients may
be necessary to correct imbalances
(for example, legume green manure crops that contribute nitrogen
without increasing phosphorus and
potassium).

 

[DrFever]

Nutrient Availability from
Organic Nutrient Sources
Suggested amounts of organic
amendments or fertilizers to be applied in lieu of chemical or inorganic fertilizers may or may not be
equally effective because of differences in the physical and chemical
nature of organic materials. Most
nutrients from organic materials are
very slowly to slowly available to
plants compared to inorganic fertilizers. Tables 2 and 3 give a general
rating on the availability of many
organic materials. Materials rated
“very slow” to “medium” in nutrient
availability may be used to maintain
a given level and nutrient balance
in the soil. Where a rapid change in
nutrient levels or balance is necessary, materials having “medium” to
“rapid” nutrient availability should
be used.

 

[TwoHighCrimes]

Thanks Drfever,
But for me and any other AACT "active airated compost tea" user most that
information is irrelevent because we feed the microbes !

The microbes will then pass on whatever elements we feed them!
I can bubble compost and gain plenty of nitrogen in my teas
I can add OMRI approved fish emulsion and ensure that the trace elements are covered !
Azomite if you wish ...Rock phos , kelp meal , oyster shell , Gauno's and dozens more.
Its of no concern to me how much of what is in each item .
The microbes and the plant communicate together so i let them do all the work !
It still remains that its a lifestyle !
And for me its all about flavour and cheaper ways to grow as well !
JMO

Hey Weedhopper take pcducks advice brother get a worm bin or 2
I promise you will not turn back !

 

[TwoHighCrimes]

Just to add : My friends uncle bought property in Australia for a crop adventure/living he paid $350,000 for an 80 acre property At best was a great deal yet when he put barley seed across 3 acres during a 6 day period nothing happened !

He wondered what could be the problem so he asked around a couple of neighbours and 1 neighbour informed him that it was previously a huge tomato crop farm !
This neighbour also informed him that he would do well to have soil testing done on the property.
He had numerous samples tested from the 80acres and was told that the soil would take upto 15yrs before it would be viable land again for any crop!

The end result was that the Tomato grower loaded the soil up with so many chemicals that nothing will grow on that land after he killed the soil !

All the best THC.

 

[WeedHopper]

So according to that Doc,,,Nature doesnt know what its doing,, (Natures natural fertilizers) arnt balanced enough to do the job.

Yep TwoHighCrimes,,I plan on it.

 

[jmansweed]

Hey Dr. Most of whats copied and pasted is from a study conducted in 1972. Fortunately, science has developed a better understanding of many ecological and elemental relationships in nature. To me more than anything, it describes an unbalanced soil structure through improper or over use of livestock waste and then mismanaged crop rotation. Building soil is indeed a process and it takes time. Synthetic/chemical fertilization eliminates the time by immediately releasing available nutrition. Eliminating the time however, does come at a cost.

Lets expand the conversation for a moment. Consider basic life on a global scale. Essentially, the process of bringing inorganic matter into living organisms is first initiated through basic microbial life. Literally processing minerals and nutrition into living structure. Biochemically eroding stone into cell walls. This basic function of changing elements is important to understand. We can follow a molecule of Nitrogen for example - absorbed by bacteria, eaten by protozoa, consumed by nematodes and released as a usable form, then absorbed into a plant. An aphid draws fluid from the plant, the nitrogen now part of an aphid......see where I'm going? What we saturate the soil with has implications well beyond our grow rooms. It feeds all ecology.

Chemical/synthetic fertilizers are normally created through the chemical saturation of basic elements and acidic pH balancing. The nutrition is chelated, immediately available to the plant. However, much in the same way a testosterone steroid users testicles shrink (because of the flooded testosterone in the system), the microbial life will dwindle to irrelevance. This eliminates any natural ecological balancing capacity the soil maintained, leading to further synthetic implementations. After plants absorb the synthetically derived nutrition the residual chemicals used in processing also enter the ecological system. Many of these residual chemicals have dangerous implications.

Cannabis specifically, absorbs chemical and metal contaminates very effectively, hence the reason Russia used the plant to help draw toxins from the soil around Chernobyl. The residual elements absorbed into our plants should not be ignored. EDTA for example, a chelating ingredient in Fox Farm, is considered an environmental hazard and poorly researched. We don't know what the implications are, yet many, many growers use this product with productive results. Productivity and the rate of productivity must be balanced with ecological responsibility and personal health in my opinion.

The early findings of chemical and synthetic fertilization often disregarded the environmental effects the solutions may have. One must put into context what we're reading. Indeed, the study explains the complications with measuring organic matter at the time. It also clearly promotes synthetic fertilization as the faster alternative. This is a science much improved in the last 40 years.

