APPARENTLY, TigerBloom and GrowBig are both 80% organic....BigBloom is infact 100% organic... GrowBig Phs at 6.6, and tigerbloom pHs at 6.2-6.3 (for me, maybe max can tell us where his GrowBIg phs at)...and there are plenty of 100% chem growers with visible mycorriza, how is that? and wouldnt the FF be more accommodating to the bacteria since it is still more organic than chem nutes?
EDIT:by "base" i ment foundation of the nutrient Regimen...not "based" as in organic based
I used to use Tiger Bloom, still have a bottle sitting left over from a few years back as a matter of fact.
80% organic? Maybe. But what does it matter anyways when the fact is that the products (Grow Big and Tiger Bloom) do
nothing for the soil/soil food web? What does it matter if something is '80% organic' if the other 20% of the ingredients are counter to the very fundamentals
of organics? Point is, it isn't totally organic; it gives people the impression that '80% (or whatever) organic' is good enough. Big Bloom is the exception, and what makes it even more baffling, because it
is completely organic. But what does it matter to people who don't even really know what organics is, but seem to find it appealing as a kind of buzz word? And if you find it so appealing, why not just grow completely organic?
I certainly disagree with your assertion that you can't get any better than Fox Farm's (and be totally organic) without spending a lot of money. That's a load of BS. The FF liquid trio is around $55; Earth Juice liquid organic nutrient line: Grow, Bloom, Microblast and Catalyst will run you $38-$48 depending on what size bottles you buy.
Soil is different than hydroponics. In soil micro-organisms are more prone to being dehydrated (ie, killed) by synthetic salts. Otherwise, like I said the very least is that they get lazy. Synthetic chelates are essentially a replacement for mycorrhizae in artificial grow environments; much more fertilizer is used than is actually absorbed by plants (although I would imagine recirculating systems are quite a bit more efficient).
As an organic grower I could give a fuck less what is "more accommodating than whatever"; it's about what is most accommodating to soil biota...
period.
We can't really see what goes on in the rhizosphere. Without an electron microscope we can't see bacteria, we can't see how active our fungi is, we can't see the exudates that plant roots secrete to attract microbiology into the rhizosphere and it isn't clearly apparent exactly how many really good things they are doing for the plant... so truly appreciating and understanding organics is difficult for people, I get it.
As for nitrogen, I am sure different plants have different preferences. According to some research nitrate (NO3-) is more easily absorbed and also more readily utilized than ammonium. Both forms should be present, but some prefer more ammonium than nitrate and vice versa. It relates to whether a plant prefers soil dominated by bacteria (which convert ammonium to nitrate, or fungi. Not exactly sure what cannabis prefers (I don't know everything), but I do know that some organic growers start with bacterially dominated teas and then switch to fungi dominated for flower.
Ultimately, I would say it is better to let the microbes provide the form of nitrogen the plant prefers, exactly where needed, rather than apply synthetic nitrates that wont really stick around in the rhizosphere long enough to be absorbed. But I've said too much.
