Quest For The Best Nutrient Solution: Organic Vs Salts

[+Malamute]

But remember, this issue isnt ever an argument,... it is a sharing of knowledge.  You can grow any way you want,... i may not smoke it though.

 

*pot snob*

 

[Norby]

I bet it would show about a 50/50 preference, which would correlate to medical efficacy for patients. It would likely show something along those lines, right? 55/45, 60/40 maybe, one way or the other. What would be the meaningful deviation from 50/50, and would the outcome be enough to convince the other side to switch, even knowing their own preference?

to switch? Medical benefits, nothing less.  People have their right to choose even if it was shown that there are better health benefits to organics.  If it was shown that most people were overfertilizing and there were negatives from that, that should be enough for most.  I have a feeling that most are going for weight and the ease of doing harm, even if it's from a higher temp burn for smokers, that should be enough for patients to demand it for their health, although it would have to be on trust so it wouldn't do any good as people would just lie.  All I'd want from the test is the truth, do patients receive more percieved or actual benefit from organics and which was preferred.  I'm not changing even if chems did better(as GH site states) I wouldn't switch for the petrochemical aspect.

How does the taste of hydroponic produce compare with soil-grown produce?

 

Answer: Hydroponic produce frequently exceeds soil grown produce in terms of flavor and nutrition. This is because all of the nutrients required by the plant are immediately available when the plant needs them.

 

And this shows that organics isn't even as good as hydroponics

 

Is hydroponics organic?

 

Answer: There is a huge popular debate about the value of "organic" fertilizers and methods. Many people would like to apply "organics" to hydroponics. Currently accepted organic fertilizer components are dependent upon organisms in the soil to convert the "organic" materials into a useable form for plants. In hydroponics we provide the minerals required for plant growth directly, completely eliminating the need for soil and soil organisms. The result is much higher growth rates and yields, and better crop quality than organic methods can achieve. For more information, refer to this article on Organics and Hydroponics.

 

I suggest reading the link if it works.  Page 4-5 set out how specific the nutrient solutions have to be for crops to achieve these results measured in millisiemens and microsiemens as per plant weight.  It also states that nutrients will accumulate in the rockwool.  I think if everything was revealed from the tests you'd see benefits drop sharply when you leave a very narrow range of nutes.  It also says how drain to waste is falling out of favor because of the pollution it creates.  Then it goes into how important it is to have a calibrated nute solution.

 

It seems to me that the ability to hit "if done right" is very narrow such that organic by nature would generally produce more fool proof way to better meds, esp if you were biased towards weight.  Especially if strain needs vary that much.

Edited June 16, 2014 by Norby

[+Malamute]

It can be subjective.

 

End goal matters a lot.

 

Is increased growth rate beneficial?  Higher yields?  Then you may judge that to be better crop quality.

 

If time is an illusion, as it is,  and ya can grow wtvr ya want,  and produce plenty for your own needs,... than heck,... win at the margins on increased flavonoids and terpenes. :-)

 

But to say there is no difference would be incorrect. There are differences and we are talking Pepsi or Coke and Less filling, great taste. :-)

[Norby]

Just had to add the following note at the end of the GH promo.  For you Resto, you asked how GH was harming the environment.  Here it is from them.

 

surprising that European regulations favor policies that promote

the cultivation of produce with superior quality and flavor.

Generally European consumers are accustomed to higher quality

foods and will not purchase flavorless produce. The myth that only

certified organically grown produce is of good quality, nutrition

and flavor has been clearly dispelled by the many successes of

hydroponic producers worldwide, but remains predominant in

public perception. This trend will most likely continue; the only

question is whether the United States will be a leader, or a

follower.

Lawrence Brooke is the president and founder of Sebastopol,

California based General Hydroponics, Inc.

Author's note: I’ve tried to describe a few of the problems

hydroponic growers face when trying to compete with "organic"

produce. I don't wish to leave readers with the impression that

there's anything wrong with organic, or that hydroponic produce is

always better. It can go either way depending upon the skill and

ethics of the farmer.

