Jump to content

Quest For The Best Nutrient Solution: Organic Vs Salts


Recommended Posts

Most of the good 'advice' is so strain specific that it's really hard to give out generalized good advice.

 

Bingo! I think that's the biggest problem with giving growing advice. White Widow sucks up water and nutes like there's no tomorrow and OG Kush seems to just nibble.

 

What people find desirable varies greatly from person to person also. I recently had a discussion about bud size with another grower. His main objective was big buds rather than potency. Mine is basically the opposite. (Not that I don't like big buds, but I'd rather have an oz of super potent popcorn buds than a 1 oz corn cob that barely effects me.)

 

He laughed and said, "They don't realize the big buds come with big stems, and they're paying for those too."

 

I've noticed younger users in particular (30 and under) go mostly for looks. I once described how Columbian Gold was harvested in Columbia and had someone reply, "that's what I call schwag!".

 

I have never personally had anything that compared to mid 70's Columbian Gold, but because it wasn't a growing method that he was familiar with, it was "schwag".

 

Perception is reality.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This plus the subsequent post regarding reservoir changes are true from my observations. The experts I know that successfully use recirculating systems flush at the end of the cycle, and change reservoirs frequently. Most of them have arrived at their system through lots of trial and error, and they get outstanding results.

 

I change my rez every 7-10 days during bloom.  Using GH 3part @ 1000ppm.  Plants couldnt be happier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rest 2 said:

 

Anyone try organic in hydro? It's a mess. You can make it work, plan on baby sitting.

 

 

 

 

 

 

pic said:

Plan for it and spend carefully, and it is simple and productive, with SF Organics 2-2-0 with no supplements added.  

I ran SF Organics to 9 strains in hydro 24-hour recirc, 57 gal res (a free barrel from the car wash), to 8-28.5 gallon pots  (More free barrels from the car wash, cut in half).  Ph only changed as the plants drank, and only swing from 5.5 to 5.9....I did not change the res during the last 4 weeks.

The last 4 weeks they drank 35 gallons per day, and ppms stayed steady at 870-900...

I fed plain water thru a toilet ballcock 'automatically', and had the ppms and ph monitored 24-hours with a $35 unit that auto fed the SF when ppms hit 870. 

The first run yielded super smooth potent smoke from the 6 indicas and 2 of the sativas.  One sativa, a strain new to me, turned out full beautiful buds, but was rope-smoke.

The second run--i dunno what that pic perfect grow yielded--those plants were among the 22 the raiders from DPD stole from me May 6.

Planned and shopped carefully with Sf Organics, organic is not a mess nor a nurse maid's shift.

The nutes were free samples.

Edited by pic book
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you find it necessary to flush at the end of the cycle, and do you use CO2?

 

Your prescription is the path to success with any recirculating system, from what I've seen. Trying to keep the solution going for longer gets very iffy for non-professionals, I think, because the real nutrient content of the remaining solution is unknown. Some have limited success with subsequent dilution or topping off, but this is where things start to get out of control for people without long periods of trial and error. Those that make it through the error part come out with systems that work very well, but many can't take the error, which is why I think drain to waste is a better and easier start for beginners. I think most that have made it through would recommend weekly reservoir changes.

 

Do you use the standard ratios, just diluted to 1000 ppm?

 

 

In the spring/summer/fall I supplement with CO2.  In the winter, I don't because I circulate the exhaust heat to heat the house.

 

I have had great results with and without flushing. 

 

I ususally follow the back of the GH bottle for each stage of growth the plants are on and top off with RO to get to 1000ppm.  I try to let it float between 1000-1200.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Rest 2 said:

 

Anyone try organic in hydro? It's a mess. You can make it work, plan on baby sitting.

 

 

 

 

 

 

pic said:

Plan for it and spend carefully, and it is simple and productive, with SF Organics 2-2-0 with no supplements added.  

I ran SF Organics to 9 strains in hydro 24-hour recirc, 57 gal res (a free barrel from the car wash), to 8-27.5 gallon pots  (More free barrels from the car wash, cut in half).  Ph only changed as the plants drank, and only swing from 5.5 to 5.9....I did not change the res during the last 4 weeks.

