organic

There seems to be a lot of this going around lately, generally amongst the hard science fellas & gals, which brought a thought to my mind about worm castings.

Those of us into the organic thang all swear by their usefulness, but I have to call in to question one of their oft-stated benefits - i.e., the supposed presence of trace elements.

In compost science circles (particularly the simmering cauldron of controversy surrounding compost teas) some of the basic assumptions about compost formulation are being re-examined. To this end, considerable examination is being made of the nutrient composition of feedstocks as it relates to the benefits of the finished product.

Good lord, to think that I was once an english major. I can't even understand what I just wrote. Anyway, in plain language, what I'm saying is that a finished composted product is pretty much not going to contain anything - at least nutrient-wise - that the feedstock it was decomposed from did not. In other words, if you use rabbit poop with a NPK of 2.4-1.4-0.6 as the major constituent of your compost feedstock, you're not going to get any more than 2.4-1.4-0.6 in your finished compost, and probably less.

How does this relate to worm castings? Well, it's assumed that all worm castings contain trace elements/micronutrients. But if there are no micros in the feedstock that the worms were consuming, I am guessing that it's fair to say that the worms won't be producing micros from inside their guts. They produce lots of interesting things in their poop, but nutes aren't one of them AFAIK. End result, those of us relying on worm castings as our sole source of micronutes might very well be shortchanging our ladies.

Just a thought...questions, comments?

O

THChemist

O.....


You need to step over on the Inorganic side w/us. Your cause is admirable, but I think, after reading Delta9's posts, you might be convinced to give it a go!

I don't want to get into an empirical debate about Organics vs. Inorganics...but have you tried Inorganics......?


They're quite good! It's very late at night so I won't go into my diatribe about inorganic salts......but trying one plant in one pot with some Miracle Gro might surprise you.


I believe your yield would be increased and if it's a life style thing, use it on your food garden. Todays weed isn't hemp, and for quality potency and yield you need inorganics....You don't have to go crazy and spend 30$/gallon for GH Flora Gro(I sure wouldn't)...But grandma sure grows some bigass tomatos with good old Miracle Gro or Peters. These products work and, I hate to say, IMHO, organics is more of a way of life, than an effacacious way to grow some big and potent plants.


Just my .02


Peace....


THC


P.S. We could call you I.O.?

3hounds

I think the worm castings question is a valid one simply because we know nothing about the conditions under which they are produced.
Worms fed a rich diet of all things good and proper might be one thing, while commercially "grown" castings are likely fed the most economical food on which they will survive (vs."thrive").

The manufacturers conditions might be interesting to investigate... according to http://www.wormdigest.org the large farms feed the worms "cardboard paper sludge". If this is normal practice, and I have no reason to believe that is not, then how can that provide optimum nutrition?

As with human diets, perhaps variety is the key to well rounded nutrition?

__________________

Grow Guide
Marijuana Botany by Robert C. Clarke (read it online)
Posting Guidelines
Search HC.com
Daylight/Dark Hours by Latitude
First/Last Frost Dates by City
Natural Pest Control

organic

Good point 3H. I do know of a local company who produces castings, and they feed theirs dairy manure which is an abundant waste product in my area. This would seem to be a more nutritious feedstock than cardboard sludge (although surprisingly I've heard reasonably good things about the finished product from that), but even manure alone seems to me to be a bit lacking.

I did come across a short research paper once comparing the nutrient levels of castings based on different feedstocks and the finished results showed wide variation. It didn't address the subject of trace elements however...I am wondering where this (probable) myth began.
_____________

Chemist...I have to agree with you on some points, but you won't be convincing me to tinker with chemicals much. You are right, in many ways it is a lifestyle choice (although let me state unequivocally that I AM NOT A F*CKING HIPPIE! ), to the point where it is my vocation. I am an organic berry farmer in my outside life, so it doesn't make much sense for me to be using techniques, equipment, and ingredients that differ from what I practice on a daily basis.

Furthermore I am a dedicated soil grower (in my mind this being indispensable to organic practice). Organics IMO should be viewed as a specific growing technique, rather than as a 1-1 substitution of fertilizer source i.e. using blood meal instead of urea. They can be used this way but if they are, I do agree with you, the results will probably end up lacking in yield if not in taste. However I also believe this is only the case when the chemical grower is well educated and experienced...

In my mind, the highest quality crops (of any kind) are achieved not by what you feed the plant, but rather by building the highest quality soil possible. Nutrients are certainly important, and I've learned much about the particular roles they play in the life of the cannabis plant from Delta's master post, to the point where I have revised some of my ideas about how much of certain nutrients are needed. However, there are complex interactions involving micro-flora and -fauna ongoing in the soil that I believe contribute greatly - sometimes more than any other factor, including nutrients - to the plants' health, yield, and overall vigor. Raw chemical salts tend to have a detrimental effect on soil biota; this is why I refuse to use them.

And as far as cannabis is concerned, taste and "cleanliness" of the finished product are to me the prime objectives. I may have a slightly reduced yield opposed to someone using chemical salts in soil, but another point to be addressed is that excessive yield nearly always comes at the expense of some aspect of quality.

I have been reading the majority of Delta's and your posts quite eagerly and have learned many invaluable things that I couldn't have found from any other source. Truth be told, they're the most interesting discussions and information posted on these boards in quite some time. But for me they go into the category of background knowledge to apply to my organic practice.

Having said that, if I were to grow hydroponically, I'd be using the inorganic salts right alongside you. Then you could call me Hydro I.O.

Thanks also, if you have any q's or rebuttals I will look forward to them.

O