The main issue is for growers and consumers to understand that

"organic" is a matter of definitions. Sometimes the organic produce

is the best tasting and most nutritious available in the marketplace;

other times the hydroponic produce is better. In the final analysis,

organic farming has a low environmental impact on the Earth, and

this is an important point from a philosophical view. Until

hydroponic growers can find a way to recycle used water, media

and nutrients, the hydroponic method will not be equal to

"organic" in these terms. On the other hand, if a consumer is

comparing the flavor and nutrition quality of a crop, both

hydroponic and organic methods are excellent.

Edited June 16, 2014 by Norby

[+Malamute]

Sliding scale comparisons. ;-)

[Restorium2]

GH is really just awesome. With an opportunity to brag it all up they just look you in the eye and tell it like it is. I really appreciate that;

If a consumer is

comparing the flavor and nutrition quality of a crop, both

hydroponic and organic methods are excellent.

[Restorium2]

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.

If you have grown to know and love the specific taste in your cannabis of the soil you prepare then that is something other than cannabinoids you are wanting in your cannabis. You are wanting flavored cannabis, not necessarily cannabis that has more cannabinoids.

 

Odysseus traveled abroad for 20 years and when he returned home he could tell his cheese because of what the goats were fed. This didn't make the cheese superior, it just had a taste he was accustomed to.

 

Edited June 16, 2014 by Restorium2

[Restorium2]

Hydroponics are a LOT easier to mess up than soil grows. That would explain the accounts of sub par hydroponically grown cannabis. One mistake and the buds suffer. If you are good at it then there are no issues with weak buds. If you are the type to go 'balls to the walls' without knowing what you are doing then you will probably jump right into hydro and fail. If you are stubborn and don't listen/read closely to ways to improve you never will grow a decent hydro bud and you will forever think that a soil grow is better. If you keep on trying to improve your growing techniques in ALL growing mediums then you will eventually see the max potential of each strain achieved in more than one way.

[trichcycler]

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.

 

what he said^^^

 

it's actually a very simple question to patients:

 

do you want your medicine to be grown in bottled commercial fertilizers with synthetic chelators for maximized uptake ?

 

Do you want your medicine grown in naturally composted soil augmented with insect frass, beneficial nematodes, and vegetable fed worm castings ?

 

I asked, and hands down every time, worm is the word! 

 

If it "tastes" better to the end user, then it is more acceptable to them.

If it contains more medicinal terpenes, then perhaps it is healthier, if even for the psychosomatic response.

 

No doubt in many minds that an unregulated industry producing fertilizers for a federally mandated cultivation process may not have health on their minds...however, worms are very aware of our health needs evidently .

[trichcycler]

 the preference to consume naturally fertilized/organically cared for plant foods is generally regarded as healthier to the majority of eaters ? 

[Restorium2]

I bring everyone to the table to bask in the multitude of ways to achieve excellent meds and grassmatch comes back with his sales pitch to divide us once again.

 

The folks at NASA(GH) first grew organically and watched exactly what the plants ate from the analyzed soil and produced a liquid that contains all of what the plants ate out of the organic soil and left all of what remained out of the liquid. Then they grew vegetable crops using both methods and compared the results to see what the difference was. They kept adjusting until the results were the same in vitimin and nutritional content. You can mess up cannabis to be weak in many ways. Hydro doesn't have any limitations that organic doesn't other than it can be less forgiving. IF you get your hydro dialed in you will produce fantastic crops that are full of the same vitimins, and have the same nutritional values, of the very best soil grown cannabis. I grow every which way so I don't have a dog in the race to primp up and say , "My doggy is prettier than your doggy". I just hate it when people bulster things up because that's how THEY do it and what they do is always the best way. That type of mindset is kind of sickening and doesn't help anyone.

