moneymark

well i started thinking of this while posting in someone elses thread. so instead of hijacking thiers i thought id start a new one.

the organic/inorganic argument.
im inorganic (gh flora sreies) but am not against organic. so maybe this is my way of rationalizing being inorganic.

with my minimal knowledge of chemistry and plants this is what i get
organic compounds are some elements attached to at least 1 carbon.
plants take up raw elements for daily life such as photosynthesis. the macro elements for plants are n-p-k. and there is a long list of micro elements(carbon is not one of them).

plants get thier carbon through photosynthesis or transperation or is a mixture of both. plants take in CO2 splits the two elements and releases the O2 and keeps the C.

so if plants dont take up carbon through the roots the organic compound has to be broken down. the needed element is taken and carbon is left.

this is a c/p from dictionary.com
chemcal-A substance with a distinct molecular composition that is produced by or used in a chemical process.

organic compounds are chemicals as is inorganic compounds are chemicals. as the most popular compound, H2O is a chemical (as H2O is produced in a chemical process in the space station).

even if the process goes on inside an animal its still a chemical process.

so what is all the hubub on organic/inorganic topic
i wanna hear others opine.
let the arguments begin i hope

SteveGreen1990

Good topic,

I've been thinking about this myself, the organic nutes are more of a precursor to nutes if I understand it right, the organic nutes will break down into the chemicals needed to feed the plants, how this happens I'm not sure... bacteria? Certainly this makes sense as H2O2 can not be used with organic nutes, maybe someone would let me know.

Anyway the end product is surely the same whether achieved by organic or chemical.

moneymark

ok organic nutes are broken down by microorganisims in soil. how does it work in hydro. are these organisims in chlorinated tap water, ro water, etc.

Underarock

Organics is the good old fashioned built-in failsafes way to grow.

Harder to screw up becuase the dirt allows for mistakes and buffers everything you do. You are hardly ever out of anything in dirt.

This is like you eating regular food.

In-organic is giving the plant what it needs in broken down, ionized forms.
Plants only use the in-organic (non-carbon containing) parts of fertilizer anyway. Bio-organisms are not needed in the medium(usually water) to make the nutes useable.

The plant is much more supseptable to human error.
... on the otherhand if you do hydro correctly....
you get a 300% growth-rate as compared to soil growing.

This is like you taking in liquid protein and vitamins and having a nutritionist formulating your meals.

__________________


Posting Guidelines
Gardens Cure Acceptable Use Policy
A Collection of DIY Threads
Journal of the Year Awards
Nursery Questionaire

Lizzie Borden

That's true in chemistry (actually I think the definition given to me in an Organic Chemistry course stipulated that the carbon atoms are in rings or chains, not just present, in an organic molecule) but not what organic means as it pertains to fertilizers. Many organic nutrients do not contain carbon, and may be better described as natural as opposed to synthetic. Organic nutrients occur naturally rather than being produced by people.

Gypsy

I don't understand the chemical brouhaha you guys throw around (maybe one day it'll osmose into my little brain).

Like Underarock, I think about organic/chem in the same way I think about food. When I'm on a fitness program, it's so much easier to get the right nutrients with bars, shakes and vitamins. In the same way, it's easier to mix a teeny bit of strangely colored fluid into a gallon of water for my plants. In the context of a busy life, easier means less margin for error, and thus a greater probability of success. Success is good. Chem is good.

However, real food tastes better than bars, shakes and vitamins. I've heard that chem-grown mj gives an inferior sensory experience than organic, but I don't know that firsthand.

__________________
Gypsy's "novicial" grow journal

DankyGrower

I personally have used organics for quite some time and it's all in how you manage your nutrient solution and/or your soil medium.Organics can be assimilated just as easily as chemical nutes but the organics require a catalyst i.e. bacteria,enzymes.The inclusion of such additives makes it so your plants can absorb and breakdown the nutes you feed them into usable compounds .I like to go Bio-Organic,that is, use both good organic nutes with high quality synthetic salts.

peace-------------------------------Danky--------------

Beener

Whew....that's a head full.

Chem nutes are man made or more accurately...processed nutes. They were made to account for overworked "dead" soil.

The natural process in plant life is a symbiotic environment in which soil microbiotics are the first to feed. Then the plant life feeds on their waste (for lack of a better term).

First of all...lets address "living" chemistry. All life is built around chemistry. Potential...when electrical potential ceases to exsist...so falls life. This form would be electrochemistry. The largest difference in chemical and orgainc nutes, would be that organic nutes are based on providing "more" life to a soil environment, as chemicals are made to provide "instead" of life in the soil environment.

Some people are confused when they read a pkg. of chem nutes and compare the NPK ratios to organic nutes. They see higher numbers on the chems, and therefore assume that there are "more" nutes in the chems.

Actually, the gov. regulates this labeling. Labels on nutes must show (what is considered to be ) immediate available nutes to the plant. Overall, an organic nute of 3-1.5-4 may have "more" total nutes than a chem nute of 10-10-10.