The last 4 weeks they drank 35 gallons per day, and ppms stayed steady at 870-900...

I fed plain water thru a toilet ballcock 'automatically', and had the ppms and ph monitored 24-hours with a $35 unit that auto fed the SF wehen ppms hit 870. 

The first run yielded super smooth potent smoke from the 6 indicas and 2 of the sativas.  One sativa, a strain new to me, turned out full beautiful buds, but was rope-smoke.

The second run--i dunno what that pic perfect grow yielded--those plants were among the 22 the raiders from DPD stole from me May 6.

 

 

Picbook, you were raided a month ago?  Do you have a thread going about what happenend? 

Edited by garyfisher
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Drain to waste is my advice, assuming they use salt-based nutrients. Or go organic and mix all amendments into the medium, as in KISS. Measure the runoff to fine-tune the solution concentration to the plants and room. Recirculating systems are for experts.

Zap, I use gnc and promix, I use 3 gallon buckets (black) I top water, I went out and got me some dish washing containers that my buckets fit in and I put some peaces of flat rock under my buckets inside of the containers, so my top watering always goes thru so I can get a read from the waiste, I started doing this after I started having issues with my plants, I wanted to get a read from the waiste, before I started doing it this way I had recieved a beautiful mother from my c.g and within a month it was slowly dying, I felt I had no choice but to flush that plant and Im talking like now, I couldnt do it in my tent or my basement w/o making a huge mess, well any way I take it out in my back yard (it was in a 10 gal bucket) I start pouring ph'd distilled water thru it and catching the run off, my ppm's were at like 3500 and my ph was pretty much not on the red scale lol! I think I put like over 20 gallons of water thru it and only got the ppm down to 1500 and my ph to like 5,

 

it was not easy getting that lady back in the house, I didnt think ahead about the weight of the water lol, I did wind up shocking the hell out of it, but I did manage to get thru that time and adjust all of the things I was doing wrong,

 

1st thing wrong was using the recipee on the nutes,

 

2nd was using the color scale for testing ph, as im colored blind,

 

any how after getting my nute recipee corrected and buying a ph tester I have had realy good success,  but after a few crops I got hit with mites, I have since not let my c.g in my grow and have taken precautions of my own as to not bring them in myself, and I dont go into others grows and Im very picky about clones I will take from others!  than I got mites back again after treating and thurogh cleaning, I know the healthier the plant the less chance of getting mites,,at least thats how I think it works,  if you have any suggestions I would apreciate it.

 

personaly I like to flush my plants, and like you said above, I do top feed and test what is coming out, I am like within 1 or 200 ppm of going in, my ph always is lower on the way out,

 

my c.g does not top feed or natural dry by hanging, he net drys in the lights and dont cure anything, and on the very same plants mine always taistes and smells better than his, He is a much better grower than me and always has a grow to die for when you see it, he uses co2 and his grow is way more high tech than I will ever be,  he is always telling me to do this or do that, but what he does in his room does not work in my lil low cost room, Im not looking to have to be a botonist, after I get every thing back together and scrubbed and exhausted the right way im changin over to the kiss method, because I just wanna keep it simple becaus im stupid lol!

 

Peace

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tell the difference, perhaps, but personal preference is strong in this area, you must admit.

 

Freely, as stated earlier.

I feel the same of organically grown vegetables also, mine and others produce. some people don't care what a tomato "tastes" like, as long as it's red perhaps. Some don't mind the peas or corn from the field, others want it to be from the garden

I know a lot of commercial farmers. The spinach farmer using commercial designate seed grows his own family spinach in his own organically maintained garden, and so on. corn, cow, tomato, and I bet even some cannabis suppliers actually.  who wouldn't after the experience?.   some want grass fed beef, others want corn/soy fed. some gardeners prefer chicken poop over miracle grow

.  preference is very strong in the area. Its was a simple move for me after my first try. My hydro produced more, faster, with much less labor and time I admit. It was always awesome with no issues. my dirt grown/worm fed/ veganic soil grow produced slower vegging, more water, same flowering times though, a little less endweight with more labor. The advantages were obvious enough to me to make the change permanently.  many variables play a part when deciding personal grow habits. 

