Synthetic Vs. Organic: Not So Black And White

  • Thread starter hiiipower
  • Start date
  • Tagged users None
Sativied

Sativied

Ruler of the Whorled
Supporter
943
243
Does anyone have any of worthwhile info on this or links to scientific studies or such.

‘Natural’ illusions: Biologist’s failed attempt to defend organic food
http://www.geneticliteracyproject.o...ogists-failed-attempt-to-defend-organic-food/

"science simply cannot find any evidence that organic foods are in any way healthier than non-organic ones – and scientists have been comparing the two for over 50 years."

"Further, there was a study that said organic farming actually contributed more to pollution of groundwater, and then a meta-analysis of more than a hundred studies saying organic had more ammonia and nitrogen run-off per product unit, leading to more eutrophication as well as acidification potential."

The article (first link) contain a load of links to more good resources on the matter.

Couple of more from MIT:

Problem: http://web.mit.edu/12.000/www/m2015/2015/agriculture.html

Solution: http://web.mit.edu/12.000/www/m2015/2015/hydro_agriculture.html

Personally the main benefit of growing on organic is the enjoyment of "gardening". When it comes to producing the highest quantity and quality with the least amount of environmental impact however there's no contest with hydroponics (and hence synth nutes, food grade quality...), given it's an efficient one, ime and imo. There I said it :) Not a topic growers nor consumers will reach a consensus on, which in way is a good thing, means there's room for both and you can do whatever you prefer, whether it's for scientific reasons or personal (or customer...) preference.
 
hiiipower

hiiipower

281
93
@ShroomKing: Thanks so much for posting those links, that second one was a killer!!! Seriously great info, very lengthy but if any of you have 30mins to an hr to spare and are that interested in this subject it is well worth your time. For those that don't feel like reading it, it was a study done on conventially grown vs organically grown produce and its nutritional value. Extremely thorough, and that's an understatement. They went back and looked at all studys of this topic and found the most accurate ones based on a rigorous criteria(i.e soil quality, climate differences, fertilizer used from location to location). This study really helped clear up a lot of things for me about this topic. And certainly, I do reach the same conclusion that the researchers themselves reach:

"Yes, organic plant-based foods are, on
average, more nutritious in terms of their
nutrient density for compounds validated by
this study’s rigorous methodology."

"The average serving of organic plant-based
food contains about 25% more of the
nutrients encompassed in this study than a
comparable-sized serving of the same food
produced by conventional farming methods."

I read almost every single word in that study, and I gotta say if you don't reach this conclusion then your whacked out of your mind.

But now I'm gonna play devil's advocate. The key word is average. It does not ever state that it is impossible for synthetic nutrients to create what organics does, it just says that historically this has not been the case(not to be a dick, but no shit, w/ some conventional farmers to this day supplying their fields with extremely limited fertilizers. That doesn't come close at all to the potential of conventional farming). Furthermore, although they do prove extensively how accurate their research is, they do acknowledge that more research needs to be done to reach a final conclusion, and in no way was a final conclusion reached about the underlying scientific theory of how synthetic nutrients are made. The only reason I doubted you the first time around was because from my previous research this is still the limit as far as how good the studies get, i.e. more research needs to be done because there are obvious major discrepancies in the historical data. I would love to see a university undertake this project over a large acreage to see the current modern results. And again, no claim was made that the things that occur in the soil are physically impossible to recreate, I am still anxious for technological advances which surely will come(in both fields).

This is why I would very much like to hear the scientific side of this, from a chemistry standpoint.

@leadsled, you said that not all ions are created the same, tell me more if you can please and how it applies here. I think your right about the author of the article being a chemist, and I think chemists in general would have a inherent understanding of this topic due to their daily work. A concept that really intrigues me about chemisty is the enthalpy of formation(heat), that the universe has many reactions occurring and that when a new particle comes about, often times the same particle is made from via different pathways. However, the universe doesn't really care or know which precise pathway that particle took to get where it is today, it just reads it for what it's chemical structure is. I think this is partly why the author points out...
“1. The biological activity of a chemical is a function of its structure rather than its origin.

