budding with organic vs synthetic nutes

[Star Dog]

Has there been any research on this with side to side studies of living soil and synthetic soiless/hydro?

I know taste supposedly can be better with organics but I was not aware of other advantages in terms of yield etc.

I'm very interested.

I think it's fairly well established that hydro brings the best yeilds.

But quality idk about...
Going on fruit organically grown compared to hydro it wouldn't surprise if organic/soil is better quality, tomatoes for example have a full tasty tang, hydro doesn't have that same depth of flavour.

 

[Highlife42]

The plant can't tell the difference it's oblivious to organic or synthetic it's the same minerals.

Yes it can! Do some research

 

[Star Dog]

Yes it can! Do some research

No It CAN'T... try knowing what you're talking about.

 

[Highlife42]

No It CAN'T... try knowing what you're talking about.

You're ignorant in more ways than one. lol Which leads me to believe you have no knowledge in the chemistry/math/biology involved. And over the years, how plants responded to phosphorus depletion by creating "different forms of it." Basically molecular biology that you need to educate yourself on sir. So instead of typing out how I know... I found just 1 article of factual science. However, before you respond with crude remarks bc you're a disrespectful little boy go down that rabbit hole and keep going until you have bonded molecules together and how some take away, and some add.

Quoted from here. Learn a bit on how plants deal with phosphorus depletion and their morph'ed responses bc of it:

Phosphate Uptake and Allocation – A Closer Look at Arabidopsis thaliana L. and Oryza sativa L. (nih.gov)
To cope with Pi limitations in the environment, plants have evolved a range of physiological and morphological responses,

 

[Highlife42]

No It CAN'T... try knowing what you're talking about.

So in easy terms for ya" Plants know what plate/ship/car it came in on. And now has to change its biology to create a form it can uptake. Therefore, it knows the difference.. TRY KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT

 

[Star Dog]

You're ignorant in more ways than one. lol Which leads me to believe you have no knowledge in the chemistry/math/biology involved. And over the years, how plants responded to phosphorus depletion by creating "different forms of it." Basically molecular biology that you need to educate yourself on sir. So instead of typing out how I know... I found just 1 article of factual science. However, before you respond with crude remarks bc you're a disrespectful little boy go down that rabbit hole and keep going until you have bonded molecules together and how some take away, and some add.

Quoted from here. Learn a bit on how plants deal with phosphorus depletion and their morph'ed responses bc of it:

Phosphate Uptake and Allocation – A Closer Look at Arabidopsis thaliana L. and Oryza sativa L. (nih.gov)
To cope with Pi limitations in the environment, plants have evolved a range of physiological and morphological responses, which may enhance Pi acquisition (through symbiotic strategies, root architectural changes, extrusion of organic acids and acid phosphatases by roots (reviewed by Amtmann et al., 2006; Péret et al., 2011; Zhang Z. et al., 2014; Scheible and Rojas-Triana, 2015) and optimize internal Pi utilization. During P limitation some membrane phospholipids are partially replaced by galactolipids and sulfolipids (Nussaume et al., 2010; Siebers et al., 2015) Furthermore, under Pi starvation stress the remobilization of phosphorus from older leaves to younger organs was observed (Smith et al., 2003).

I've only read the 1st line, you are absolutely 100% I don't know anything about the chemistry/biology nor do I pretend to, I'm not interested in it, tbh I only grow weed I'm not remotely interested in gardening, the 1st become aware of the fact was through the BBC life on earth documentaries.

You can google it for yourself there's 3 million articles on the subject.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=[URL]https://www.rxgreentechnologies.com/blogs/organicorsynthetic/#:~:text=Plants%20do%20not%20know%20the,fertilizers%20work%20best%20in%20soil.&ved=2ahUKEwjx3vb15KLvAhUgXhUIHeZZAgwQFjABegQIAhAF&usg=AOvVaw2oy3V0n5EKlvHQ0eiApzZB

[/URL]

From the above link...

Plants do not know the difference between organic and inorganic inputs. Plants only use nutrients that are available in their inorganic, ionic form. You can grow healthy and happy plants organically or through the use of synthetic fertilizers. We've found that organic fertilizers work best in soil

 

[Highlife42]

No. But you shouldn't talk to others that way whenever you havent done the science bro. You get respect back when you give it out

 

[Star Dog]

No. But you shouldn't talk to others that way whenever you havent done the science bro. You get respect back when you give it out

I shouldn't talk to others what way?

You mean like "yes it can do some research" yes?

 

[Star Dog]

No. But you shouldn't talk to others that way whenever you havent done the science bro. You get respect back when you give it out

So you've done the science and your talking rubbish, I'm not interested but my information is scientifically based.

You can have your own opinion you can't have your own facts.

 

[Wastei]

Both methods can produce high quality with high amount of cannabinoids, terpenes and vitamins.

Plants make use of what nutrient they got at hand. The main positive with organics is organic sulfurs in organic growing affecting taste IMO. I personally prefer the taste on some strain in hydro over soil.

There's more differentiations in hydro while most soil grown plants has that earthy taste. Some taste better in hydro, some in soil. Each method can produce top shelf. But like other suggested, it's better to choose side.

Either slow release all the way through or readily available salts all the way through. But you need more input to get the same results with organics. You feed the soil which in turn feed the plant. In hydro you remove that variable.