 

  Most growers today read and understand labels and their function at the grow store and make informed decisions based on their preferences and that of their patient chemotypes and wishes.  I speak of myself not using bottled nutrients, and some patients seek that out.  

 

 it never made sense to me as a cannabis user to support the awful processes of fertilizer salts manufacturing and its negative environmental impact on mother earth that I imagined were real. no judgments, just preferences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"some people don't care what a tomato "tastes" like"

 

I darn well know what a great tomato tastes like and I also know what one tastes like when it has been over fertilized. It doesn't matter if the farmer lied to me about organic or not though. That you can't taste at all. It's just something unreal you pay extra for if you don't know the difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"it never made sense to me as a cannabis user to support the awful processes of fertilizer salts manufacturing and its negative environmental impact on mother earth"

 

Fill us in grass, what is it GH is doing to our mother Earth? I haven't looked at this with that point of view before. Never even knew about the horror of it. What the heck IS going on?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have one grow room with all soil plants. I have another with two aero systems. I have a third room with DWC buckets(hydro).

 

I use a combo of organic and non organic nutes for the soil grow. I use GH nutes for the hydro and the aero. I only run 4 strains right now after trying about 100 others that were weak. They were only good for learning experiences and not that great for meds.

 

I start out going exactly by the instructions with the nutes and it's just trial and error from there. 5 years of trial and error. A dozen kinds of nutes and a lot of great advice from the plant store owners. I'm settled in with Fox Farms for soil and GH for liquid and aero grows. I find these nutes fool proof and they produce great meds cycle after cycle.

Wow, 'm running 6 right now and they are 6 of the 7 I've got females from on my regular seed run and my patients are completely happy with every one of them.  The Lemon Skunk was the only one that one patient shot down and I don't blame him.  Tasted soo lemony it was more like the strength of a newport cigarette based in the taste of citronella.  Too overpowering.

The others are all really good for pain and only one is really more nightime only.  Unless strength makes them all nightitme only as they are all pretty powerful.

Plushberry is going to be great I can tell already.  Maybe it's because TGA breeds in organic soils.  As far as I know most breeders run hydro or synthetic nutes so maybe getting all my strains from an organic breeder and making my own from organic style they are a little more conditioned to the style I use and there are more keepers?  Although I guess if I'd been here long enough to run 100 strains I'd still be down to about 10, but I'd definitely not say the others weren't great meds, nor would my patients.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Freely, as stated earlier.

I feel the same of organically grown vegetables also, mine and others produce. some people don't care what a tomato "tastes" like, as long as it's red perhaps. Some don't mind the peas or corn from the field, others want it to be from the garden

I know a lot of commercial farmers. The spinach farmer using commercial designate seed grows his own family spinach in his own organically maintained garden, and so on. corn, cow, tomato, and I bet even some cannabis suppliers actually.  who wouldn't after the experience?.   some want grass fed beef, others want corn/soy fed. some gardeners prefer chicken poop over miracle grow

.  preference is very strong in the area. Its was a simple move for me after my first try. My hydro produced more, faster, with much less labor and time I admit. It was always awesome with no issues. my dirt grown/worm fed/ veganic soil grow produced slower vegging, more water, same flowering times though, a little less endweight with more labor. The advantages were obvious enough to me to make the change permanently.  many variables play a part when deciding personal grow habits. 

 

  Most growers today read and understand labels and their function at the grow store and make informed decisions based on their preferences and that of their patient chemotypes and wishes.  I speak of myself not using bottled nutrients, and some patients seek that out.  

 

 it never made sense to me as a cannabis user to support the awful processes of fertilizer salts manufacturing and its negative environmental impact on mother earth that I imagined were real. no judgments, just preferences.