[Norby]

Depends on how far you take it.  Drain to waste isn't healthier for the drinking water.  It actually hurts health(even of people not consuming the cannabis) by runoff in the drinking water.  If it's made from coal or oil then it's depleting a non or not easily renewable resource.  Not to mention you can't re use your soil from chem grows.  TLO has you reusing soil time and time again and only adding amendments. If NASA was growing my buds I'd be fine with it but considering the motivation of choosing chem nutes, since they are designed for higher production as it says right there in the gh promo, would lead me to believe, possibly even subconciously, the person is choosing for weight. Especially if they know it's easier to produce a quality product with organics.  They are taking on a harder task specifically for weight is the way I see it.  Considering the GH head even had the thought of listing ethics as a variable in quality, it seems to me the narrow range of hydro and chem nutes being better than organic is so narrow that NASA had to have grown it for it to be superior with equipment the avg. joe farmer wouldn't have access to..

  Now on to the microlife in the soil.  Since chem nutes kill off the microlife in the soil, unless you use chelated organics your not getting any organics into the plant.  It'd definitely be better for the environment since you would be using less nutes than a drain to waste and even cut the amount of chems needed to finish the plant.  Still you wouldn't have the organisms doing the breakdown for uptake. 

I have seen all sorts of health benefits for terpenes and flavenoids listed.  Zap, were you just quantifying cannabinoids as health benefits and not looking at flavenoids and terpene difference as a health benefit?

Edited June 16, 2014 by Norby

[Restorium2]

Kids in my family learned farming young. I rode the back of the planter at 10 years old. I grew pickles and tomatoes in my own personal garden when I was a kid. I did it for spending money. My dad would go and fill his truck with cow and pig crap to help the crops grow. They grew great and tasted great. People would always buy from my little stand. The extra pickles went to the pickle station. My uncle was a local farmer and he had the contract at the pickle station. You would have to use the seed the contract dictated. One year he brought me a sack of fertilizer with the seed. He said that it was what all the local farmers used for fertilizer. That year I used no cow or pig crap. I didn't get a single complaint about the difference between what I was sellin. The tomotoes tasted the same. Once you are a farmer you understand that some folks just want to say what they are eating is special and better than what everyone else is eating. You understand that to try and explain there's no difference will just lose customers. So you cater to those that like to think they are eating something extra special. Some even charge extra for 'extra special'. They make up stories about how they only eat organic stuff too. They might even tell you they grow a 'special' garden just for their family. It's all hype for money.

[Restorium2]

Norby Quote; It actually hurts health(even of people not consuming the cannabis) by runoff in the drinking water.

 

Only if you get your water from a shallow well with less than 10 feet of filtering sand between where you dump and your well. All city water has to have much nastier things filtered out than cast off nutes. It helps to understand the water treatment process with your water. Then you will not be scared off by false fears not completely explained.

[Restorium2]

We can start to be ridiculous about organic grows too. Like; "What did the bat eat?" It's just pointing fingers at that point. Did you fart on your plants today? lol Was it organic?

[Norby]

So you see people who want to pay farmers a little extra for a larger labor load to improve and help the environment as a scam?

 

Funny thing is I had a 12ft deep well in farm country because the water below 12 feet was too briney to drill into.  Actually everyone in our area had the same thing.  Tested the highest concentration of E. coli in the county.  The I saw something I never saw before.  The frogs i was breeding came out with amounts of limbs other than the right amount.  5,6,7 3 all but 4.  I had moved from city water source to a shallow well.  I read up on this phenomena and there were lots of links to agricultural runoff.  What happens is stated below.

 

 

The parasite in question is a flatworm called Ribeiroia. It starts out life in snails. It grows and reproduces inside the snails, which it castrates so that they don’t waste time on making eggs or looking for a mate. In its castrated host, the parasite produces a new generation of flatworms that can escape the snail and swim in search of a vertebrate host. They typically infect fish or tadpoles. When they invade tadpoles, the parasites bury themselves in the tiny buds that will eventually grow into legs.

As the frogs develop their legs, the parasites wreak havoc. In some frogs they will stunt the growth of a leg, leaving it a stump. In other frogs, a developing leg forks in two. A single frog may even sprout a dozen legs. It’s not clear yet how the parasites manage this feat, but one recent experiment offers a clue.