Carbon to Nitrogen ratio (or c/n ratio) is very important in the transfer of nutes, and microbial life in a living soil (c/n ratio could be a page of it's own). Humic acids is a general term for a type of acid(s). Humic acids can actually be several types of particular acids in the catagory.

Humates provide carbon, which acts as a complexor or chelator of minerals and/or micronutes. This allows these components to be tied up in the base soil (or substrate) so they can't be simply flushed out during watering. However, they remain readily available for soil micro-organisms to process.

Soil microbes also live off of and consume these minerals. Soil microbes are also a proficient supplier of phosphorus.

Part of what happens in an orgainic soil environment, is that the living microbes in soil first process the nutrients that a plant needs, making them readily available "as" the plant needs them. This includes hormones, and plant growth regulators (that are "not" present in chem nutes, or the soil that has been killed by chem nutes)

By doing this, the plant itself needs very little of it's own energy to process these components. The plant then can (and does) use it's energy to focus on aspects like cell division, inhibiting stress, elongation, photosynthesis, etc..

One VERY important part of a good living (organic) soil is stress prevention. Soil microbes provide for a plant when it's in a high/low temp., moisture, or humidity environment.

Studies have shown that plant stress is the major cause of pest attacks. When a plant is in stress, it emmits a sound wave. Certain pests react to these sound waves. This accounts for "why" pest attacks usually consist of only one type of pest at a time. The stress sound wave produced by the plant, acts as a beacon to a particular pest.

In a sense. In soil, the carbon and/or c/n ratio makes a difference. In teas such as compost, some growers use rock dust as a catalyst. Nitrogen producing greens or green manures are essential to keep microbes alive. Fish nutes and molasses are excellent for this purpose. Though the term "catalyst" is widely used, using the thought of feeding a live animal is probably a better way to envision the process.

Every living thing on earth is based on chemistry. The terminology is merely symantics at times. Even if an organic compound is "produced" by man, it is not considered organic. There are many forms of minerals that can be "both" organic or inorganic, depending on how they are obtained. Calcium Carbonate is such a case.

Calcium carbonate can be either mined (usually from the ocean floor) or man made. Either way, the end result is the same. Yet one is organic, and one isn't. But in the case of nutes, it's much different than that. As chem nutes are made to replace life itself. It can deliver nutrients. But is a completely different vehicle for doing so.

Neither is soil or water, but they are both necessary for a plant to live.

In a sense as well. Some of the organic nutes are readily available to the plant. The remainder is fed (or is food) for soil microbes. Not a precursor really, but in a form that is processed prior to the plants uptake. This is why people see organics as more forgiving. Really, it's the chems that bypass the natural trail (because it's most likely non-exsisting).

Chems react so quickly, that a slow release chem, can be considered a fast release time for an organic. (exp. Urea) The amount of time it takes for Urea to breakdown in a chem environment is considered slow. That same amount of time for some organics, is considered fast.

H2O2 "is" considered to be an exceptable organic. I have never been able to find a concrete concentration, so I don't use it. There is no doubt that in a high enough concentration, it will kill beneficial soil microbes.

Possibly to the extent that both provide the needed nutes, but not really. Some chems may be attached to an undesirable salt form. Build ups are bad news. Back to carbon in the soil. This can also tie up high salt contents, but unfortunately, some soil amendments (such as Perlite, vermiculite, etc.) may retain salts. Salt build ups interfere with Calcium, which interferes with Magnesium, which interferes with Potassium. It also has a lower electrical potential. In living organisms, zero electrical potential = dead.

For me, I haven't found it to be a fail-safe. Some constituents don't tend to burn. But unless I've mindlessly used my chem nutes, they didn't burn either. That's not to say that I never mindlessly used chem nutes...'cause I have.

One thing that's for sure...MJ plants are gross feeders. I have never grown in hydro, so I can't make a comparison. I've heard that the reaction time for nutes in hydro is very fast. As far as running out of nutes in soil goes, I've run out on occasions. I think one of the tougher things about soil is pH. It's so important to start right, because adjusting is difficult. I have to admit, growing purely organic (without the use of a bottle from the hydro store) takes more attention and study/experimentation then face value.

Perfect, as usual.

That's a good way to think about it. How many times have you heard or been told about a label on a food product that contained nothing but chemicals? Would you put yourself on a diet of nothing but synthetic foods? Now, even if you answered yes...would you want to be fed the synthetic foods by bypassing your entire digestive system? Probably not.

That can be true for the grower. It's not to say that using chems (indoors) is bad. It's more of a question as to what is better. I've grown with chems. I see organic as better because of a stronger, larger yielding plant. In many cases, using an organic soil mix a second (or more) time(s), can actually improve soil structure and mineral availability.

Baboom...there you have it. If you don't manage everthing properly, your results may vary. BUT...if you do. Big fat "dense" sticky powerful tasty a**kicking larger yields will come your way......

Whew. Sorry about all that. It's been a shake and (I'm) Baked kinda afternoon.

__________________


Beener