2. The biological properties, especially safety, of a chemical depend on its structure and the way in which the chemical is used (i.e. exposure).

I could be totally wrong and am really swimming in waters over my head with chemistry, just my first thoughts. If anyone could point me in the direction of some chemistry topics to research that applies to this I'd appreciate it.

@Sativied: "There I said it" hahaha that's funny.. That first article was really good, I think the author has a lot of knowledge about the things I'm questioning, definitely gonna look more into some of the ideas the article presented. I'm with ya on this one until further scientific evidence is presented. I think it's incredible to see that sometimes organics can lead to more pollution than synthetics, just goes to show you everything is a marketing campaign. And that project in the Sahara was insane! Wonder if they have followed through with the plans and are building it.

Very interesting stuff everyone thanks for bringing it to the table and speeding up the learning curve for me
 
Last edited:
SpitXFire

SpitXFire

470
143
Here is a comparison of blueberries.


Tons of synthetic fungicides pesticides.
Pesticides in conventional grown food carry over to humans.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/14/the-organic-effect_n_7244000.html
First link is bunk, biased and no links to the lab, the 2nd is an editorial style piece, but seems like it has solid links and good info, haven't perused through it fully nor the other links. Indeed the greatest concern and original move towards organics was due to pesticide, etc use.

I agree with @Sativied, comes down to personal choice in our application, we tend not to use hectares upon hectares eroding and degrading soil quality. Tons of organic methods(eg. Guano etc) are just as bad for the environment if not worse.

Just one thing for the organics team:I love you guys and your zeal/passion for growing, health, sustainability etc. But please please do not dismiss synthetic based nutrition regiments based on misinformation and circlejerking, worst of all, if you use science to back you, please don't cherry pick and invalidate facts that don't agree with you, as a burgeoning plant scientist, this Makes you look really really stupid with inconsistancies in logic(cognitive dissonance anyone?). I had to call a guy out this weekend on a different platform for some straight up stupid reasons. Among them - "processed with chemicals(surprise what isn't one)" "do your own research I provided you xzy (red herrings my favorite, they 'read it before in a study', but can't seem to provide links)" "sodium chloride/sulfuric acids are strictly man made", making derived sound like it's voodoo(-"mined but really derived") etc. Please if you're gonna down synthetic based/supplemented know what your arguing against... And if you're gonna provide links please make sure it us backed by a government agency, uni, and/or has its findings,data, methods posted, so we can scrutinize. And appeal to nature fallacies need not apply.
 
Last edited:
Bulldog11

Bulldog11

2,709
263
Synthetic nutrients produce fruits and vegetables that only contain 1/2 to 2/3rds the nutrients of an organicly grown fruit or vegetable.

That says alot.

Absolutely not true. It's all about proper nutrition, which can take place in organics or synthetics. If you don't believe me, take a brix meter to store bought veggies. I have done this hundreds of times, and it surprises me how often the organic fruits contain low levels of brix. It also surprises me how often synthetic fruits from Mexico can be high in brix. I am all organic, but to say you can't grow nutrient dense food with synthetics is 100% wrong, and easily provable.

@leadsled Thanks for dropping some knowledge. I love when somebody that actually knows what they are talking about comes into threads like this.
 
leadsled

leadsled

GrowRU
2,145
263
@leadsled first off I never said plants have guts, I think we all know that!! u need to read it again stoner!lol, second I question that study, it says they took berries from there production line that were most likely fresh! and then tested them against processed frozen berries!, sorry bud that is not a fair study, there just trying to make there product look better then it really is, All fruit and veggies lose nutrition after being processed and frozen, if there going to test them they all should be freshly picked and then tested to get a true comparison of both, like I said before it matters whats in the root zone AKA soil AKA dirt or rockwool or what ever u choose to grow in, third what I noticed and learned most about hydroponic growing is the lack of minerals the plants get, from the soil less medium we grow in to the RO water that has been stripped of most of everything it had, minerals are the second most important part to maintaining good health, But like said in my first post it dose not matter what you feed your plant if your soil/medium dose not contain the proper bacteria it will not be able to uptake what it needs PERIOD!![/QUOTE

Read again! I never quoted or tagged you.