 

"some people don't care what a tomato "tastes" like"

 

I darn well know what a great tomato tastes like and I also know what one tastes like when it has been over fertilized. It doesn't matter if the farmer lied to me about organic or not though. That you can't taste at all. It's just something unreal you pay extra for if you don't know the difference.

Or it's something that some people don't have good enough taste buds to know the difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, 'm running 6 right now and they are 6 of the 7 I've got females from on my regular seed run and my patients are completely happy with every one of them.  The Lemon Skunk was the only one that one patient shot down and I don't blame him.  Tasted soo lemony it was more like the strength of a newport cigarette based in the taste of citronella.  Too overpowering.

The others are all really good for pain and only one is really more nightime only.  Unless strength makes them all nightitme only as they are all pretty powerful.

Plushberry is going to be great I can tell already.  Maybe it's because TGA breeds in organic soils.  As far as I know most breeders run hydro or synthetic nutes so maybe getting all my strains from an organic breeder and making my own from organic style they are a little more conditioned to the style I use and there are more keepers?  Although I guess if I'd been here long enough to run 100 strains I'd still be down to about 10, but I'd definitely not say the others weren't great meds, nor would my patients.

I have to agree, especially with the TGA strains. Some were not for me, but all were premium DANK! I am still growing my SpaceQueen dominant Querkle. When it comes to oil I can't say that I have seen anything beat it. At least not in looks. The oil by itself has a nice pink hue.

 

Edit: I have a pack of Plushberry seeds that have been in storage for about a year. I can't wait to try them! Each of the phenotypes I have seen look pretty good. I hope I get the really pink one!

 

I have never in my life encountered hydro that smokes as smooth and tastes as wonderful as organic soil.  Homemade worm compost and tea from same added to Ocean Forest or custom blended soil rules.  

I would have to agree with you.

A dispensary owner had asked me once after I had given him a sample, what was so different about my product compared to the products in his three shops. He said he had never come across product like mine in taste, smell, and texture. I simply told him I grow organic in soil. Some of the best I have seen were actually grown under fluorescent lights and also grown in soil. 

 

Don't get me wrong, I am not knocking hydro. I just have not seen hydro that compared to organic soil grown meds. Keeping in mind I have not sampled many hydro grown products.

Edited by GrowGoddess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I darn well know the difference between a grass grazed and corn fed cow.  I can definitely tell the difference between my organic beets and the beets I get from the market.  I know the beets could come from different soils and be different strains but I've never tasted beets like the ones I've grown.  Same with the beans I produced.  My family and friends all thought they tasted better than the ones from the market.

This is from the gen hydro website below.  I'm pretty positive that the basic things needed to grow plants aren't all the things that could be beneficial to plants in developing taste. Since terpenes affect the type of hi I don't see that these tastes might not have an effect on the medicinal benefits if even from only an aromatherapy position.

I'd really like to see a series of blind studies on supplying patients organic and synthetically grown meds of the same strain, grown to no nute runoff and see what they prefer.

 

Would you please explain in a little more detail, the various elements required for plant growth?

Answer: Certainly. About 160 years ago scientists determined that ten elements were required for plant growth. Three of these ten were provided by air and water: carbon ©, hydrogen (H) and oxygen (O). The others, nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), potassium (K), calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg), sulfur (S) and iron (Fe) were obtained by plants from the soil or other growing medium. Six additional elements have been determined essential for plant growth: manganese (Mn), zinc (Zn), copper (Cu), boron (B), molybdenum (Mb) and chlorine (C1). These six also are generally supplied through the growing medium. The Flora series of nutrients contain all of these elements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The difference is seen in Flavanoid and Terpene production without question.  Any other differences I have seen is due to the ineptitude of the grower.

Could you go into further detail on this?  or know of any tests/papers? If organics produces more terpenes, they are medicinal, and the idea that organics is the same in health benefits is wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you are thinking that maybe a little mercury, bismuth, or titanium wrapped up in humic acid might add some flavor that the plant can't manufacture on its own when provided the basics? I could be convinced that is the case, but the perceived quality of the outcome is still purely based on preference, I think.

