Salts and microbes
- Thread starter VincenzioVonHook
- Start date
Rurumo
Well-Known Member
Depends on what nutes you used and what your source water is like. You should always PH your nutrient solution before feeding. I have to use quite a bit of citric acid along with my nutrients to get my PH to 5.8.
You left out some important context...
Synthetic fertilizer application begins the destruction of soil biodiversity by suppressing the role of nitrogen-fixing bacteria and enhancing the role of everything that feeds on nitrogen. These feeders then amplify the decomposition of organic matter and humus. As organic matter decreases, the physical structure of soil changes. These changes lead to modulations in various associated soil physiological processes. However, there are several contradicting reports on above mentioned negative impacts of pesticides and synthetic fertilizers.
Here's an excerpt from, and PDF of the full chapter for those that are interested...
"The direct effects of the application of synthetic fertilizer on soil microbiota may be positive or negative and depends upon the duration, type, amount, and manner in which the fertilizer is applied."
Last edited:
ComfortCreator
Well-Known Member
I am 99% organic because it is easy, no other significant reason although over time I have appreciated the stronger terpenes and feeling that it is clean compared to some other offerings.
I think being very strict in how one thinks of growing is a limitation more than a positive. People appreciate quality in results, not so much in effort (imo).
Instead I look for insights on things I havent fully considered. When Northwoods brings up bacteria, Nitrogen ions and explains in some detail how they "think" or maybe better said how they operate...I can see an opportunity where during stretch and after, organic can struggle to keep up with the nutrient needs and how we might manipulate it to our benefit.
So here is a question I have and do not know the answer. If you supplement you organic grow with an organic bottled feed, how does that differ exactly from supplementing with a hydro salt based feed? I have done this, but realize I cant say beyond reading it 50x that organic should be fed organic only. Are the N ions in the organic feed less readily available i.e. slower release?
I think being very strict in how one thinks of growing is a limitation more than a positive. People appreciate quality in results, not so much in effort (imo).
Instead I look for insights on things I havent fully considered. When Northwoods brings up bacteria, Nitrogen ions and explains in some detail how they "think" or maybe better said how they operate...I can see an opportunity where during stretch and after, organic can struggle to keep up with the nutrient needs and how we might manipulate it to our benefit.
So here is a question I have and do not know the answer. If you supplement you organic grow with an organic bottled feed, how does that differ exactly from supplementing with a hydro salt based feed? I have done this, but realize I cant say beyond reading it 50x that organic should be fed organic only. Are the N ions in the organic feed less readily available i.e. slower release?
It can't be that important considering the full chapter doesn't contradict their summary provided in the Abstract, particularly the effect on the abundance of SOM. It's quite obvious that in soil where bacterial biomass of any type is primarily constrained by available nitrogen, then adding N in any form will increase microbial biomass.
All nitrate ions are the same regardless of if they were derived synthetically or from organic biomass.
Observe & Report
Well-Known Member
What happened is a paper came out studying the effects of artificial chelators like EDTA on some microbes and found that some populations were reduced. Probably not enough to make any difference when we're talking about the kind of container growing happening here and in any event probably not enough research to say definitively one way or the other.
However, that didn't stop the hippie bros who wouldn't know salts from sugars from latching on to it and saying "SEE WE TOLD YOU SALT FERTILIZERS WERE EVIL! I DONT WANT ANY OF THAT HORRIBLE NITRATE NEAR MY PURE LIVING SOIL"
massive confirmation bias is all it is... just like when the paper came out showing some organically grown fruits had slightly higher flavinoid levels it became "SEE PROOF ORGANIC GROWS SUPERIOR SMELLING/TASTING CANNABIS"
However, that didn't stop the hippie bros who wouldn't know salts from sugars from latching on to it and saying "SEE WE TOLD YOU SALT FERTILIZERS WERE EVIL! I DONT WANT ANY OF THAT HORRIBLE NITRATE NEAR MY PURE LIVING SOIL"
massive confirmation bias is all it is... just like when the paper came out showing some organically grown fruits had slightly higher flavinoid levels it became "SEE PROOF ORGANIC GROWS SUPERIOR SMELLING/TASTING CANNABIS"
Samwell Seed Well
Well-Known Member
No such thing as synthetic fertilizers...