In order for a limb bud to develop properly, its cells have to produce certain molecules. The molecules spread out across the limb bud, causing other cells to make other molecules, to grow faster, to die off, and to do all the other things required to make a limb. (See my article in the New York Times for more on this process.)

 

Guess what they use all around me?  Guess what will never make it to my area, city sewers. 

 

Sure we can be like that about organic grows if you want to make fun of it.  The reduction of reliance on petro fertilizers and pesticide and herbicides should be reduced if possible.  It all comes from a resource that competes with energy and is non renewable.

[Norby]

Norby, I am convinced that all of the plant metabolites have health benefits, as does the plant material. While I am convinced that there are differences in flavenoid and terpenoid production/profile between different growing methods, from what I have seen, there is far more variation between different growing rooms/environments than growing methods.

 

Remember, this started as an examination of whether or not using salt-based fertilizers produces a result that is "worse" for you than organic, not whether organic methods create a product that is "better" for you than salt-based fertilizers. I hope we have thoroughly debunked that notion, at least.

I don't see how you can say that if it's easier to have buildup in chem nute systems?  Anything extra left behind detracts from the product.  Terpenes and flavinoids have anti viral, cancer, biotic and bacterial properties amongst many others.  How can a product grown that does not display that variety and level of terpenes and flavenoids and have more chance of residual ferts being left behind not be worse?

And my brain is about to explode from trying to get the

 

Remember, this started as an examination of whether or not using salt-based fertilizers produces a result that is "worse" for you than organic, not whether organic methods create a product that is "better" for you than salt-based fertilizers.

 

So I have to leave for a while.

[Restorium2]

When someone tells you that tall tail about runoff from us growers doing something measurable to our drinking water then just imagine what the ratio is of run off from us growers as compared to run off from all those farms, millions of acres of crops all around you. It's crazy. We are like a fraction of a percentage of the total run off. Like .00000001 % of total run off that has to be filtered out of drinking water. It's just hype when you put it in context. So much of this debate is just started by haters and perpetuated by people hyping what they do. Don't fall for it.

[Restorium2]

I don't see how you can say that if it's easier to have buildup in chem nute systems?  Anything extra left behind detracts from the product.  Terpenes and flavinoids have anti viral, cancer, biotic and bacterial properties amongst many others.  How can a product grown that does not display that variety and level of terpenes and flavenoids and have more chance of residual ferts being left behind not be worse?

And my brain is about to explode from trying to get the

 

Remember, this started as an examination of whether or not using salt-based fertilizers produces a result that is "worse" for you than organic, not whether organic methods create a product that is "better" for you than salt-based fertilizers.

 

So I have to leave for a while.

This started when you made a post cutting down everything but organic and saying it was sub par compared to organic. You actually insinuated that it was a reason to kick a caregiver to the curb.

[Norby]

Yes, but the GH promo said that nutes buid up in rockwool and that the levels have to be very specific and they measure in milli and microseimans.  There is no quantification as to how hard or easy it is, just that it's harder to do than organic. If it is so hard to get the levels right because of the equipment we use and the equipment we don't have leaves us guessing as to how close we are than the study doesn't tell much.

 

So you agree there can be different levels of terpenes and flavenoids but you don't believe there is any medical benefit, just preference?

 

Tha's because as far as I know it doesn't exist.  We can however use deductive reasoning to gain insights.  We can gleam that personal preference dictates that some receive health benefits(remember placebo effects are still benefits and this goes beyond placebo to taste/smell/memory and overall health.  Remember why there is aromatherapy because your memories are linked closer to smell than any other sense) because of higher levels of terpenes which synergystically work with THC to create an affect.  higher levels of terpenes achieves this quicker with less plant material burned. If it's organic there is less chance of negative affects from those substances building up in the plant tissue.  If someone wants a lower level of terpene affect they can smoke less.  If they just like to smoke and it's too hi than there is a problem because they won't enjoy some of the medicinal affect they look for.  the relaxation of smoking.  I'll look up the table of properties for different flavenoids and terpenes.  If levels are that much higher and they have all the effects they do how do you know that the terpenes that may not have been produced in salt based grow aren't responsible for the anti inflamatory or bacterial properties in a lo decarbed edible?  Or the mental effect if the THC is still locked up as THCA and doesn't even pass the blood brain barrier? 