 

Also wondering why you say there should be no nutrient runoff in the test, that seems strange given the previous posts that discussed in detail how important it is not to allow salt buildup in the medium. Allowing salt buildup in the medium most certainly effects taste and smell.

 

I don't think it is defective taste buds that cause this phenomenon, but differences in preference. Most can sense a difference between samples of the same plant grown both ways, but unless the grower is familiar with the strain, I think they would be hard-pressed to tell which one is organic and which used salt-based fertilizers, given both grown with equal skill and understanding.

I don't know, I'm no chemist. But there are possible reported health benefits in colloidal silver, why not trace amounts of those?

 

I thought you said, oh ya there should be the same in as out?  Whatever you said to show they are both grown on the same quality scale and one or the other wasn't left with nutes built up in the plant at finish.  Sorry, not great at learning with words.  More of a visual learner.

 

That's what I'd like to test.  Preference and how they work for their ailment.  Sometimes there are differences humans can tell that machines can not.  Or aren't measured for in studies.  That's the problem is that until these types of tests are done it's speculation(edit: sorry not speculation, as far as testing and science has taken us).  We're always finding new things that machines and papers hadn't yet tested for.

Edited by Norby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, we used to cook soup with a silver coin in it. ;-)

 

But here is a quick OLD post from me... too lazy to go get the rest of it. I have some other info, but it is a quickie..:

 

full story   http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1203343/JOANNA-BLYTHMAN-A-cancerous-conspiracy-poison-faith-organic-food.html#ixzz0Mv40D9Ug

 

According to the FSA's findings, organic vegetables contain 53.6 per cent more betacarotene - which helps combat cancer and heart disease - than non-organic ones.

Similarly, organic food has 11.3 per cent more zinc, 38.4 per cent more flavonoids and 12.7 per cent more proteins.

In addition, an in-depth study by Newcastle University, far deeper than the one conducted by the FSA, has shown that organic produce contains 40 per cent more antioxidants than non-organic foods, research the FSA appears to have overlooked. But the concentration solely on nutrition is to play into the hands of the anti-organic, pro-industrial lobby.

---------------------------------------------

http://michigancanna...ic.php?f=4&t=30  link dead

A way to think of organic versus chemical fertilizers is vitamins versus a well-rounded, healthy diet. If a person takes a lot of vitamins, thinking that it will make up for a poor diet, they are fooling themselves. The body cannot absorb concentrated amounts of vitamins in a short amount of time. What the body cannot absorb at one time, goes down the toilet. As well, the vitamin pills do not provide fiber, good fats and oils, and other elements which comprise a healthy diet.

It's the same for plants. Chemical fertilizers provide a concentrated rush of a small spectrum of nutrients. What the plant cannot absorb, runs off or leaches away. This can cause problems in the environment. As well, plants, like us, need trade minerals, and bacterially active soil. Chemical fertilizers cannot provide this.

Anyhow..

A plant can filter out the impurities from an acid based salt fertilizer and store it within the leaves and flowers of the plant. Hydrochloric and sulphuric acids can build up. Odd things like certain antibiotics can be stored within the plant. Many many substances in some fertilizers are easily absorbed into the plant. Chemical fertilizers are directly responsible for destroying our aquaculture in the world. Read up about it. "dead" zones. Most chemical fertilizer companies tend to pollute the area where they are made. It finds it way into groundwater then all of us get to drink your crappy leftovers from growing. Thanks for the pollution. ;-p

The plants do not recognize the difference between organic and chemical. Mr happy would be correct in that point when it comes to NPK.

But what do you do with your leftover water? put it down the drain? run it into your backyard to be absorbed into the groundwater? This is where organic and chemical become two different monsters. Post use.

Chemical fertilizers are salts, manufactured from coal or natural gas. The chemical salts, that white crusty residue left from chemical fertilizers, “suck the life right out of beneficial soil microbes which is the very heart of healthy soil”.

Organic fertilizers increase a plants resistance to disease (Artificial fertilizers do the opposite which works out nicely for the manufacturers since they sell more insecticide, fungicides and other chemical poisons. Plants become addicted to the chemicals.)