I know you did not make the stomach comment.

Was general statement to try and help people get there head around the concept of the how the microbes process the nutrition and make it available to plants in aform they need and what they need.

Yes, The study is not scientific, but was not to just show more than conventional vs organic. More to it than that. Some fruit lose nutrition faster than others. A high brix crop will store longer without spoiling.

You got the part about the bacteria right. But it is more than bacteria that is needed.
 
Bulldog11

Bulldog11

2,709
263
One more thing @leadsled.....Was the guy in the video one of the farmers at the plant sap seminar we attended in Nov?
 
leadsled

leadsled

GrowRU
2,145
263
Interesting about plant energy being expended at a higher rate, effectively wasted, as the plant works harder to convert synthetic nutrients. Is that what you are saying Leadsled?

What style of growing have you settled on? Sounds like you put some serious thought into it.

Yes, That is what I am saying.
When a plant uptakes microbial metabolites, it can uptake complete chains of complex carbohydrates or proteins.
When the ions are not in a form that plants can completely utilize. They have to expend enegry to attempt to complete proteins and carbs.
But this never happens and the plant can never get above a base level of health.
This is because, When the metabolism is screwed than excesses form. That us what is the calling card for pests and diseases.

Pests are natures garbage colectors and diseases are the clean up crew.

ok back to long chain ions from microbial metabolites.

This allow plants to achieve higher levels of health and resist pest and diseases. They use the energy to form fats and secondary metabolites.
Most insects can not process aka digest complete proteins or complex carbohydrates.
So when they eat a plant that is above the base level of health and has complete long chain compounds. Like carbs and protein.
They get drunk and die.

There are forms of synthetic nutrients that are safe to the biology. There are forms of organic materials that can also be unsafe.

When I first started growing I did not care organic fanatics that did not provide references or reasons to the method and reasons why.

I listened to the myths about each method and found all you heard is not 100% correct. Organic does not yield. Synthetics is superior and cleaner. When you run a hydro store that that can hurt your sales. Best business model may be promote synthetics.

In Australia, farmers work together. They do what is best for there plants and what gives the best response. They do not waste there time bickering in a war against each other.

I wish more cannabis farmers would work together in that way.

Learn constructive critism and learn that it is not a war or fight over who is better.

I was told as a child, was that all ions are the same to plants. Has taken me almost 50 years to find the facts because so many sheeple are misinformed.

I did not make this up. I am not selling anything. Only sharing what I have learned so far.
I am always trying to learn.

A really excellent book that gets into what happens to plants metabolism. Healthy crops a new agricultural revolution by francis chaboussou

Gets into the reasons pest and dieases are such a huge problem. Resistance to pesticides. It is not resistance. It is damage on a celluar level that makes the plants weak and sick and prone to disease and pests.
 
leadsled

leadsled

GrowRU
2,145
263
I am unable to edit posts so when I make a typoo or error unable to fix. makes it hard to respond sometimes.

When a plant uptakes microbial metabolites, it can uptake complete chains of complex carbohydrates or proteins.
When the ions are not in a form that plants can completely utilize. They have to expend enegry to attempt to complete proteins and carbs.
Edit:
With synthetic ions
This never happens and the plant can never get above a base level of health.
This is because, When the metabolism is screwed than excesses form. That is the calling card for pests and diseases.
 
leadsled

leadsled

GrowRU
2,145
263
Absolutely not true. It's all about proper nutrition, which can take place in organics or synthetics. If you don't believe me, take a brix meter to store bought veggies. I have done this hundreds of times, and it surprises me how often the organic fruits contain low levels of brix. It also surprises me how often synthetic fruits from Mexico can be high in brix. I am all organic, but to say you can't grow nutrient dense food with synthetics is 100% wrong, and easily provable.

