Help me understand Organic vs. Chemical grows.
- Thread starter LoveBudz420
- Start date
BongerChonger
Well-Known Member
Although very valid, most of the argument is environment related, not plant related.
Number one argument for organics is carbon replacement. Organic growing practices supply much larger amounts of carbon back to the environment. And carbon is essential for life and soil fertility.
Second reason is nitrate fertilizer, because of the way it freely leaches through the soil and into river systems and surrounding environments. (this still does occur in organics, urea from cattle farms is an example)
Semantics, plants don't care, they thrive either way.
Also, for all the ingredients that go into those super soil recipes everyone seems to use, I can only imagine the carbon cost to the environment. From mining/sourcing these raw materials, to packaging, to then transporting that's a huge environmental cost. Just in transport weight alone.
Most indoor organic isn't any better for the environment than its indoor counterpart in my honest 2 cents.
mudballs
Well-Known Member
Billy the mountain mentioned a cycle that includes depolymerization. Im not sure what it would take to go from food stuff, to fecal matter, to fertilization, to endangering a human.
Jjgrow420
Well-Known Member
Me either, and I'd rather not find out. Imagine what cheap additives they use in that food, whether it's fillers, some kind of shiny fur shit... There's no regulations on that kind of food. It could contain... Anything really. I duno that's just me. Obv anyone can do whatever they want but I think most people overlook the fact that this practice is not meant for human consumption in any form.
Blue brother
Well-Known Member
Agree 100% one of the funniest things I’ve ever heard someone say was “I just want organic inputs, chemicals are bad” I still laugh now, like chemicals don’t make up every single thing around us
Also, the fact that people think Epsom salt and rock dusts are organic just shows how far the fda have gotten with their brainwashing. When I was a lad we learned that organic chemicals are organic cos they come from a living organism. Now it seems you can use the word organic for all sorts of non organic material
Last edited:
Hollatchaboy
Well-Known Member
What non organic materials, are they using the word organic for?
LeastExpectedGrower
Well-Known Member
Organics in the mind of the public means 'its all natural' aka 'nature.' ...and that's not really true, nor is the idea that because something is natural means its beneficial or at least not as harmful as synthetically generated things. Often, synthetics are more accurate in the sense that they've been refined to do a very specific thing while 'nature' often casts a much wider net (and not in a great way).
Lots of people think 'organic' means no fertilizer or pesticides...when it just means DIFFERENT fertilizers and pesticides. A pesticide like Rotenone can be WAY more dangerous to more organisms than a pesticide that's been developed to target a specific species of insect without harming the fish and frogs, etc. Rotenone is an 'organic' pesticide, so yeah it may be used on stuff you purchase as 'organic'.
Poison is all about the dose in the end, whether its organic or not. Feed your plants 4 or 5g of whatever your favorite nutrient is and they'll probably love it...but feed it 40 or 50g of the same stuff and the plant will decidedly NOT love it, and it will die. Water (another one of those cHeMiCaLz!!!) with the right amount and your plant thrives...too much and they die. Nature can kill just as effectively as any man-made anything.
Lots of people think 'organic' means no fertilizer or pesticides...when it just means DIFFERENT fertilizers and pesticides. A pesticide like Rotenone can be WAY more dangerous to more organisms than a pesticide that's been developed to target a specific species of insect without harming the fish and frogs, etc. Rotenone is an 'organic' pesticide, so yeah it may be used on stuff you purchase as 'organic'.
Poison is all about the dose in the end, whether its organic or not. Feed your plants 4 or 5g of whatever your favorite nutrient is and they'll probably love it...but feed it 40 or 50g of the same stuff and the plant will decidedly NOT love it, and it will die. Water (another one of those cHeMiCaLz!!!) with the right amount and your plant thrives...too much and they die. Nature can kill just as effectively as any man-made anything.
Funkentelechy
Well-Known Member
You sure are casting a wide net in regards to what people who prefer organic are thinking and why they think that. I'm glad you have it all figured out for all of us.
Everything that you have mentioned boils down to semantics, everyone knows that when someone refers to chemicals in relation to organics that it is in reference to man-made chemicals. That is inferred, it doesn't have to be mentioned because everyone knows that. I don't think you are blowing as many minds as you think, with these great truths.
Grow organic, or don't, I don't care but to assume that people who do something different than you do so because they are stupid is ignorant.
I know intelligent people who grow both ways.
And to answer the OP, I do think you can successfully incorporate inputs from both organic, and non-organic.
Everything that you have mentioned boils down to semantics, everyone knows that when someone refers to chemicals in relation to organics that it is in reference to man-made chemicals. That is inferred, it doesn't have to be mentioned because everyone knows that. I don't think you are blowing as many minds as you think, with these great truths.
Grow organic, or don't, I don't care but to assume that people who do something different than you do so because they are stupid is ignorant.
I know intelligent people who grow both ways.