Measuring organic matter is more about the available organic carbon. This is done through testing a soil sample using heat, and measuring the carbon burned off or CO2. Organic matter has constants, most current studies put typical ratios at 100 Carbon to 10 Nitrogen to 1.5 Sulfer to 1.5 Phosphorus. This means we can get a measurement of these nutrients through measuring only the carbon. Much in the same we we only measure the positive anions rather then negative cations when determining pH - it is a known constant.

When commercial soils reliant on organic matter work slowly, it primarily is a result of mismanaged soil, often initiated through chemical/synthetic fertilization and pesticide use in the first place. For most organic growers, the decision to do so is beyond our preferences in the grow room. It is our choice to embrace a system of ecology created through evolution and time. In my experiences, once an individual balances soil organic matter, environment and plant health, organic methodology has proven more effective.

Even when controlling runoff and/or maintaining strict environments, ultimately the contaminates in chemical/synthetic fertilizers enter the ecosystem. Perhaps they are absorbed into our lungs when we smoke the dried product? Or maybe left to decompose with fan leaves and stems. The synthetically salty soil must be disposed of - churning the chemically derived nutrients back into the soil. It makes it back one way or the other. With organics, my soil is used again, sometimes in new grows, sometimes for my vegetable garden but all of remains healthy and organic. :icon_smile:

 

[Locked]

Thanks for that Jman....

 

[WeedHopper]

Nice read Jman.

 

[DrFever]

When commercial soils reliant on organic matter work slowly, it primarily is a result of mismanaged soil, often initiated through chemical/synthetic fertilization and pesticide use in the first place. For most organic growers, the decision to do so is beyond our preferences in the grow room. It is our choice to embrace a system of ecology created through evolution and time. In my experiences, once an individual balances soil organic matter, environment and plant health, organic methodology has proven more effective.

Building organic matter is a slow process. First, the amount of residue and active organic matter will increase. Gradually, the species and diversity of organisms in the soil will change, and amounts of stabilized organic matter will rise. It may take a decade or more for total organic matter levels to significantly increase after a management change. Fortunately, the beneficial effects of the changes appear long before organic matter levels rise. These improvements, however, can be reversed in a year or two by returning to previous practices.

Why does it take so long for organic matter levels to increase? An acre of soil six inches deep weighs about 1000 tons, so increasing the proportion of organic matter from two to three percent is actually a 10 ton change. However, you cannot simply add 10 tons of manure or residue and expect to measure a one percent increase in soil organic matter. Only ten to twenty percent of the original material becomes part of the soil organic matter. Much of the rest is converted over several years into carbon dioxide.

 

[pcduck]

Why does it take so long for organic matter levels to increase?

The organic level increases immediately when using compost/sheet mulching/and the likes. What takes awhile is for the bacteria and fungi to reappear in ample amounts to sustain the soil without the use of amendments. This is where the 10 years come in, but you will see Fortunately, the beneficial effects of the changes appear long before organic matter levels rise.

Only ten to twenty percent of the original material becomes part of the soil organic matter. Much of the rest is converted over several years into carbon dioxide.

Once the fungi returns this act like a sponge and absorbs the water and locks up the CO2 not allowing it to disperse rapidly. Of course some does get released back into the atmosphere but slowly.Using no-till really reduces this release. Not like chems that burn up the organic matter so rapidly that most if not all the CO2 is released back into the atmosphere.

That and many soil tests are not capable to test for organic matter. That is why 2 tests are needed the base saturation test and the Reams test.

 

[WeedHopper]

Doesnt look like this is ever gonna end.

 

[jmansweed]

http://www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/cropsystems/components/7402_02.html - How bout some of your own opinions Dr.? - I'm 100% down with having an informed discussion on organics and synthetic fertilization. It is a subject I have studied for literally years of my life, including conducting numerous tests and so forth - it interests me greatly and I appreciate the post.

I'm equally capable of copying and pasting data - and thats important to back up the experiences I discuss - however, tossing data into the mix (clearly not from your own experiences) does not help any of us further the conversation. I can google that info just as easily. What I can't do is find out what has worked or not worked for you in your grow. Thats really what we're all interested in. I suppose I can't speak for everyone, and shouldn't, but in my opinion, hearing your experiences with organics and synthetics would be far more interesting than reading another pasted blog of info.

Don't get me wrong. I like looking at sited articles and would appreciate the links.

In regards to the last information - The issue with organic matter in modern agriculture is that we eliminated it in the first place. Building matter and soil revitalization is a much understood process and we're perfectly capable of accomplishing that and yes, those things take time. The same time I referred to earlier, the time that synthetic and chemical fertilization eliminates.