@leadsled Thanks for dropping some knowledge. I love when somebody that actually knows what they are talking about comes into threads like this.
Good point. Thanks for sharing.
Do not forget you need biology in both methods!


Thanks for the videos on this sight @leadsled, great info.
Welcome.

One more thing @leadsled.....Was the guy in the video one of the farmers at the plant sap seminar we attended in Nov?

Yes, that is correct. I highly recommend ordering some of the blueberries. Super delicious.
 
jumpincactus

jumpincactus

Premium Member
Supporter
11,609
438
@ Seamaiden: Great points! I'm with ya on the whole food diet instead of pills as a substitute. However, whether or not that whole food diet comes from organic as opposed to synthetic nutrients is important is what I would like to know. As my post immediately after the original stated, maybe plants don't care where their food came from, after all, fungi/bacteria are doing the same job as some scientist who breaks down different forms of nitrogen/chemical sources into a plant acceptable one. As the article points out(and I've read elsewhere) both ways supply equally healthy nutrition(assuming when grown correctly in the opposing systems). Maybe ask one of your RD friends about this specifically next time you see one, I'd be interested to hear their input.

Also I'm not sold on organic being soo much better for the environment than dwc. University study after study show that hydroponic(dwc) plants require significantly less food and water over the plants life, while producing many times the amount of yeild that comparable soil crops do. Furthermore hydroponics can be done anywhere in the world(practically), it is not always possible to grow the demanded amount of food outdoors in many geological areas due to many environmental reasons, leading to foreseeable shortages/price increases of food. If i'm not mistaken the Japanese are currently using hydroponics to their advantage for food crops, and plan to rely much more heavily on the technology in the future. Japan is just one example of a geographic disadvantage in obtaining food for a growing population. I love the idea of living sustainably through organic gardening, but I think @Mr. Belvedere said is right, that both ways are successful, and that is cool because I think there's a place for both, and that when done correctly in the end they both make one in the same product.

I'm absolutely with you that science will soon discover this very debate, and what it is that's so special about the soil web. Always good to have your input, thanks

I prefer living soil and organic nutes.
But as you stated I dont think the plant can discern or cares where the nutes are coming from, just that they are there and available and able to be taken up by the root system. With that said, the choice of chemical ferts or organics is a matter of personal choice. Find what gets you where you wanna be and go with it.

As our medicine gets more and more legal and accepted I believe we will see more and more research happening as the prohibition era wanes we may all be surprised at what is found to be truth or discovered. Until that time I will not use PGR's or chemical ferts as this is my personal preference.
 
DrFever

DrFever

470
93
Got to love threads like this haha , honestly its a no brainer Synthetic Destroys organic in every which way or form , one has to ask can a plant tell the difference better yer Can people tell the difference :)
Organics is like a religion people brain washed into believing its a fucking Gimic to make corporate companies even more richer

 
DrFever

DrFever

470
93
One should think that growing feminized seeds no matter how you grow it it not organic as chemicals were used to make fem seeds

What!? How can this be?

“I switched to only eating organic fruits and vegetables years ago and feel so much better doing so.”

How can it be harmful? Organically produced fruits and vegetables are grown in an environment absent of synthetic chemicals, pesticides, unnecessary machinery, chemical growth promoters, poisoned earth/dirt and the like. “Right?”

Well unfortunately, no, not exactly…

I usually get this frantic response when I start off a conversation like the title. Most usually go on this self-pat on the back mentality about how they’re in the know or understand eating organically is inherently more healthy than eating conventionally grown vegetables and fruits. Based on what they’re told, they’re 100 percent correct. You don’t need to be a rocket scientist (or a nutritionist for that matter) to know eating something that isn’t sprayed with chemicals—and is allowed to grow in a natural environment—is more healthy than eating a conventionally grown fruit or vegetable.