It just seems to me the benefits of organics far outweigh the benefits for salt based nutes of which labor of care and production seems to be the only benefits, other than patients personal choice.

I'm not saying any right to choose should be taken away.  I just think that people should think of other things when making a personal choice after taking in every aspect of each, not just I like what I like.  How much more do you like it considering the risks and benefits, not just making fun of the risks(not you) and actuality when presented when you asked. 

[Norby]

This seems scarily organic to me, and I cannot see links to agricultural runoff in any of your links.

http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2013/02/13/a-flurry-of-frog-legs/

 

The discovery of this parasite manipulation was not the end of the story, though. Even though Ribeiroia has probably been infecting frogs long before people showed up in the United States, the level of infection might be influenced by a number of factors. Johnson and his colleagues have found, for example, that frogs that live in water contaminated with high levels of fertilizers were more likely to be infected with Ribeiroia. Pesticides can kill off the parasites, some studies show, but they also lower the defenses of the frogs, which may lead to higher infections.

 

 

the year it happened to me was a drought year and I suspect the buildup in algea increased the snail population to a level that an outbreak occured because of concentration. 

Edited June 16, 2014 by Norby

[Restorium2]

http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2013/02/13/a-flurry-of-frog-legs/

 

The discovery of this parasite manipulation was not the end of the story, though. Even though Ribeiroia has probably been infecting frogs long before people showed up in the United States, the level of infection might be influenced by a number of factors. Johnson and his colleagues have found, for example, that frogs that live in water contaminated with high levels of fertilizers were more likely to be infected with Ribeiroia. Pesticides can kill off the parasites, some studies show, but they also lower the defenses of the frogs, which may lead to higher infections.

 

 

the year it happened to me was a drought year and I suspect the buildup in algea increased the snail population to a level that an outbreak occured because of concentration.

Absolutely nothing to do with cannabis.

[phaquetoo]

Certainly it is regarded as such by those that choose it, but some choose "hydro" for the health reasons; who is right? The answer is that it is all preference and taste, and has nothing to do with health at all. Have you really never met a healthy person that only consumes store-bought/commercially grown produce? The absolute healthiest people I know pay no attention to the organic designator, but to the actual nutrient content of their food.

shoot the healthiest people I knew or know quit doing all things they considered bad, exercised, lived a healthier life and got cancer before their siblings who dont live as healthy!

 

I know that has nothing to do with the thread!

 

I prefer taiste and mellow on my lungs, I prefered hydro over columbian gold, red and rainbow lol!

 

It def comes down to taiste and of course it should come down to what helps you medincinaly first!

 

I prefer mine over my c.g's and I can either grow from one of his clones and he do the same or he can give me a finished plant to hang and dry and cure my way, I always think mine taistes better and is more mellow on the lungs, I dont see any difference between strength,

 

Im not so sure that others would like it my way or his way when finished, I only know I do and so does my pt, even when my c.g gives me some dryed his way I always try to cure it my way, and I can tell the dif between when he gives it to me and after I cure it, I always take a nice taiste test or 5 lol when we get something new. He has asked me where I have gotten some of my meds when we have medicated together,,It honestly came from him, there are not to many times I get it from him dry and put it in my jars and not have it be a lil moiste the next morn, so I take it and put it in a paper bag until its ready to jar and cure,

 

So I guess what im saying is even though my grow is the same as his, our rooms make a big difference and drying and curing make a difference, we both grow in promix and use gh, he used to do hydro and we still had the same results I describe, now he top feeds every thing, like I do, but I dont use co2 or have no where near the plant count as him, oh and he uses a.c I dont and dehumidifer or humidifer and I dont, I like mine to be simple and easy, I find the promix to drain real well, I have all of my watering go to waiste, he dont! so there are many differences and most times his realy look a whole lot healthier than mine, I dont veg them for as long as him and get a smaller crop than him also!