"Plants grown with ammonia- based synthetic fertilizers actually attract pest insects (Earth Kind Gardening, 1993). Many studies since then have confirmed that insects and diseases are attracted to plants that have had artificial fertilizers applied.

Evidence is accumulating that synthetic chelates (fertilizers) are ineffective and have harmful side effects. Synthetic chelates are alien molecules, and plants can absorb them slowly. Also, after the chelating molecule releases its payload it may latch on to other nutrients in the plants, thus making them unavailable. For example: synthetic iron chelates cause a manganese deficiency and lower zinc and copper levels; EDTA grabs calcium ions and thus upsets the calcium-potassium balance. September 1981, Acres U.S.A., p. 32-33

Repeated applications of chemical fertilizers may result in a toxic buildup of chemicals such as arsenic, cadmium, and uranium in the soil. These toxic chemicals can eventually make their way into your fruits and vegetables.

Plant growth is often limited by the amount of CO2 available to the plant. C.H. Wadleigh, 1957 USDA Yearbook of Agriculture, "Soils", (p.41). Agronomists and farmers are increasing yields by adding carbon dioxide (CO2) to their bag of practices...Carbon dioxide is a basic requirement for plant growth (October 1968, World Farming, p.31). We have evidence that CO2 produced by the respiration of microorganisms in the soil is an important factor in the supply of the gas to photosynthesizing plants. A soil rich in decomposing organic matter provides a much higher level of CO2 in the air just above the soil than a barren, infertile soil.

Using compost as an organic soil amendment stimulates microorganisms to take nitrogen from the air and fix it in the soil where plants can use it.

High nitrogen artificial fertilizers can increase yields in some cases (temporarily) of certain grains, however the amino acid content of the protein is actually adversely affected. For example in wheat and barley grown with synthetic fertilizers are less nutritious even though the total protein weight may be higher since critical amino acids are missing or reduced in quantity as compared to organically grown (USDA Researcher).

Synthetic nitrogen fertilizers increase the amounts of toxic nitrates in dietary intake. According to the National Research Council, 6 of the top 7 and 9 of the top 15, foods with oncogenic (cancer causing) risk are produce items with high nitrate content from pesticides or nitrogen fertilizers. A 12 year study comparing organically grown versus chemically grown showed that chemically grown foods had 16 times more nitrate (a carcinogen).

Excess synthetic nitrogen (fertilizers) can also reduce carbohydrate synthesis which results in lower glucose content which affects taste (Soil Scientist, USDA).

Artificial synthetic nitrogen (fertilizers) has been found to reduce insect and disease resistance of plants (Soil Scientist, USDA). Numerous studies have now confirmed that the use of artificial fertilizers significantly increase the amount of insects and disease problems one has.

Four metals that are considered harmful to humans; aluminum, cadmium, lead and mercury are lower in foods grown organically as compared to those with synthetic chemicals. Doctor's Data Analytical Laboratories.

The toxic chemicals found in chemical fertilizers can be absorbed into the plants and enter the food chain via vegetables and cereals. although the biggest health risk is when the chemicals seep into the ground water which is then extracted for drinking water. This water can contain high levels of nitrates and nitrites and have been known to cause blue-baby syndrome (methemoglobinemia) and can also lead to miscarriage in pregnant women. Mercury, lead, cadmium and uranium are some of the toxic heavy metals that have been found in chemical fertilizers and can cause distrubances of the kidneys, lungs and liver and cause cancer - depending on how much has been consumed.

Synthetic fertilizers use strong chemical salts used to carry nutrients that create a thatch buildup by killing both microorganisms and earthworms in the soil that eat and breakdown thatch. Thick layers of thatch (high lignin content) create a fertile breeding ground for diseases and destructive insects unlike mulch.

Excess salts used in synthetic fertilizers cause 2 problems. First, they reduce the moisture holding ability of soils and cause what moisture is present to be bound more tightly to the soil making it harder for plants to absorb. Second, also salt exposure reduces a plants roots ability to absorb water even if the soil is fully saturated. Since most commercial fertilizers are composed of soluble salts (ammonium nitrate, potassium chloride, etc.) and as these salt build up in the soil more water (irrigation) is required, the plants are weaker and more susceptible to insects and disease hence require more pesticides, fungicides, etc.