I know a heated conversation can be had on eating organically or eating conventionally grown food, but I’m not here to dispel organic over standard convention farming though, or the pros and cons of each. I’m in the “you are what you eat and I don’t want to eat a chemical shit storm of pesticides and growth promoters” boat, regardless of whether or not they’re deemed by the government as “safe.”

“Okay, so why are you talking trash about my beloved organic veggies? I just took down a full head of kale for lunch and I’m happy as a clam I did so.”
The idea of organically grown produce to me (and the majority of other people) is an easy one—what’s marketed to us is essentially that they’re seeds/plants grown without the use of chemicals, pesticides and growth promoters.

But what if I were to tell you the majority of “organically” grown produce is not absent of any of these very things that conventional farmers use? Organic farmers use pesticides and ‘growth promoters’ and are putting more emphasis on their bottom line than they’re telling you. The truth is there’s a ton of money in selling organic produce and the powers that be know this. You’d think in theory without all the additional chemicals and steps of conventional farming the price would be cheaper to grow a less processed produce, no? But the reality is in most cases all of the conventional farming techniques are used on organic produce.

Before we get into the specifics below, I definitely want to point out, this is in no way a smear piece about why you should stop eating organically grown produce.
Picture-742-294x300.png
These are a few words put together to hopefully push for some change in the direction organically grown produce is headed.

The idea of growing food in absence of man-made chemicals or any chemicals for that matter is essential for our public health, I do fully believe that. Although I feel Americans—or any person for that matter—want to do what’s right and will go above and beyond to do the right thing, we also can get pretty lazy and allow large corporations and government agencies to dictate and direct what we want to see.

You made the choice to eat only organic and that’s great, but you must go a few steps further to protect this decision.
So what about the chemicals? The reality is, the majority of organically grown produce—especially the stuff you see in most grocery store chains—is most likely grown with pesticides. The fact is, most state laws allow organic farmers to spray a whole gamut of chemical sprays, powders and pellets on their organic crops. That is, if they are “organic” or natural chemical sprays, powders and pellets (1, 2).

So what the hell does organic mean then these days? It means that organically produced fruits and vegetables are grown in an environment absent of synthetic chemicals, yes, but the notion that they’re grown without chemicals at all is false (1,2).

Pesticides can be used in the growing of “organic” vegetables and fruits, and often are. They just must be derived from natural sources, not synthetically manufactured. (1,3)

So my question to you is, in all the knowledge in your head, is this any better? It isn’t to me, and some major U.S. organizations would agree. Just because it’s a “natural” pesticide, that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s better or even good for you at all.

The EPA and USDA have conducted many studies over the last few decades showing synthetically used pesticides, or any chemical for that matter, are seriously carcinogenic—a little more than 50 percent of them. A carcinogen leads to a high susceptibility for cancer creation within the human body. So again, it seems it’s fairly logical to not use any of these chemicals (“natural” or not) anywhere near our foods. (4)

But what about these organic pesticides?
Not until very recently has anyone tested or cared to test these natural organic pesticides, mainly for the thought that they are “natural” so why test them, how harmful can they be? Guess what happened when they tested these natural pesticides—the very pesticides they’re using on our organic produce? About half of them are carcinogenic as well. Yikes. (4)

So I guess the question is, are natural pesticides less harmful and/or toxic than synthetically derived ones? That’s a super difficult question to answer considering not much testing has been done and for good reason. The organic market is a fairly new one and with everyone jumping on the wagon and bending the rules of the USDA, FDA and EPA, there are so many variables.