That is a marketing term.
It's either is or isn't.... if the outcome is Subjective and conditional then it's not a law/rule of thumb or any other unempirical unscientific representation of statistics and probability...
Only thing you can say for certain is each media will either balance under the mix of any type of added or supplemental fertilizers or it won't. To much bottle or to much amendments has the same effect.
One is just more controllable
That is a marketing term.
It's either is or isn't.... if the outcome is Subjective and conditional then it's not a law/rule of thumb or any other unempirical unscientific representation of statistics and probability...
Only thing you can say for certain is each media will either balance under the mix of any type of added or supplemental fertilizers or it won't. To much bottle or to much amendments has the same effect.
One is just more controllable
I disagree, at least based on the definition that a synthetic compound is one made through a process that doesn't normally operate in nature. The compound itself may of course be naturally occuring. For example, the industrial synthesis of ammonia through the Haber-Bosch process is only used by humans - and not employed by regular atmospheric or biological processes. All 3 processes fix nitrogen and provide the same product, however synthetically produced N fertilizer requires a great deal of energy and H currently supplied by fossil fuels and thus represents a significant contributor of CO2 emissions. That's the main disadvantage because natural methods of N fixation do not cause emissions. Obviously cost is another factor that must be considered.
meangreengrowinmachine
Well-Known Member
Force feeding aka salts is very different imo then having the organic material readily available for the microbes and rhizomes to have there own cationic exchange. I'm not saying that the force feeding way doesn't work.. but I'm also a person that raises their own chickens to eat so I don't have to eat a chicken that sat on a rack with a feeding tube in its neck. The 2 are comparable to me. I understand not everyone has the same opinion. This is a debate that goes far beyond cannibas.
meangreengrowinmachine
Well-Known Member
So what do you sell ? Lolz
Observe & Report
Well-Known Member
The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 1918
The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 1918 was awarded to Fritz Haber "for the synthesis of ammonia from its elements"
www.nobelprize.org
Haber process - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
One of the most important inventions of all time! All of us were born in a world that only exists because of synthetic fertilizer.
meangreengrowinmachine
Well-Known Member
Very true. But if we don't move away from those in our whole sale farm industry our soils will be depleted and bare very soon. There needs to be a better and more sustainable way to feed the world.The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 1918
The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 1918 was awarded to Fritz Haber "for the synthesis of ammonia from its elements"
One of the most important inventions of all time! All of us were born in a world that only exists because of synthetic fertilizer.
Haber process - Wikipedia
meangreengrowinmachine
Well-Known Member
Dynamite and gun powder are also deemed the same importance... and they are all just as dangerous
Samwell Seed Well
Well-Known Member
Confusing a very specific process term to some other usuage..usage...The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 1918
The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 1918 was awarded to Fritz Haber "for the synthesis of ammonia from its elements"
Haber process - Wikipedia
One of the most important inventions of all time! All of us were born in a world that only exists because of synthetic fertilizer.
Gonna have a bad time
Synthesizing and synthetic... to very different terms...
Synthetic they way organic people want it to be read.
"a synthetic material or chemical, especially a textile fiber.."
Synthetic fertilizer
1.
(of a substance) made by chemical synthesis, especially to imitate a natural product.
"synthetic rubber
And in this case exactly the same formulations usable by a plant..aka the same thing
Like vitamin C...mostly made from mold but also found in many fruits/vegetables
meangreengrowinmachine
Well-Known Member
Um... what.. ? Synthesizing produces synthetic things....
myke
Well-Known Member
Yes,never did check.From my hydro days I know the nutes do drop the pH,maybe .5. My tap water having calcium carbonate in buffers it back I suppose.
Conventional nitrogen fertilizer is also up like 400% right now, it's actually a huge deal and is going to have a large impact on most agriculture globally. It's actually pushing a lot of people to use more organic inputs but all in all it's a mess right now.
Samwell Seed Well
Well-Known Member
Not necessarily... Vitamin C can be synthesized its still Vitamin C...still a natural substance
Wanting things to be different because of their derivative source is an argument in semantics.... they are different, they are the same..just depends in your agenda
meangreengrowinmachine
Well-Known Member
I think you are confusing the terms extracting and synthesizing.