NaNO3 - "sodium nitrate or nitrate of soda", contains 16% Nitrogen, very soluble hence leaches easily and pollutes (not good for conifers or hardwoods).
NH3NO3 (NH4NO3) - Ammonium nitrate, 33.5% nitrogen (50% in nitrate form & 50% in Ammonium form), highly soluble hence leaches and pollutes lakes and streams. Also flammable and can explode if stored in a closed warehouse. Also absorbs water. Commonly used in nurseries, may also be used as a top dressing, acidifies soil. Kills soil microbes that prevent diseases.
(NH4)2SO4 - "ammonium sulfate", source of N and S, can acidify soil, may be used as a top dressing, kills microbes in the soil that prevents disease.
CO(NH2)2 - "urea", nitrogen loss by volatilization can be a problem, dissolves rapidly and suffers leaching losses.
KNO3 - "potassium Nitrate or nitrate of potash", 13% nitrogen (not good for trees as a N source, may be okay for K), raises soil pH
CaNo3 - Calcium nitrate, 15% nitrogen, raises soil pH
Anhydrous Ammonia - 82% nitrogen, a particularly lethal form of nitrogen, combines with soil moisture to form colloids that stay in soil, when applied to soils low in humus over 2/3 (67%) can be lost to the atmosphere

Most (all) synthetic fertilizers use "fillers" to help carry the nutrients. These fillers are not listed on the label. These can be chemical salts, sand, lime, dolomite, or even (as it was recently discovered) contaminated wastes containing dangerous heavy metals and hazardous wastes. These fillers can often cause problems. For example, if your soil has high magnesium relative to calcium, then using a fertilizer with a dolomitic lime filler will make the soil imbalance worse.

Synthetic fertilizers kill the soil microbes that are so essential for healthy soil and healthy plants. The residues from these fertilizers can adversely affect the soil biology for years.

If anhydrous ammonia (synthetic fertilizer and a particularly lethal form of nitrogen) is applied to a field low in humus, over 2/3 of the material can be lost to the atmosphere, sometimes before the farmer can move from one end of a field to the other. Acres USA Primer, 1992

Chemical fertilizers are generally used far in excess of the requirements of the crop. The unutilized fertilizers cause soil pollution.
Toxic concentrations of nitrogen fertilizers cause characteristic symptoms of nitrite or nitrate toxicity in plants, particularly in the leaves. Nitrogenous fertilizers generally cause
deficiency of potassium,
increased carbohydrate storage and reduced proteins,
alteration in amino acid balance and consequently change in the quality of proteins.
Ammonium fertilizers produce ammonia around the roots that may escape the soil and cause ammonia injury to plants.
Ammonium and nitrate produce acids in the soil and increase soil acidity.
Nitrate and nitrite bacteria are reduced while ammonifying bacteria are increased in the soil disturbing the nitrogen cycle.
Excessive potash in the soil decreases ascorbic acid and carotene in the plants.
Superphosphates cause deficiency of Cu and Zn in plants by interfering with their uptake.
Excessive lime prevents the release of Co, Ni, Mn and Zn from the soil and their uptake by plants is reduced causing their deficiency symptoms.

Excessive deposition of various substances released from chemical fertilizers into the soil generally causes their over-absorption by plants. These over-absorbed substances become accumulated in plant parts (bioaccumulation) e.g. nitrogen and sulphur are deposited in the leaves.

High nitrogen artificial fertilizers can increase yields in some cases (temporarily) of certain grains, however the amino acid content of the protein is actually adversely affected. For example in wheat and barley grown with synthetic fertilizers are less nutritious even though the total protein weight may be higher since critical amino acids are missing or reduced in quantity as compared to organically grown (USDA Researcher).

Ok that is it for now. I hope you understand why organic is better than chemical now.

Espescially for those making medibles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...