And to answer the OP, I do think you can successfully incorporate inputs from both organic, and non-organic.
LeastExpectedGrower
Well-Known Member
Yet the question was Organic vs. Chemical grows... which plays in to the very common misconception.
Funkentelechy
Well-Known Member
Do you mean the misconception that you can't mix the two? I agree that there is a misconception that the two methods are mutually exclusive.
Certain aspects of both growing methods can have an antagonistic effect on one another depending on how you go about it, but they are not mutually exclusive.
LeastExpectedGrower
Well-Known Member
No, the misconception that organic doesn't involve chemicals. It's a false dichotomy. Everything is chemicals and the nitrogen (for example) you provide with synthetic nutrients vs. those provided in an organic grow is the same nitrogen.
As methods of growing, they're both viable and a choice & can overlap in some forms or fashion and anyone can choose their own path.
GrodanLightfoot
Well-Known Member
Amino acids are nitrogen sugars, the end result of Nitrate metabolism. Feeding amino acids saves the plant energy, the plant can redirect that saved energy to secondary metabolism. Sulfur bearing aminos provide precursors to classic penetrating cannabis aromas that actually contribute to entourage effect and medicinal value, unlike the doterra essential oil terp wheel vape pen nonsense. Carboxylic acid derivatives and thiols, which also require B vitamins, products of fungal metabolism, to reach their potential.
Feeding heavy ionic salts to microbes will kill them. If you feed them compounded minerals, they will chelate them with carboxylic acids that contribute to flavor and effect. Cannabinoids only originate from olivetolic and hexanoic acid. There is no other means of producing Cannabinoids.
You can't replicate the quality of organics with citric acid or ethy diamine tetraacetic acid. You need fatty acids. Show me a hydroponic supplier who sells fatty acid chelates with their ionic salts. Because that would be their organic line.
The notion that plants prefer hydroponic salts shoved up their ass instead of lubricated compounds comes from a very sadistic mind.
PopAndSonGrows
Well-Known Member
Chemical grows = you feed the plant
Organic grows = you feed the medium
Organic grows = you feed the medium
ismann
Well-Known Member
Is that a joke? Show me where plants prefer one over another.
LeastExpectedGrower
Well-Known Member
Makes me almost want to take him off of 'ignore.'
Funkentelechy
Well-Known Member
You are correct organic does involve chemicals, but I would suggest that this misconception is not as widespread as you perceive, it's more a matter of semantics. When people refer to "chemicals" they mean synthetic chemicals, it's implied. Most people who grow organically know that organic chemicals are in fact chemicals.
You're implying that people who grow organically lack the understanding that organic chemicals are chemicals, I maintain that that is an assumption. People who prefer organic inputs simply don't trust man-made chemicals, their preference has little to nothing to do with the definition of the word chemical, it's based on a lack of faith in man-made chemicals. What you are talking about is semantics, people could refer to them as sparkly unicorn tears, it doesn't matter, their understanding of what they are and what they do is independent of what you or I call them, is it not?
People using different terms doesn't mean that those people have more or less of an understanding of the subject.
Most people that I know understand that organic chemicals are chemicals, they just don't feel the need to differentiate between them every time they discuss them because the term chemical is most often used to refer to man-made chemicals, it's inferred.
LeastExpectedGrower
Well-Known Member
Its not semantics if people actual fear synthetics. And you can't divorce 'semantics' from reality anyway. Control of discourse shapes how people think and internalize concepts.
Funkentelechy
Well-Known Member
Qualifying as semantics is completely independent of whether people fear it or not. Semantics is the debate over the meaning of a word, or "the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning".
Should people be afraid of chemicals because of the word "chemical"? No, it's just a word, it only has the power we ascribe to it. Should you assume someone is uneducated because they prefer to grow without "chemicals"? No, we all know what "chemicals" means in this context, what they are saying is that they prefer to grow without synthetic chemicals.
When most people say "chemical" they mean synthetic chemicals, are they correct by definition? No, but that doesn't somehow invalidate their preference for not using synthetics because they are using a word differently than you. And I assure you that everyone that I know that grows organically understands that organic chemicals are in fact chemicals.
Funkentelechy
Well-Known Member
Regardless of whether the form of nitrogen(for example) that a plant metabolizes is the same in the end, the end result is different. Can anybody here say that a plant grown organically tastes exactly the same as a plant grown with synthetic inputs? The plant may not "care", as some of you put it, as long as its nutritional needs are met, but surely you can tell the difference in the end result. Beef from a cow that is grain-fed is exactly the same on the molecular level as a cow that is grass-fed, but any foodie worth his or her salt can taste the difference.
This is not to say that one is better than another, or a debate of which is right or wrong, just that there is obviously a difference in the end result between growing methods. Which one you prefer is up to you.
This is not to say that one is better than another, or a debate of which is right or wrong, just that there is obviously a difference in the end result between growing methods. Which one you prefer is up to you.