 

my c.g brings me plants that are vegged and ready for budd about 2 wks after I recieve them, so we are actualy growing from the same stage, the ones I have just got moved here, they do shock a lil bit. I have done exactly the same nute recipee as him and everything else he has said about certain strains, but what works for him in his room does not work for me in my room!

 

and every time I have asked some one some questions I get 20 dif anwers from 20 dif people on the same question, I have to beleive the grow rooms and equipment make a huge dif whether grown hydro or dirt.

 

we both use 600 wat mh in veg and 600 hps in bloom, I have 6" hv inline 424 cfm fans, he has 8" and a few more fans becuase of his size room, also we can both get intake air from indoors or outdoors, I have done it his way for to long, untill I broke down and did some studying I wasnt getting the potency or the amount!

 

Im not sure this fits in here, any how I love the thread and have done alot of rethinking while reading the opinions and techniques people are sharing in here,

 

Peace

[Indigro]

There is no intrinsic health difference between salt-based and organic nutrients.

 

There is one potential difference that has been measured- heavy metal content & mj's ability to transport & store them w/in the plant matter.

 

All 'organic' sources have high levels of heavy metals, which is especially true of fish based feeds, but all organic sources (bat poo, fish poo, kelp, etc) absorb these heavy metals which are on the rise due to our polution of the air, water & ground. We contribute these polutants which are reabsorbed throughout our food chains & water channels. MJ is particularly apt at absorbing & storing these ions, as is evidenced by the use of hemp at the Chernobyl site to absorb radioactive elements from the ground. And it is understood that heavy metal ions accumulate in humans which brings about negative health consequences.

 

It can be understood that organically fed mj plants will have higher concentrations of these ions, though certain chem based nutes also have high concentrations heavy metals. Some screen & remove better than others, so it would depend on which chem nute line used, but all organic sources have high levels.

 

That is one measurable & established difference, but rarely discussed.

[trichcycler]

organic materials placed in or on my plants have never killed a leaf, a beneficial organism, a fish, a bird, and I don't have to worry about exposure to high levels of industrial fertilizers in or around my property any longer. Chronic exposure to these fertilizers is not healthy. If it kills my worms, that's good enough for me to avoid it, whatever ""it""" is.

 

Its interesting to know that big pharma will not be interested in organic farmed cannabis, nor will the laboratory. There are little controls of "in" like their are with salts.

 

I don't think, nor did I imply that salt based fertilizers are harmful when used properly. I have no issues with hydro growing, except everyone I know always states the preference of organically grown medicine. There has not been one patient that has not requested it, even if they never tried (my) hydro.

I would never say one way is better than the other way. Both techniques offer great advantages and disadvantages, depending much on the individual grower and his own health and abilities.

 

Still stands though, side by side, perfectly grown organic vs perfectly grown hydro, to the experienced capable  grower who grows for themselves, will mostly choose org , always have, always will.  just ask around.  doesn't really matter why, your body and mind decide.

 

Fact; Adding organic fertilizer is only a small part of growing an organic plant. Most garden hoses are chocked full of phthalates for instance, listed as NO FOR DRINKING water, yet are used to fill kiddie pools, hydro reservoirs, and organic dirt plants too.

 

Using watering lines, hoses, fittings, reservoirs, plant pots, buckets etc that are organic, for use with food, is certainly healthier than using a lowes bucket or kitty litter container with grow store vinyl hoses.

 

good thread, too bad some feel put off by the organic approach and the honest comparisons. Nobody is demonizing salts here, only sharing their personal experiences. People drive long distances just to get a tomato that was grown in organic dirt, instead of a hydro hot house. I'll eat both, and not complain, but my preference is well known.

 

fact; Organic farms have a higher rate of food borne illnesses recorded than salt fed fields. poop is poop is poop.

 

Resto- regardless of your futile placating attempt, this is not a debate, and is not a team effort that we all have to agree on. Live with it, relax, grow any ole way you choose. we  know now that you just don't care which way is used, thank you for sharing that with the thread.