ounevinsmoke
Well-Known Member
It does, if your putting weed killer and other chemicals in your lawn that shitwill end up in your plants.
Is hydroponics better for the environment? I think it is.
- Thread starter AlphaPhase
- Start date
churchhaze
Well-Known Member
What does weed killer have to do with using nitrate salts vs organics? (or synthetic organics, like miracle grow which is mostly made of synthetic urea, which is organic..).
I use miracle grow on my lawn.
I use miracle grow on my lawn.
Tone5500
Well-Known Member
Last time I checked there is 100000000 pages of overwatered plants in soil that destroys the root system ???
ounevinsmoke
Well-Known Member
You asked me if your doing organics properly, and clearly you are not.
churchhaze
Well-Known Member
You dodged my question. What does weed killer have to do with how you feed?
churchhaze
Well-Known Member
Nothing.
ounevinsmoke
Well-Known Member
I have not dodged anything. Weed killer is not organic. To be organic no chemical can be a part of the cycle. Weed killer treated grass clippings included.
ounevinsmoke
Well-Known Member
Yea so what usually happens when you over water? OK, Now what usually happens to water with nutes after you get slimed?
churchhaze
Well-Known Member
Actually, to be organic, it needs to be made up of hydrocarbon chains, often with oxygen. There are infact organic weed killers.
ounevinsmoke
Well-Known Member
Miracle grow, haha. Either your organic or not
ok, you use that to kill your weeds?Actually, to be organic, it needs to be made up of hydrocarbon chains, often with oxygen. There are infact organic weed killers.
Heisenberg
Well-Known Member
churchhaze
Well-Known Member
ounevinsmoke
Well-Known Member
People have been looking for you for months in the dwc section haha, and here you are in this ridiculous thread
Heisenberg
Well-Known Member
That would be a neat trick. Plant roots cannot absorb organic material until it has been broken down into less complex chemicals, and it's done by microbes which use chemicals.
Chemicals are not what distinguishes the organic growing method from hydroponics. There's much more nuance to it than that.
ounevinsmoke
Well-Known Member
I was referring specifically to synthetic man made chemicals in weed killers like you would find in round up
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
The concept that hydro farming is somehow greener than organic is hard to swallow considering the sources of these fertilizers, which are far from green and are not sustainable in the long term.
30% of all nitrogen used as fertilizer comes from a process that makes ammonia from methane and atmospheric nitrogen under very high heat and pressure. The places where this done are mainly fossil fuel burning economies (China, US are the top two producers). Another top source is saltpeter-mineral mined out of the Chilean desert.
Phosphate fertilizers start out as mined phosphate rock, which is then crushed, treated with a strong acid then purified and neutralized. An industrial chemical process with the usual stream of waste products. Not very bad but not green.
Potassium is delivered in the form of the potash, a mineral that comes from deep-shaft mines. The top three producers are Canada, Russia and Belarus. These three producers account for 90% of the worlds reserves in this mineral.
Other than ammonia, these nutrients mostly come from the ground, are purified and transported around the world. A large chunk of ammonia comes from burning fossil fuels. The point isn't that this is a horror story. Its all part of the modern industrial food complex. Just don't dress it up as something wholesome new and wonderful because its used in hydro.
Organic farming is nothing like what is experienced by the home MJ grower who is sold those pretty colored bottles from the hydro store. Organic farming is focused on using local and natural sources when ever possible. Agree that bat guano and other sources of nutrients is not an acceptable alternative to conventional sources for NPK.
Water quality of surrounding streams and ground water is less affected when organic practices are employed compared to conventional farming, which from what I've read, releases more of the applied nutrients into the environment via water runoff than is actually used. Hydro might have a leg up on conventional in that regard.
If we are comparing conventional farming to hydro farming then both use nutes from the sources listed above, so no differences there. Neither seem very green to me.
In general though, I am boggled by idea of wheat fields grown hydroponically. Tomatoes, I can see but hydro wheat corn rice and beans? Is that what people are suggesting is going to occur in the near future?
30% of all nitrogen used as fertilizer comes from a process that makes ammonia from methane and atmospheric nitrogen under very high heat and pressure. The places where this done are mainly fossil fuel burning economies (China, US are the top two producers). Another top source is saltpeter-mineral mined out of the Chilean desert.
Phosphate fertilizers start out as mined phosphate rock, which is then crushed, treated with a strong acid then purified and neutralized. An industrial chemical process with the usual stream of waste products. Not very bad but not green.
Potassium is delivered in the form of the potash, a mineral that comes from deep-shaft mines. The top three producers are Canada, Russia and Belarus. These three producers account for 90% of the worlds reserves in this mineral.
Other than ammonia, these nutrients mostly come from the ground, are purified and transported around the world. A large chunk of ammonia comes from burning fossil fuels. The point isn't that this is a horror story. Its all part of the modern industrial food complex. Just don't dress it up as something wholesome new and wonderful because its used in hydro.
Organic farming is nothing like what is experienced by the home MJ grower who is sold those pretty colored bottles from the hydro store. Organic farming is focused on using local and natural sources when ever possible. Agree that bat guano and other sources of nutrients is not an acceptable alternative to conventional sources for NPK.
Water quality of surrounding streams and ground water is less affected when organic practices are employed compared to conventional farming, which from what I've read, releases more of the applied nutrients into the environment via water runoff than is actually used. Hydro might have a leg up on conventional in that regard.
If we are comparing conventional farming to hydro farming then both use nutes from the sources listed above, so no differences there. Neither seem very green to me.
In general though, I am boggled by idea of wheat fields grown hydroponically. Tomatoes, I can see but hydro wheat corn rice and beans? Is that what people are suggesting is going to occur in the near future?
Last edited:
AlphaPhase
Well-Known Member
Ah, finally some good info! Thank you fogdog and heisenburg (great video posted) - I'll come back with some thoughts soon, but I just discovered a new way to make hash so my thinking is all over the place right now 
Bubble hash with zero manual or machine agitation? Check!
Bubble hash with zero manual or machine agitation? Check!
ounevinsmoke
Well-Known Member
No, the TS was simply asking if Hydropinics is better for the environment. I assumed he was talking about home growers but apparently he is talking about commercial growing. He never distinguished or specified any organic growing methods other than using Peat and manures which suited his claims of how bad growing organically is.
Some organic growers use the same principles of organic farmers. I never buy organic nutes
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Thanks for the clarification.
Some posters were talking about hydro farming as being greener than farming in general and somehow growing MJ using hydro is greener than organic growing specifically, which no sense to me, so I figured I'd put that out there.
Last edited:
AlphaPhase
Well-Known Member
I never said organic is bad. You're taking my words out of context. But I'll get back to that. The whole post is about which one could be better for the future. Everything is bad, the point I'm trying to make is which is the lesser of two evil for the future. Anyways, you've made more generalizations than I have. Most likely the people working for nasa graduated from MIT. They have a great agriculture technology department from what I hear.