Here’s a very common practice in growing lettuce: In conventional farming, during the full growth cycle of this plant, a very small amount of a very well-tested pesticide (literally tested over 50 years) will be used once, maybe twice to assure a healthy crop. But for an organic farmer, they might use five to 10 times more of a natural pesticide like rotenone-pyrethrin or Spinosad. Tests done by the USDA have shown pesticides are 10 times more prevalent on organic lettuce than on conventionally grown produce in some cases. (5, 6, 7, 8)

There’s also the question of farming and our environment. We’ve seen the repercussions of our actions and decisions as humans the last few hundred years and we’ve really started to ask questions about what kind of impact our farming and the feeding of our species is doing to our world’s environment. You’d think less chemicals, natural or not, is better for the environment. But if these organic farmers are spraying considerably more of these natural chemicals than conventional farmers, is that really any better? That natural pesticide mentioned above, rotenone-pyrethrin, is extremely toxic to aquatic life and fish. So which is better? (9)

As I stated earlier, this isn’t a grouping of words to discourage you from continuing on your quest to a cleaner lifestyle by utilizing organically grown produce. It’s for the eye-opening reality of what’s currently happening and, in return, that you’ll be empowered to demand better.

I don’t blame the farmer, I don’t blame the associations that regulate organic foods and I certainly don’t blame our government.
The reality is we’re in a capitalist society—-in some ways it’s what makes this country so great—but it also comes with dire reactions if we don’t remain aware. Economics and money can sometimes pull the wool so quickly over our eyes, you’d think we were at a sheep farm. Although I’m not saying it’s right or wrong, it seems money and economics will always come first. I don’t doubt that if a farmer could make the same amount of money from an apple grown without anything in true organic style, they’d do so.

On the flip-side if they know they can use a certain natural chemical to assure a strong, non-pest effected crop, and still state that it’s “organically grown,” they’re going to continue doing that as well.
kale5-500x331.jpg


“Okay, that kale I just had for lunch doesn’t feel so good after all, so what do I do?”
The answer is a very easy one, it takes us opening our mouth and asking questions. We can ask our grocer about the organic produce we’re buying—who’s the grower and where did it come from? I can almost guarantee any organic produce item we buy that’s perfectly packaged in a plastic container or plastic bag is most likely from a huge producer, one that also produces conventionally grown produce (they’re all in on the fun, there’s money in those organic hills). Again, I’m not an economist or a horticulturalist, but I’d guess they’d be using organic pesticides, it just makes smart business sense.


Besides being that guy asking questions at our grocery store, an even better solution is buying local. The local farm stand and farmers’ market movement is huge these days. Besides keeping our hard earned money local and helping our fellow farmers, we’re also most likely greatly helping your health. We get to talk directly to the farmer and can ask them about what, if anything, they spray or add to their produce.

More times than most, the local organic farmers are organically farming the way you’d think organic farming should be, as in the absence of chemicals of any kind.
 
hiiipower

hiiipower

281
93
Good stuff people! @leadsled can you post some links about plants uptaking complex carbohydrates/proteins from microbial metabolites. From a quick google search I came up with some stuff...


"In a process called photosynthesis, green plants combine inorganic carbon dioxide with inorganic water to form sugar, an organic polymer with carbon-hydrogen linkages. All other organisms are
dependent upon green plants to form this carbon-hydrogen linkage from which other
organic compounds are made. Plants synthesize many of the other compounds they need to
complete their life cycle by combining the sugar manufactured during photosynthesis with
other elements absorbed from the soil."


"In order to uptake water and nutrients, the roots have a specialized group of cells in the cell wall called the Casparian Strip (think of the Casparian Strip as the bouncer at a trendy nightclub). The Casparian Strip, which is part of the endodermis, blocks the passive flow of materials from entering the stele, which is the central part of the root or stem. In selecting what gets into the plant and what does not, the Casparian Strip forces everything from water to carbohydrates to be actively selected or rejected by the endodermis. Based on current research, the Casparian Strip will only allow the simplest carbohydrates like glucose and fructose to pass into the cell, thereby making many complex sugar additives ineffectual as they can not be absorbed."

And when I googled "plants uptake carbohydrates" many links(some to some credible looking studies) appear which hint to sucrose being used by plants(the most simple carbohydrate, not complex) possibly but not many other carbs typically. Sounds to me like plants aren't uptaking the complex sugars you are talking about, rather they create their own sugars inside themselves out of nutrients(organic or inorganic, doesn't matter).