 

[Northwood]

Plants only use nutrients that are available in their inorganic, ionic form.

Plants can uptake all sorts of organic molecules. Take phospholipids for example (a complex class of organic phosphates). But whether they contribute anything to plant nutrition is really unknown, and the body of evidence so far supports the notion that it would be minor contribution, if any. It could be accidental uptake because bacteria and fungi mineralize organic phosphate in part using phosphatase enzymes within the rhizosphere to H2PO4- which is the main mineralized form utilized by plants.

All plants also absorb and utilize forms of very complex organic nitrogen molecules - like amino acids. Plants absorb a lot of it, and in some plant species and environments the rate of uptake can exceed that of NH4+. We still don't know how significant a source of plant nutrition it is though. You might find this to be an interesting read: https://nph.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2008.02751.x

Does it really make any difference in the end though? Unfortunately science is still out on that one, so I wouldn't argue one way or the other

 

[Star Dog]

Does it really make any difference in the end though? Unfortunately science is still out on that one, so I wouldn't argue one way or the other

Firstly thanks for the link, I'll read it when I have time to absorb the details.

And no it doesn't matter remotely so long as the grower is happy, my comment was for the benefit of the op who apparently has trouble getting organic nutrients but has synthetic widely available to him/her.

Edit.. I don't subscribe to which is best I'm all for whatever makes the individual happy, different strokes for different folks

 

[redi jedi]

Anyone see the blind taste test Penn & Teller did on their show Bullshit?

 

[Northwood]

my comment was for the benefit of the op who apparently has trouble getting organic nutrients but has synthetic widely available to him/her

Heck they even had organic nutrients in the movie "Water World". But they resorted to cycling the biomass of human bodies they didn't like in that vile pool of black liquid they fed their tree with. I can't imagine living in a world where organic nutrients weren't readily available. That would be like outside the train in that silly Netflix show "Snowpiercer" where nothing can live. /s

 

[Star Dog]

Heck they even had organic nutrients in the movie "Water World". But they resorted to cycling the biomass of human bodies they didn't like in that vile pool of black liquid they fed their tree with. I can't imagine living in a world where organic nutrients weren't readily available. That would be like outside the train in that silly Netflix show "Snowpiercer" where nothing can live. /s

Idk according to the op there's not as many organic products available in Asia as in the West?

 

[Rurumo]

Most outdoor growers use a combination of organics and mineral salts, it's probably the most common way cannabis has been grown outdoors through modern history. I know lots of guys who amend their outdoor plots with compost, manure, alfalfa pellets, sul-po-mag, etc, then give a dose of Jacks or whatever once a week or so through bloom. You get the best of both worlds, that good outdoor flavor and bigger buds. I know a lot of organic "purists" hate the idea, but it works, and studies that compare strict organic growing with a supplemented microbiome to mineral salt supplementation in that same soil always favor the mineral salts in terms of yield. It's a myth that mineral salts "kill" a microbiome-certainly, high phosphorus has been shown to suppress the microbiome, but it's still there working hard for your plants. When I grow outdoors, I grow organically, but I don't care about yield-the yield I get is way more than I need. But I can see why people who are in it for the money use a combination of methods. The studies being carried out on the microbiome have shown that mineral salts can be reduced (by 25% in one study I recall) without a drop in yield, if the microbiome is supplemented, which is good for our soil health and watersheds. But more importantly, the heavy metal load of organic inputs (and some mineral salts) needs to be addressed. Organic soils often show dangerously high levels of arsenic and cadmium, which just go up year after year as more seaweed and rock phosphate (among many other questionable inputs) are added. There is a dark side to organic agriculture. I'm not advocating conventional agriculture by any means, since 70+ years of the "green revolution" has polluted most agricultural soil in the world with high levels of heavy metals-many mineral salt fertilizers are tainted too. The problem stems from allowing a "minimum" amount of allowable heavy metals instead of having a zero tolerance policy-even a "minimum" amount of arsenic and cadmium (again, among many others) will build up to dangerous levels given enough time.

 

[Northwood]

Idk according to the op there's not as many organic products available in Asia as in the West?

Oh, I've never really used organic nutrient products before. I'm sure there is some good stuff like that Gaia Green lineup maybe, but there is just so much snake-oil out there especially when it comes to cannabis growing I'd rather avoid all of it and just go to my local feed store and pick up a bail of timothy hay and a 50lb sack of alfalfa pellets every couple years. I also avoid those organic products because I'd be concerned about the sourcing, sustainability, and environmental effects of their ingredients. Like do these producers really need bat guano imported from South American caves to formulate their product with a nitrogen source? Sounds crazy to me TBH.

 

[Overgrowtho]

It sounds like there is no clear answer about organic vs synthetic in terms of yield and flavor, but a side by side experiment using one's own organic and synthetic nutrients respectively could produce some clarity on this for each grower's situation. Thats what I am in the middle of, lets see how it goes.

Anyways this topic of combing the two as @Rurumo mentions is also very interesting and perhaps might be the best in the end as well. The question then becomes; how to do it properly as a 3rd solution:

The studies being carried out on the microbiome have shown that mineral salts can be reduced (by 25% in one study I recall) without a drop in yield, if the microbiome is supplemented, which is good for our soil health and watersheds.

How do you recommend to supplement the microbiome? Adding compost? Compost tea? Weekly?

 

[waktoo]

Some science relevant to "fertilization" and microbes...