That is my point. Time equates to wisdom. Wisdom in this sense, enacted by nature and global ecology or environmental change. When we add chemical and or synthetic fertilizers we eliminate the time needed to normally provide properly balanced organic matter. This obviously is seen as a benefit by many - but at what cost? The residual chemicals from production absolutely shed somewhere and these are solutions nature has yet to mix without human ingenuity.

Healthy soil, global microbial life and stone are the largest sequestering factors of CO2 on the planet. Carbon (CO2) is crucial to all life and indeed much of it is converted into gases and shed from organic matter. It is also absorbed and stored within soil and stone throughout the entire globe. The carbon cycle is amazing to investigate and learn from.

Really it comes down to what works best for our grow methodology. In my situation, organics have far and away proven more effective at growing my product. I find improved taste, stronger THC percentages and a smoother smoke overall. I've had fantastic synthetic grows in my past, but nothing that trumps my organic grows and the tree hugger in me likes the fact I have stepped away from a rather destructive industry.

Nutrient production, organic and synthetic can be a nasty industry. For example, some years back I wrote an article about Marine based nutrients and had to do a bit of research. Nutrients have enabled the fishing industry to justify keeping almost all the by-catch (sea life caught in nets in addition to the targeted species). By-catch is simply slurried into a solution, doused with acid and aged until the consumer purchases it. This means many, many species, including endangered and totally non-edibles have some value.

Another example would be Miracle grow - residual fuel waste is often processed into Nitrogen. Literally adding carbon from spent coal to the mix. Independent testing companies found trifluralin in MG soil. A cancer causing herbicide and non-listed ingredient. A company worth billions of dollars because their product eliminates the time. It also adds toxin to the planet every time a new bag is processed. At some point, the environmental costs need context.

The fertilizer industry is ripe with irresponsible practices and misguided advertisement often encouraging the consumer to ignorantly apply poorly researched and sometimes downright dangerous toxins to our soil, and eventually ourselves. In my opinion, regardless of your fertilization choices, independently research the ingredients and its' production methods first. When the facts are researched it's difficult for me to justify using many fertilizers available.

 

[ShOrTbUs]

Doesnt look like this is ever gonna end.

as long as it stays civil, like it has. i wish it would go on forever.

 

[HighBrixMMJ]

on another note I would like to add that I am an organic grower and do not use any chemical pesticides, I have recently came into a great product made up of diomatacieous earth called tanlin, its totally organic and has an OMRI rating. It is fairly expensive but works well. It was developed to battle the sciriad fly, or more commonly known as the fungus gnat. It works by watering into the soil, or by foliar feeding. When any insect, be it hard bodied or soft bodied, tries to ingest any part of the plant, it(tanlin) is turned to a crystalyzed form in their stomachs and intestines and literally slices them to pieces killing them dead. There is no way for the insect to adapt and become immune to this as again it is not a chemical and is 100% organic. Just tryin to pass some info on to my fellow organic growers who were not aware of this wonderful product. In the past I would rather scrap a grow, than put chemical fertilizers on it. After all I plan on ingesting this, just like my food, i want nothing but organic. If we were meant to function and grow with chemicals then god wouldve made us to do so, same goes for plants or anything that is alive in nature. Having had cancer and beat it already, I am very cautious now about what goes into my body! I guess thats just the tree hugger in me tho! LMAO, And as for the great lakes... I grew up on lake huron, My father was a charter captain and I grew up fishing that lake my whole life, pcduck is right about the algae blooms and the dead fishin zones, we have seen a major decline in the salmon fishing industry in Lake Huron. I remember as a kid catching 30-40 pound salmon on the regular, any given day, its not like that anymore. Were lucky to catch a 15 pounder nowadays. often going days without a single catch. Its been tested and proven that chemical fertilizers play a huge role in this decline. Its just a matter of time before that fishery is dead! Just another reason to go organic. just look at the overall health of americans, its all due to chemically processed food, and preservitives, including chemical pesticides sprayed on our plants, and chemical nutrients used to grow these as well. Most of us ingest these on a daily basis. Literally kiling hundreds of thousands of people each year, now common sense should tell you which is better. chemicals and cancer, or natural and organic? for me theres no question, cancer is a scary scary thing, and until it hits home for you, you will probably continue to ingest chemicals. Its people like us organic growers that are making a difference. I am so proud to be one of these growers. I may have to work a lil harder to see results, but in the end the trade off isnt even plauseable to me! I would never trade a bigger or faster harvest over the future of our planet, or my own health....period!