Also, from the first link...
"Organic fertilizers, whether natural or synthetic, have nutrient elements such as nitrogen,
phosphorus or potassium attached to carbon. Because of the covalent bonding that shares
electrons, the structures are quite stable. As the carbon structure is decomposed or
hydrolyzed over time, the nutrient elements are released as ions such as ammonium (NH4
+), which carry a positive or negative charge. It is in this form that nutrients are absorbed by
plants since plants have no mechanism to attract uncharged nutrient sources including
organic compounds.
The nutrient ions are also responsible for water flow across the root membrane in response
to a concentration gradient (osmosis). Plant roots expend energy to absorb the nutrient ions
and, under normal conditions, have a greater concentration of salts (lower osmotic
potential) than does the soil solution. Water flows across the membrane toward the side
with the highest concentration of salts (lowest osmotic potential). Should the concentration
of salts become greater in soil solution, water will flow outside the root cell. This is called
plant “burn”, which is a form of physiological drought. The tendency for fertilizers to
release the nutrient ions in water is called the salt index, and the more quickly the ions are
released, the higher the salt index. "

I'm becoming convinced there is nothing about the science of how a plant uptakes nutrients that cannot be mimicked by synthetics, it's the nature of how the world works, (not so) simple physics/chemistry
 
Seamaiden

Seamaiden

Living dead girl
23,596
638
@hiiipower -- I believe that plants also take up glucose. They perform sugar exchanges with microbes to a large degree, and to a large degree it is the soil microbes that are doing a lot of the 'work' for the plant. If you get the book Teaming With Nutrients it's outlined fairly well.

My number one thing with organic cultivation is this--the soil. We absolutely rely on healthy soils, and conventional agriculture absolutely destroys them while organic can do a good job of building them up. Organic can be done right and it can be done wrong, but the main focus I have to have in my own paperwork is soil building planning. Not pesticides.
 
gardnguyahoy

gardnguyahoy

3,360
263
This discussion is largely based on chemistry and biological life. I wonder if we could get @squiggly to bless us with some insight on the matter.
 
Sativied

Sativied

Ruler of the Whorled
Supporter
943
243
I agree with @Sativied, comes down to personal choice in our application, we tend not to use hectares upon hectares eroding and degrading soil quality.
I read something a while ago about 1% of electricity in the US being used for cannabis growing and while I think that's a good cause, all growers together do use an equivalent of many "hectares upon hectares". I still think it comes down to personal choice but environmental impact is often a big factor for choosing organic.

Tons of organic methods(eg. Guano etc) are just as bad for the environment if not worse.
Like peat.

"Large areas of organic wetland (peat) soils are currently drained for agriculture, forestry, and peat extraction. This process is taking place all over the world. This not only destroys the habitat of many species, but also heavily fuels climate change. As a result of peat drainage, the organic carbon—which was built up over thousands of years and is normally under water—is suddenly exposed to the air. It decomposes and turns into carbon dioxide (CO2), which is released into the atmosphere." -wikipedia

"At a global scale, CO2 emission from peatland drainage in Southeast Asia is contributing the equivalent of 1.3% to 3.1% of current global CO2 emissions from the combustion of fossil fuel." ( http://www.biogeosciences.net/7/1505/2010/bg-7-1505-2010.pdf

On the flip side, mining limestone and phosphate (for inorganic nutes) requires a lot of energy too...

Organic vs Synthetic is a skewed comparison by default though. It implies elements not from an organic source are always synthetic which is not the case. Or supposedly worse, contain "chemicals".. A plant is a chemical factory that creates something organic based on ions, which is its very role in the circle of life and what allows us animals to eat and breath on this planet. Without plants turning molecules, elements into organic material using the chemical process photosynthesis this planet would a lot more boring. No food for us and no sugar for microbes to leach from the roots they thereby extend. It's why I often told beginners who claim to "feed" their plants that plants don't eat, they create food based on basic elements. And elements is after all just short for "chemical elements" whether you provide them directly or indirectly using organic material.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom